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.
This article uses network analysis techniques to identify the individuals, families, and corporate entities connecting funding sources to large arts and culture organizations and the development and placemaking ecosystem. These individuals, families, and corporate entities are in a uniquely powerful position to direct art and culture resources in the city, both relative to other funding imperatives (e.g., health, education, etc.) and within the art and culture ecosystem (e.g., between different types of arts organizations, and individuals).
The analysis then looks at what types of people make up this network, who the most important individuals are, and what institutions are most connected. Additionally, it shows case studies of networks of influence centered around the Davidson family, Rock Ventures, Michigan Central, and the Detroit Institute of Arts.
Overall, the analysis aims to identify ways in which “network bias” contributes to inequitable and unproductive distribution of resources and use this research to drive more impactful strategies for arts and culture funding.
Methodology
The overall methodology is to identify social relationships that impact arts and culture funding by using I990 tax returns and institutional websites and then use Gephi, a network analysis software, to map them.
A “weighted degree centrality” metric is then used to determine the most influential nodes in the network. The intention is not to create a snapshot of the network at a single moment (which is practically impossible and also assumes that a board member’s influence drops to zero as soon as they relinquish their position) but rather to create an exponentially weighted moving average of the network’s properties over a period of time.
The following points should be noted on the model:
- The network was first created in December 2023 and updated in December 2024.
- To determine current board members and executives for an institution, we first look at the information on the institution’s website; where this information does not exist, we look at the information on the latest I990 published on ProPublica Non-Profit Explorer. Priority is first given to data from the institution’s website because we recognize that tax return information is inherently outdated.
- To determine former board members for an institution and the relationships between board members and other institutions, we use ProPublica Non-Profit Explorer’s search functionality.
- When determining weighted degree centrality, we use the following weighting factors for relationships in the network: For current board members, a weighting factor of 1 is used; when a board member leaves, this factor is dropped to 0.5, after 3 years, the weighting factor drops to 0.25, and after six years it drops to zero.
- For this analysis, couples are combined into a single node rather than being modeled as two individuals separated by a degree of freedom. This is considered to reflect patterns of influence in the network better, but we recognize that this introduces a systematic bias towards couples over individuals.
- Detroit Public Theatre is included in the analysis for comparative purposes because of its rapid revenue growth and connection to many influential individuals in the city’s political economy.
Results were obtained for two different scenarios: with and without the development and placemaking ecosystem. This allows the relationship between art and culture funding and broader development and placemaking imperatives in the city to be investigated.
Prominent commercial galleries are included in the model, where they are connected to the broader network.
Analysis Scenario I
What Does the Overall Network Look Like?
The overall network (including arts and cultural institutions; foundations (and related executives); city, county, state, and federal arts funding; commercial galleries; and the development and placemaking ecosystem) is shown above. The dense interrelationship of board members between the city’s large cultural institutions and the city’s development and placemaking ecosystem is apparent.
What type of person belongs to the network?
Overall, the network is dominated by inherited wealth, property development & placemaking, corporate executives, and lawyers – who comprise 2/3rds of network members. Government officials and foundation staff (often also related to development) comprise ~20% of network members. Despite the significant influence that the network has over arts and culture funding in Metropolitan Detroit, cultural producers make up only 4% of decision-makers. This raises questions about whether more art and culture domain knowledge would result in more effective funding strategies. The most glaring feature of the network is that it is almost entirely composed of the city’s political and economic elite rather than being representative of the general population that art and culture might ideally serve. Again, this raises questions about whether art and culture funding strategies would be more effective if there was a process for capturing the voice of the community.
Who are the most connected members of the network?
Many of the most connected members of the network are prominent members of the city’s political and economic elite, for example:
- Mary Culler and Matthew Cullen (#1 and #2 on the list) are both leaders of corporate placemaking and development in the city. Cullen is the former chief executive officer of Bedrock Detroit and “led the company’s efforts to spark development and revitalization in the city.” Culler is President of Ford Philanthropy and the Chair for Ford’s Michigan Central Station project, “overseeing the strategic direction of the historic train station redevelopment and other Ford properties in Corktown.”
- Culler is the former Chief of Staff for William Clay Ford Jr. (#10). Nate Wallace (#12) is the head of Civic Partnerships at Michigan Central. The collective network of Culler, Clay Ford Jr, and Wallace is shown below. It illustrates how Ford / Michigan Central’s placemaking initiative in Corktown is connected to broader placemaking and cultural initiatives in Downtown Detroit.
3.Ethan Davidson (#3) and Ralph Gerson (#5) are respectively the son and nephew of the late Bill Davidson. Both are Directors of the $1.1B William Davidson Foundation. Together with their spouses (Erica Ward and Gretchen Gonzales), they hold leadership positions in the DIA, the DSO, the Detroit Opera, the Motown Museum, the Henry Ford Museum, the Cranbrook Art Museum, the National Council on the Arts, the Michigan Arts and Culture Council, and the Detroit Land Bank Authority. Since the extended Davidson family is especially prominent in the large cultural institutions in the city, their network is illustrated in Case 2 of the analysis.
4. Jennifer and Dan Gilbert (#3), Nancy Tellem (#5), Suzanne Shank (#11), and Bill Emerson (#14) are board members of Rock Ventures. Laura Grannemann (#15) is the Executive Director of the Rocket Community Fund and the Gilbert Family Foundation. Collectively, the current and recent board members and employees of Rock Ventures have an extensive network covering most of the significant development and placemaking organizations as well as significant cultural institutions and foundations.
5. The most connected cultural producers are Aaron and Ava Dworkin (#25), who are the founders of the Sphinx Organization and on the boards of Detroit Public Theatre, the Detroit Symphony Orchestra, the Motown Museum, and the National Council on the Arts. Other cultural producers in the network are Ismael Ahmed (the founder of the Concert of Colors), Stephen Henderson (broadcaster and writer), Cezanne Charles (artist and art administrator), and Hubert Massey (muralist and painter).
Which Institutions are most connected?
The three most connected cultural organizations in the network are the Detroit Institute of Arts, the Detroit Symphony Orchestra, and the Cranbrook Educational Community. (The Cranbrook Educational Community is included in this analysis because it shares board members with the Cranbrook Academy of Art and Art Museum.)
Membership of the boards of prominent cultural institutions provides opportunities for individuals to enhance their social status, network with members of the city’s elite, and, to some extent, shape the city, and its narrative. In return, the institution gets access to power and resources. The whole process is mediated by the institution’s development staff. Since the individuals in the network represent the city’s political and economic elite, it may be surmised that the DIA, the DSO, and Cranbrook are the three cultural institutions they most value connection to and/or influence over.
To understand the significance of degree centrality as it relates to access to funding sources, consider the following image, which shows current and recent DIA board/committee members connected to a staggering network of other organizations. Clearly, these relationships provide the DIA with significant access to potential funding.
Analysis Scenario II
What does the art and culture not for profit network look like in isolation?
The art and culture non-profit network, including large arts and cultural institutions, funders (foundations (and key executives), city, county, state, and federal arts funding), and key decision-makers, is shown below. It is a subset of the network analyzed in Scenario I that particularly focuses on the individuals, families, and corporations that directly link large cultural institutions to funding sources, as shown below.
What type of person belongs to this network?
Although the numbers change slightly, the same general conclusions can be drawn for the art and culture non-profit ecosystem in isolation as for the larger network.
(i) Overall, the network is dominated by inherited wealth, property development & placemaking, corporate executives, and lawyers – who comprise 2/3rds of network members. Government officials and foundation staff (often related to development) comprise 15% of network members. (ii) Despite the significant influence that the network has over arts and culture funding in Metropolitan Detroit, cultural producers make up only 6% of decision-makers, again raising questions about whether more art and culture domain knowledge would result in more effective funding strategies. (iii) The network is composed mainly of the city’s political and economic elite rather than being representative of the general population that art and culture might ideally serve.
Who are the most connected members of the network ?
Within the non-profit art and culture system, the extended Davidson/Gerson family is the most connected group, as shown above and detailed below. It is also noticeable that the Davidson/Gerson family members frequently take leadership positions in the organizations they are associated with. For example, Ethan Davidson is the Chair of the Detroit Opera, Gretchen Gonzales is the Chair of the Michigan Art and Culture Council, Ralph Gerson is the Vice Chair of the DIA, and Erica Ward Gerson is the Chair of the Detroit Land Bank Authority. (Note that for reference, the Davidson family’s relationship to development and placemaking is shown in this network but does not impact the weighted degree centrality analysis shown earlier in this section).
Which Institutions are most connected?
As in Scenario 1 of the analysis, the most well-connected arts and culture organizations are the DIA, the DSO, and the Cranbrook Educational Community.
Concluding Remarks and Opportunities
The analysis in this report indicates fundamental issues with the network of funders and decision-makers who collectively distribute art and culture resources. Consequently, it points to corresponding opportunities for increasing the impact of future art and culture funding, as described below:
Issue #1. The network of funders and decision-makers that distributes art and culture resources is densely linked to large cultural organizations but has minimal connection to the grassroots creative network that makes up most of the Detroit art ecosystem. This “network bias” leads to large institutions becoming perceived as the only providers of arts and culture services to the community. This, in turn, leads to a plethora of issues; it reduces the horizon of what is possible with art and culture funding, and it leads to large institutions attempting to recreate services already being well delivered by the grassroots creative network (for example, the DIA’s underwhelming attempts to run a public art program rather than use the existing highly developed mural painting ecosystem.) The corresponding opportunity is to use this research as a platform for education, collaboration, analysis, and ultimately determining solutions at the ecosystem level rather than at the organizational level. Almost all of the numbered points in the following slide apply here:
Issue #2. The network of funders and decision makers is overwhelmingly composed of the city’s political and economic elite rather than the general population that art and culture in Detroit might ideally serve. The corresponding opportunity is to create a repeatable and reliable process for capturing the community’s voice during the requirements gathering and solution development stages. The numbered points relating to education and collaboration in the above slide, are especially relevant here.
Issue #3. The network of funders and decision-makers contains minimal representation from cultural producers. This raises concern over whether there is sufficient domain knowledge being applied when funding decisions are being made. The corresponding opportunity is to create a repeatable and reliable process for incorporating appropriate domain knowledge from the collective wisdom of the Detroit art ecosystem in the decision-making process. Again, the numbered points relating to education and collaboration in the above slide, are especially relevant here.
Issue #4. The network of funders and decision-makers that distributes art and culture resources is more closely aligned to development and placemaking initiatives that it is to the grassroots creative network that makes up most of the Detroit art ecosystem. This raises concern of whether art and culture funding is being instrumentalized to support development capital rather than providing services to the city’s general population. The concentration of art and culture funding in the Woodward Corridor, and the prioritization of infrastructure over cultural production would be consistent with this concern. The corresponding opportunity is to create an aligned cultural and placemaking strategy. This would involve the numbered points related to education and collaboration, as well as the development of targeted metrics that assess how aligned the cultural and placemaking strategies are aligned over the ecosystem.
Copyright Essay’d 2025