Read First: Part 1

1.0 Introduction

Part 1 of this research showed that the Twin Cities (Metropolitan area) received approximately 24%-36% more funding in absolute terms than Metro Detroit, but, this disparity is unevenly distributed, with Detroit nonprofit arts and culture organizations of over $1M/year doing relatively well, and small nonprofits, individual artists, and other grassroots organizations doing significantly worse. In addition, the composition of the funding is noticeably different, with the Twin Cities having approximately 240% more discretionary funding than Metro Detroit.

In Part 2, we will compare the two art and culture ecosystems in terms of (i) the distribution of nonprofits by revenue size, (ii) the nature of support for creative individuals and community-based art and culture nonprofits, and (iii) the total combined nonprofit art and culture revenue.

1.0 Introduction

Comparisons of art and culture funding between similar geographical regions typically emphasize the relative magnitude of funding. In this report, we compare art and culture funding between Metro Detroit and the Metro Twin Cities, not just on the relative scale of funding but also on the nature of the funding streams. Encoded within the funding streams are structural factors such as how flexible the funding is, what types of people are involved in allocating the funding, and how transparent the process is. Collectively, these factors significantly impact the investment strategy and, ultimately, the funding effectiveness.

Read first:

The Detroit Art Ecosystem Part I
The Detroit Art Ecosystem Part II: Funders, institutions, and decision makers

In Part II of this report, we used network analysis techniques to identify the individuals, families, and organizations that collectively determine how art and culture resources are allocated within the Detroit art ecosystem. We then identified systematic forms of network bias and used these to determine opportunities for increasing the impact of art and culture funding.

See also The Detroit Art Ecosystem Part I

Introduction

Previous research has shown that the 15 largest cultural institutions in Metropolitan Detroit (by annual revenue) make up over 80% of the art and culture not-for-profit economy, whereas only 2% of funding goes to grassroots organizations and individual cultural producers, a situation that is neither equitable nor likely to lead to a healthy art and culture ecosystem. In addition, previous research has shown spatial disparities in funding, with over half of art and culture funding in Metropolitan Detroit going to Detroit’s downtown (“Woodward Corridor”), as opposed to less than 3% going to Detroit’s neighborhoods and only 0.5% going to the entire Macomb County.

As was noted in Part I of this study, the network of funders and decision-makers who distribute art and culture resources is densely linked to large cultural organizations and the development and placemaking ecosystem but has minimal connection to the grassroots “creative network.” This observation of potential “network bias” is consistent with the abovementioned concerns about the inequitable economic and spatial distribution of resources.

How to allocate resources to the Detroit Art Ecosystem in a way that is equitable and produces the most social value should be a central question for anyone tasked with managing their distribution. However, despite its importance, the topic has received little research attention, and consequently, art and culture funding in Detroit has been distributed with little objective basis.

This report analyzes how economic and cultural capital circulates in the Metro Detroit not-for-profit arts and culture ecosystem by analyzing the tax returns of the 50 biggest art and culture nonprofit organizations. It asks questions such as how big is the sector? What % of it comes from philanthropic sources? What does this fund? What are the prevailing investment strategies?

This report provides a RYG scorecard for the first ten years of the DIA Millage (2013-2022). It addresses the impact of the millage on the DIA’s Finances (which we rated GREEN), the DIA’s Performance in converting resources into services and programming (which we rated RED/YELLOW), how effectively the Governance process (through the Art Institute Authorities) has operated (which we rated RED), and how effectively the Service Contract(s) have represented the interests of the residents of the Tri-County region (which we rated RED). Based on this analysis we present seven recommendations for the new Service Contract.