1. CPAA evaluation: Interim findings
Mark Stern and Susan Seifert
Social Impact of the Arts Project
University of Pennsylvania
July 2006

2. Elements of the assessment
Small-area analysis of grantees’ participation data
Key informant interviews with those involved in CPAA
Survey of artists working or living in North Philadelphia and Camden
Survey of non-arts organizations in North Philadelphia and Camden
Monitoring partnerships

3. Interim report Do high crime rates suppress cultural participation?
Did cultural participation change between 2004 and 2005?
How do grantees assess CPAA at its midpoint?

4. Serious crime in North Philadelphia, 1999-2004

5. Cultural participation did not suffer because of crime
Cultural participation did not suffer because of crime. In fact those sections of the city with the highest cultural participation usually had higher than average crime rates.

6. ORGNAME
Av serious crime percapita
Neighborhood
Philadelphia Young Playwrights
Center City West
The Clay Studio
Center City East
New Freedom Theatre
Poplar/Ludlow/
Yorktowne
Musicopia
Philadelphia Mural Arts Program (MAP)
Fairmount/Spring Garden
Village of Arts and Humanities
Hartranft
Taller Puertorriqueno
Fairhill
Associacion de Musicos Latino Americanos (AMLA)
90.397
InterAct Theatre Company
90.030
Spiral Q Puppet Theater
77.730
Belmont/Mantua/
East Park
Scribe Video Center
76.429
University City/Spruce Hill
Art Sanctuary
76.412
North Central
Point Breeze Performing Arts Center
48.358
Point Breeze
ArtReach, Inc.
36.754
East Falls
These data only tell us about the relationship between individuals’ cultural participation and the crime rate in their neighborhoods.
They don’t tell us whether the perception of crime in North Philadelphia and Camden discourages people from attending events in these neighborhoods.
Ironically, it is the Center City groups—not those in North Philadelphia—that are located in the higher crime neighborhoods

7. Did cultural participation rates change between 2004 and 2005?
Our central measure of cultural participation is based on data that grantees provided. For this analysis, we restricted ourselves to participation for which we had equivalent data in both 2004 and 2005.
Overall, we estimate that cultural participation in CPAA grantee programs increased by 22 percent between 2004 and 2005
Individual participation
Location
2004
2005
% change
Cluster areas-total
9.9
12.2
22.5
North Phila--Central
20.4
25.6
25.2
North Phila-East
11.7
13.8
18.0
North Phila-West
8.7
8.9
3.1
North Camden
3.2
5.2
60.4
South Camden
3.9
6.7
70.8

8. Caveat emptor (buyer beware)
These data must be seen as a ‘first-cut’ on participation. With successive data waves (Spring 2007 and 2008), we will have a more reliable picture of patterns of participation.
Help!
CPAA core goal is to increase cultural participation in North Philadelphia and Camden. Our ability to document CPAA’s success (or failure) is linked to grantees’ ability and willingness to collect accurate evidence on participation in their programs.

9. How do grantees assess CPAA at its midpoint?
We found a sharp split in grantees’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the initiative.
Organizations that were INSTITUTIONALLY-ORIENTED were more likely to see themselves as well-integrated in CPAA
Organization that are COMMUNITY-ORIENTED were more likely to see themselves as less well-integrated into the initiative.

10. Grantees’ orientation
Community-oriented
Generally located in North Philadelphia or Camden
Usually located in African American or Latin American neighborhoods
Work directly with members of community
Institutionally-oriented
Generally, not based in North Philadelphia or Camden
Usually located in predominantly white or diverse neighborhoods
Work with schools, public housing authorities, and other nonprofit institutions

11. What’s working
One universal message to emerge from the interviews was an appreciation of the Foundation’s long-term funding commitment
Community-oriented grantees see CPAAs primary contribution as the opportunity to stabilize programs or expand upon their long-term strategies
Institutionally-oriented grantees see CPAAs greatest contribution as providing opportunities to expand institutional partnerships, especially with schools.
A variety of grantees expressed enthusiasm about community outreach strategies, using artists, humanities scholars, and “ambassadors” to engage community residents directly.

12. Some challenges:
Residents have come to see cultural programs as “free” and resist paying even nominal fees for them
Partnerships between large bureaucratic organizations and smaller cultural groups are often asymmetrical. Institutional rigidity, for example, has been a major barrier in the formation of a citywide Latin jazz ensemble.
Community-oriented grantees were more skeptical about the utility of partnering:
“The partnering is fine if it makes sense,” noted one grantee. “On the other hand, if you already have the resources, there is little point in getting someone involved just to get them involved.”

13. Different views of partnerships and communities
Institutionally oriented grantees see partnerships as their primary means of reaching communities. They believe that the institutionally-based programs will have a spill-over effect on communities
“The students’ enhanced self-knowledge through the creation of art and their sharing of that art within their families, schools, and neighborhoods will form the basis of a stronger, healthier, and more culturally enriched community.”
Community-oriented grantees see partnerships as only one means of achieving their ends. Classes, public events, and festivals are equally important. Several said they felt pressure to accommodate institutionally-oriented grantees even though this carried real costs. .

14. Perception of TCC’s role
During planning phase, TCC was an active advocate of strategies based on building organizational capacity and institutional partnerships
During implementation, TCC has a more circumscribed role: providing a limited amount of individual coaching and facilitating peer exchange through workshops
Several grantees have interpreted this shift as a change in strategy: from a ‘hands on’ to a ‘hands off’ approach.
“I applaud Knight for doing something that’s so iffy. Take this money and do something with it “

15. For discussion
A considerable amount of effort and expertise has been devoted to institutional partnership-building
Relatively little attention has been devoted to strategies that use artists and ‘ambassadors’ to provide direct outreach to members of the community
Would it make sense to provide more technical support to those grantees’ using these direct outreach strategies? If so, how should it be organized?