IMPACT PLANNING EVALUATION AUDIENCE RESEARCH · RK&A, Inc. │ │May 2017 IMPACT PLANNING...

RK&A, Inc. │www.rka-learnwithus.com │May 2017

IMPACT PLANNING EVALUATION AUDIENCE RESEARCH

INSIDE|OUT MULTISITE EVALUATION

PHASE 1: DISCOVERY

Prepared for The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation

2 │ RK&A

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION .......................................................................... 4

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 4

DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................................... 5

CONCLUSION AND CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................................... 12

STUDY BACKGROUND ................................................................................... 13

METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................... 14

ANALYSIS AND REPORTING ............................................................................................................. 14

CASE STUDY: AKRON..................................................................................... 15

SITE BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 16

PERCEIVED GOALS OF INSIDE|OUT ............................................................................................... 16

INTERNAL PROGRAM STRUCTURE ............................................................................................... 18

SITE SELECTION/COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS ......................................................................... 19

SITE DEMOGRAPHICS .......................................................................................................................... 20

ARTWORKS AND INSTALLATION ................................................................................................. 21

PROGRAMMING ..................................................................................................................................... 23

OTHER INSIGHTS .................................................................................................................................. 24

CASE STUDY: CHARLOTTE........................................................................... 25

SITE BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 26






PROGRAMMING ..................................................................................................................................... 32

OTHER INSIGHTS .................................................................................................................................. 34

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3 │ RK&A

CASE STUDY: MIAMI ....................................................................................... 36

SITE BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 37






PROGRAMMING ..................................................................................................................................... 43

OTHER INSIGHTS .................................................................................................................................. 43

CASE STUDY: PHILADELPHIA ....................................................................... 45

SITE BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 46






PROGRAMMING ..................................................................................................................................... 53

OTHER INSIGHTS .................................................................................................................................. 53

APPENDIX .......................................................................................................... 55

HOST COMMUNITY DEMOGRAPHICS BY CITY ........................................................................ 55

4 │ RK&A

INTRODUCTION

Funded by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the Inside|Out program brings high-quality reproductions of artworks from museums’ collections to outdoor community venues near the museums. Knight Foundation began funding for Inside|Out at the Detroit Institute of Arts nine years ago, and expanded it to four additional cities—Akron, Charlotte, Miami, and Philadelphia—with support from five partner museums—Akron Art Museum, Bechtler Museum of Modern Art, Harvey B. Gantt Center for African-American Arts + Culture, and Pérez Art Museum Miami, and Philadelphia Museum of Art.1 This summary and discussion presents findings from the discovery phase of a multi-site, multi-phase evaluation conducted by RK&A for Knight Foundation. During the discovery phase, RK&A visited partnering museums in Akron, Charlotte, Miami, and Philadelphia, viewed their collections, interviewed key staff involved in Inside|Out, and reviewed documents related to the program. The purpose of the discovery phase is threefold:

1) To provide foundational knowledge for how Inside|Out operates at each museum in the four cities;

2) To inform the development of data collection tools for Phase 2 (May to July 2018); and 3) To contextualize the results from Phase 2, which will explore the impact of Inside|Out

on communities served.

Please read the body of the report for details and in-depth descriptions of Inside|Out in each of the cities, presented in the form of four case studies.

1 RK&A evaluated Inside|Out for the DIA in 2017. Results are referenced but not detailed in this report.

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

5 │ RK&A

DISCUSSION

Inside|Out in its current form in Akron, Charlotte, Miami, and Philadelphia is in its infancy, and social change, like that desired by Inside|Out, is slow-growing and requires patience, discipline, and fortitude. As such, we view this evaluation as a great opportunity for Knight, the museums, and us to learn from this important program and think carefully about what Knight and the museums hope to achieve with Inside|Out, or another similar community-outreach initiative, so all can plan and align actions in ways that bring these goals closer to a reality. This project seems especially important at this time, when so many museums are asking themselves how they can be relevant for their increasingly diverse communities. Let’s begin by looking at the origin of Inside|Out in the four cities that are the focus of this study because it has implications for all other aspects of the program in these cities. Inside|Out was conceived of and began at the Detroit Institute of the Arts (DIA) in 2009, with funding from Knight Foundation, for purposes unique to the city of Detroit and the museum’s relationship to that city (RK&A, 2017). Due to the popularity and success of the program, in the last three years, Knight Foundation offered to fund the program in four other cities it serves—Akron, Charlotte, Miami, and Philadelphia—thereby creating a different circumstance for Inside|Out. Despite the fact that the program did not originate in these four cities, museums excitedly and gratefully welcomed the funding for the program. All four sites saw value in Inside|Out as a unique way for their institutions to live their missions and engage with their communities outside the walls of the museum. And three years later, despite changes that have occurred and the fact that the program has ended in Akron and Philadelphia, the museums continue to appreciate the program, and in particular feel passionate about its underlying intentions and aspirations. As we will demonstrate in the following pages, the fact that Inside|Out did not grow from within the heart of each city or museum, but rather was a fully formulated program that each museum acquired, led to unforeseen challenges. Museum staff admitted that while they were excited by Inside|Out, they did not have a great deal of time to think through what the program would entail, how it fit within their institution, what goals they should set for the program, or what they needed to do to successfully implement the program. As a result, a number of problems have emerged and will be explored on the following pages. In particular, we will discuss issues associated with the lack of clarity around the program goals, and consequently the lack of alignment between those goals and the program structure, artwork selection, site selection, and programming.

6 │ RK&A

ALIGNMENT OF GOALS AMONG MUSEUMS

During site visits, staff in each location discussed what they perceive as the goals of Inside|Out for their museum and the communities they serve. Goals were remarkably similar across sites, with only a few differences. While these were not the only goals and each institution prioritized these goals differently, these four were the most common (and are also similar to the goals articulated by the DIA):

(1) Increase awareness of the museum and its collections among communities served;

(2) Build relationships with communities served;

(3) Democratize art (in other words, equalize opportunities for seeing art among surrounding communities, particularly those with little to no prior relationship with the museum); and

(4) Increase pride among the communities served.

While the goals are admirable and staff’s passions for achieving those goals were clear, they are broad, which made it difficult for the museums to strategically execute the program. Many staff mentioned the vague relationship between Inside|Out’s goals and their museum’s mission (the program and the museum both want to serve “all”)—a result that also emerged in the evaluation of Inside |Out at the DIA, where staff overwhelmingly noted that they need more clearly articulated goals for the program. In a reflection workshop where we collaboratively discussed the results of the evaluation, DIA staff repeatedly found themselves asking the question, “what is it that we are trying to achieve exactly?” For instance, what is meant by “awareness” of the museum, what is the desired nature of a relationship between the museum and the community, and what is community pride? These questions are similar to the ones some staff in Akron, Charlotte, Miami, and Philadelphia asked. At this stage it is valuable to look critically at the various components of Inside|Out in relationship to the articulated goals so we can consider how well the program components align with the goals.

Democratizing Art “Each of these pieces should be a way for self-discovery, whether you are sitting on a park bench or forced to sleep on a park bench, you [should] have the same opportunity to have ownership of the art work.”

7 │ RK&A

ALIGNING GOALS WITH PROGRAM STRUCTURE

In this section, we discuss the way Inside|Out is structured in the four cities and how well that that structure aligns with the goals museums have articulated for themselves. By structure we mean, for example, where the program is situated within the institution, how the program is staffed and managed, and how dollars are allocated. How the museums managed Inside|Out varied across the four cities, though not widely, and in most cases, management and implementation was similar to how the DIA managed and implemented Inside|Out. In each city, the structure was somewhat of a work in progress, as museums changed their approach based on what worked and what did not work. For the most part, Inside|Out was/is located in the department of education, exhibitions, public programs, and/or community outreach or some combination of these. In many ways, any one of these departments is well suited to manage and implement a community-focused program. However, we found that oftentimes, these departments lacked the resources and support to fulfil the program goals (increase awareness of the museums, build relationships with communities, and democratize art), which are more expansive and ambitious than seems possible for one department to accomplish. While there was some degree of cross-departmental collaboration in each museum, the home department became an important indicator of the overall program goals and direction. Staffing is another structural issue that effects Inside|Out’s ability to achieve its goals. Typically, Inside|Out staff include one staff person responsible for managing the program (along with their other daily responsibilities), and a contracted, part-time coordinator responsible for the day-to-day planning and implementation of Inside|Out. As noted above, all Inside|Out staff across the museums have other obligations that compete for their time, although the amount of competing responsibilities varies across sites. Even though Inside|Out project managers have help from part-time contractors and their museum colleagues in other departments, Inside|Out is a significant undertaking. During our interviews with staff at each site, the primary Inside|Out project staff were universally praised by those in other supporting departments for their efforts managing such an ambitious program. However, the way that Inside|Out is currently staffed limits how many communities the museums can partner with and the quality of support they can provide, including relationship building.

Staff capacity “Inside|Out really is continuous work. I thought we would have a 6- to 8-week break but getting the artists’ rights, deciding on the art works, it really is year-round. *I’m already familiar with this advance concept of working with exhibitions and programs but if you don’t know that, this is going to be a big-time commitment.2 You have to be good at multi-tasking, organized, and able to think ahead.”

2 Within quotations, an asterisk (*) signifies the start of a different speaker’s comments.

8 │ RK&A

Tangentially related to staffing is the uncertainty about continued funding for Inside|Out. Most sites reported receiving short notice about renewed funding, which led to planning challenges and staff turnover. At some sites, staff turnover was significant because the museums could not commit to personnel without the assurance of funding from Knight Foundation. As a result, project knowledge and community relationships were lost and planning for the next season was delayed because newly-hired coordinators required training. Given already-overburdened staff, adjusting the timeline for award notification could improve Inside|Out planning overall and, in particular, staff consistency from year to year.

ALIGNING GOALS WITH SITE SELECTION

Selecting communities in which to install Inside|Out also has been a work-in-progress for all the museums. Staff in each museum immediately had communities in mind based on their relationships in the city and knowledge of the city’s needs. Yes, there is some tension among the goals articulated by museums that make site selection more of an art than a science. For instance, Inside|Out aims to develop relationships between museums and the communities they serve while also democratizing art (making sure those who might not normally have access to the museum’s collections do). These two goals do not always align when selecting communities. For instance, staff at all four sites spoke of wanting to serve communities equitably, loosely defined as reaching communities that are reflective of the cities’ demographics and underserved by the museum. At the same time, in order to foster a healthy and successful museum-community partnership, staff explained there are two necessary criteria: (1) motivation in the community to host Inside|Out and (2) existing infrastructure for community events and programming. Interview findings suggest that these criteria are necessary, in part, because of the limited staff capacity to coordinate Inside|Out, as discussed previously; thus, staff viewed self-motivated communities, especially as it relates to developing Inside|Out programming, as most likely to be successful. Interviews with staff indicate the way that most museums have managed this tension between building relationships and democratizing art is to choose some communities through a selective application process, while at the same time inviting underserved and under-resourced communities to participate. Notably, a review of the demographics from Inside|Out communities (see pages 20, 30, 41, and 50) shows that, overall, all four cities serve diverse communities that reflect the demographics of the city overall, with a just a couple minor differences. For example, compared to the general population in Miami-Dade County, PAMM served communities with a lower representation of Hispanic residents (mean=51 percent versus 65 percent), and if you compare the general population of the city of Philadelphia to the communities that hosted Inside|Out, programs tended to serve a larger white population than is representative of the city’s white population. However, for the reasons mentioned earlier the museums had to balance several goals and could not always strive to be completely equitable. Inside|Out coordinators who worked directly with the host communities generally found the work very rewarding and described fruitful relationships with many host communities during their installation seasons. Whether or not Inside|Out has led to sustained community

9 │ RK&A

relationships beyond a host community’s the installation season remains unclear. We can explore relationships between communities and museums in more depth in Phase 2 of the evaluation, but results of Phase 1 suggest that the program does not necessarily lead to lasting partnerships (except perhaps in cases where the program is repeated at a site or has an extended installation season). Several staff lamented that installations are too short in duration, quickly moving on to new community partners, thereby hindering long-term relationships. If one goal is to develop lasting community partnerships, museums will need to consider this question: should we prioritize growing the breadth of Inside|Out (adding more communities) or prioritize the depth of the relationships with existing community partners (and work on nurturing those over time)? While it is tempting to do both simultaneously, it is our experience that one must take precedence.

ALIGNING GOALS WITH ARTWORK SELECTION AND PRODUCTION

The works of art that are reproduced and installed in communities are the centerpiece of Inside|Out, and museum staff expressed a great deal of pride in the reproductions. Choosing the works of art for reproduction is a critical step in the process, and all four cities had similar criteria for the museum to consider: (1) two-dimensional works; (2) works that are easily reproduced (i.e., not too large or small); (3) notable or iconic works; (4) works by local artists and/or those that have a local connection or theme; and (5) works for which rights/permissions are easy to obtain (though this did not necessarily preclude artworks from being selected). Nevertheless, selecting and installing artworks proved to be more complicated than one might have expected. Most of the challenges associated with artwork selection were outside of the museums’ control but are worth noting for two reasons—budgeting funds and time. For instance, securing permissions for artworks can be expensive and take time depending on the artwork. Because artwork selection happens early in the Inside|Out planning process, delays in securing permissions create a domino effect that delays everything else. Producing reproductions was challenging for some of the sites, but through trial and error museums learned what to anticipate. The sites with the fewest challenges were those that worked with a single company to complete all aspects of production (printing, fabrication, and installation). The single-company approach created consistency in the process and product and limited damage to the reproductions. However, finding one company that could provide all those services is challenging. Securing city permits was a necessary procedure that frequently caused delays that should be considered when selecting sites and planning the overall timeline. And, finally, findings suggest that outdoor conditions in each city are also are important considerations when budgeting for and selecting installation materials (e.g., frames) since some are more susceptible to weather than others. One site suggested that all sites create and share a list of materials that have proven to withstand typical weather occurrences.

10 │ RK&A

INSIDE|OUT ARTWORKS

Daniel Gardner, Tanis (Philadelphia)

Zun Lee, Bedtime Shenanigans with Carlos Richardson and daughter Sela (Charlotte)

Dwight W. Tryon, The New Moon (Akron)

Consuelo Castañeda, Untitled (Hands Diptych) (Miami)

ALIGNING GOALS WITH PROGRAMMING

One of the essential components of Inside|Out is programming associated with the installations. Programs are a critical ingredient for achieving the goals museums have articulated. As at the DIA, programming, has proved both rewarding and challenging. Each museum has approached programming differently, with some requiring communities to develop and run programs, and others taking a more proactive role. Examples of community programming museums considered to be successful, and clearly rewarding from the perspective of museum staff we interviewed, include museum-hosted block parties, walking tours, workshops, and community-inspired events such as poetry readings and farmer’s markets. But as museum staff explained,

11 │ RK&A

neither the museums nor the communities had the capacity to create and deliver Inside|Out programming in the way that they had hoped, and program delays occurred (as a result of uncertain funding), which affected planning and advertising efforts.

Host community programming “One of the goals was for the communities to plan events around the artwork on their own. Some communities were great about creating their own programming, but others were not very involved. For community-generated events, the museum would promote the events when they were aware of them. . . . [and] would tag on to community events that were already happening that the museum could enhance.”

Some museums found success when they integrated Inside|Out programs with existing community programs and events such as tours of artworks, art-making, and art demonstrations. This, of course, is a best-case scenario, and since not every city or community has the capacity to offer events, selecting cities and communities that can be true partners with the museum is difficult—a tension between goals of the museums and reality. The PMA found a successful strategy in the program’s third year. Instead of partnering with all new communities, as many museums do each season, they partnered with communities that had already hosted Inside|Out (three-quarters were repeat communities). Because production decisions were set from previous years’ work—community partners, artwork selection, and installation sites—the coordinator was able to devote more time and energy on developing associated programming. Additionally, marketing Inside|Out and associated programming was a challenge for the museums. Staff across sites had mixed feelings about the success of using social media to market the program. Some felt it was a valuable tool for promoting the programs, although most sites struggled to align the media posts with last-minute programming changes. Others felt that more traditional or “grassroots” marketing strategies (newsletters, flyers, newspapers) might be more effective given the diversity of communities and how and where they obtain information. Regardless of the method, findings suggest that marketing strategies should be part of the planning process. For instance, when communities apply for Inside|Out, the museum might ask them if they are able to commit to cross-promoting Inside|Out and associated community programming on community sites and social media. The museum could ask communities to provide the top-five places to market Inside|Out in their community, as part of the application process or at the initial, kick-off meeting.

12 │ RK&A

CONCLUSION AND CONSIDERATIONS

Phase 1 of the evaluation provides a wealth of information that will contextualize findings from Phase 2 when we look at the impact of Inside|Out on communities served. At the same time, Phase 1 provides a comprehensive picture of how the program functions on the ground. All four sites value Inside|Out; they see it as a unique way for their institutions to live their missions and engage with their communities outside the walls of the museum. And three years later, despite challenges encountered with Inside|Out in each city, the museums continue to appreciate the program, in particular for its intentions and potential. Inside|Out is exactly the kind of program that museums hunger for in their search to be more relevant for their communities. Akron and Philadelphia have concluded Inside|Out, but each one is now in the process of creating a legacy program to continue some aspects of the Inside|Out. Miami is now in its third year of the program, and Charlotte is in its second. Findings also suggest that to implement Inside|Out successfully, all parties need to acknowledge that the program is an intense, complex endeavor from many standpoints—planning, funding, staffing, production, and execution. Below we outline key ideas that Phase 1 provided, and we await results of Phase 2 to serve as a foundation for discussion on what we’ve learned and how to continue, change, and or/improve Inside|Out. We also hope these findings result in lessons learned that can inform other community outreach programming in Knight cities and beyond.

Collaborate with museums to clarify and refine the goals of Inside|Out so they clearly align with each museum’s mission. This process may help museums deepen the purpose of the program in their city.

Consider how you might strengthen alignment between program design (from Knight’s perspective) and the program’s intended impact. Look at how the program components align or don’t align with the program goals. Consider what procedural changes might be necessary so Inside|Out can realistically achieve the goals.

Reconsider the funding timeline for Inside|Out, which currently creates uncertainty among the museums, results in high turnover of part-time coordinators and delays the schedule—these factors have a domino effect on all aspects of the programs.

Clarify Knight’s expectations about museums’ serving their communities equitably and providing programming, taking into consideration all the factors they must balance.

In funding and planning, account for the time and expense of securing rights to reproduce artworks and permits to produce and install them in various public locations.

Consider using the Reflection Workshop at the end of the multi-site evaluation to develop a Theory of Change for Inside|Out, extracting best practices from both phases of evaluation and from museum staff. Theory of Change is a method to promote social change by articulating short- and long-term goals that maps backward to identify necessary preconditions (best practices, ideal circumstances).

13 │ RK&A

Knight Foundation contracted RK&A to conduct a multi-site, mixed method evaluation of Inside|Out, a museum-based community program funded by Knight Foundation in art museums located in five cities around the United States—Akron, Charlotte, Detroit, Miami, and Philadelphia. Inside|Out places high-quality reproductions of artworks outdoors in neighborhoods surrounding the grantee museum sites with the intent of leading to unexpected encounters with art. This evaluation builds upon a summative evaluation of the Inside|Out program at the Detroit Institute of Arts conducted by RK&A in 2017, broadening the focus to the other four cities that have participated in the program—the Akron Art Museum, the Bechtler Museum of Modern Art, Harvey B. Gantt Center for African-American Arts + Culture, the Pérez Art Museum Miami, and the Philadelphia Museum of Art. The first phase of the evaluation, the discovery phase, seeks to understand how Inside|Out operates at each site, best practices and challenges, and the extent to which the program contributes to institutional goals at each participating site. Specifically, the objectives of the study are to explore:

Organizational structure and staffing, community recruitment, programming, artwork selection and installation, and social media use for Inside|Out at each site;

Best practices and challenges related to the above areas;

The extent to which Inside|Out serves communities across the cities equitably (e.g., geographic span, socio-economics, race/ethnicity);

The extent to which Inside|Out supports participating institution’s strategic goals, mission, and vision.

Latter phases of the evaluation will focus on gauging the individual and collective impact of Inside|Out on communities and communities’ relationship with the host museum(s).

STUDY BACKGROUND

14 │ RK&A

METHODOLOGY

RK&A conducted case studies of each of the four host sites that previously participated (Akron and Philadelphia) or currently participate (Charlotte and Miami) in Inside|Out. Case studies allow us to look in-depth at how Inside|Out operates within each site with respect to the unique context of that site (i.e., operations, museum collection, and community context, among other things). Case studies were informed by site visits, in-depth interviews, and document reviews.

SITE VISITS AND IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS

RK&A conducted site visits to the five museums in the four host cities. Each site visit included an extended meeting with a primary contact or core team, a tour of the museum,3 and in-person interviews with staff. In advance of the site visits, RK&A contacted current and former staff who worked closely with Inside|Out to set up interviews with individuals who could speak about the Inside|Out program (ideally including multiple departmental perspectives). Once onsite, RK&A conducted one-on-one and small group interviews depending on scheduling needs and the preferences of the interviewees. Telephone interviews were conducted with temporary or former staff who no longer work onsite and with staff who had scheduling conflicts during the site visit. In-depth interviews are valuable because they encourage people to describe their experiences and express opinions and feelings from their personal perspective.

DOCUMENT REVIEW

In addition to site visits and staff interviews, RK&A reviewed institutional documents shared by each site related to the Inside|Out project, including institution and strategic planning documents, internal evaluation reports of the Inside|Out program, press releases, promotional materials, calendars of events, task lists, installation agreements, artwork lists, program descriptions and tracking, installation maps and labels, and photographs. These documents provided additional details about the operation of Inside|Out at each site and context for how the program fit within an institution’s existing mission and goals.

ANALYSIS AND REPORTING

Case studies produce descriptive data that are analyzed qualitatively. In the sections that follow, the evaluator has taken a micro-approach, describing the distinct nature of each site and providing insight into major topics of interest according to the study objectives. By contrast, the discussion preceding this section took a macro-approach, presenting a cross-case analysis of from all four sites to identify trends, commonalities, and differences. Note that interviews were not audio-recorded, so quotations within the case studies are paraphrased to illustrate interviewees’ thoughts and ideas.4

3 RK&A staff also visited a current Inside|Out installation at Ironside (in Miami) for further context. 4 Within quotations, an asterisk (*) signifies the start of a different speaker’s comments.

15 │ RK&A

In March 2018, RK&A conducted onsite and telephone interviews with eight current and former Akron Art Museum (AAM) staff, including positions in education, marketing, design, and development, the museum director, and two former Inside|Out coordinators. Along with the interviews, RK&A reviewed institutional documents from AAM that provided additional context about program goals and operation, including an Institutional Plan, internal evaluation reports of the Inside|Out program, press releases, promotional materials, calendars of events, and access to the Basecamp system used for tracking communication with staff and community partners.

Inside|Out Promotional Poster of Akron Art Museum

CASE STUDY: AKRON

16 │ RK&A

SITE BACKGROUND

AAM participated in Inside|Out for two seasons each year from 2015 to 2017, including a new cohort of communities each season. AAM partnered with three communities in the spring and fall of 2015, each hosting installations for three-month periods. In 2016, AAM expanded to four communities in the spring and four in the fall. In the final year, AAM focused on partnerships with four communities and extended the installation period over two seasons (six months). Each community site had 10 to 15 artworks installed around the community, including a selection of artworks from 1850 to 1950, contemporary art, art made by local artists, and one photographic work.

3 YEARS OF

PARTICIPATION

18 HOST

COMMUNITIES 230+ COMMUNITY

PARTNERS5

40+ ARTWORKS

PERCEIVED GOALS OF INSIDE|OUT

FOR THE MUSEUM

When asked about the goals of the Inside|Out program for the museum, three main goals were commonly cited across staff. One primary goal staff highlighted for the program was to inspire a feeling of “ownership” of the museum in the community and dispel the idea that art is only for the “elite.” Staff also said the museum hoped to build and strengthen relationships with communities surrounding the museum in Akron and its suburbs. Finally, some said the museum wanted to promote general awareness of the museum and its collections for those who don’t visit (or don’t visit often). A few cited “marketing” or “PR” as the underlying goal for the museum but said the way the museum approached Inside|Out went beyond marketing to make an effort to really “connect” with the community. A few others talked about the importance of creating opportunities to encounter art outside the museum walls. For example, one said that encountering art out in the community starts a “different” kind of conversation than what would occur within the museum and helps makes art feel more accessible. Another said the museum wanted to invite the community to “engage with art and live with art” in their own communities. A senior level staff

5 The number of community partners represents the community members and business owners that each museum included on the community contact lists provided to RK&A. Akron’s list of community partners may be higher than other cities because their use of Basecamp provided an archived record of communication with community partners.

2015 2016 2017

17 │ RK&A

member also highlighted an operational goal of the program for the museum—to break down “silos” and get staff working together across departments.

FOR THE COMMUNITIES

When asked about the goals of the Inside|Out program for communities, many staff cited two overlapping goals with what the museum hoped to accomplish—establishing a stronger relationship between the museum and the community and establishing (or “encouraging a sense”) a sense of ownership of (and pride in) the museum. Staff also commonly emphasized community revitalization and increased community pride as goals for the communities. Inside|Out in Akron coincided with initiatives promoted by Knight Foundation (e.g., Better Block programming)6 and the election of a new city mayor, both of which prioritized promoting community pride and identity. One staff member said the program built on this momentum by giving communities another avenue to highlight the place they live and encourage people from other communities to visit and learn more about their communities. Another said in some cases communities also wanted to “change perceptions from outsiders of their neighborhood.”

ALIGNMENT WITH MISSION

The mission of AAM is to “enrich lives through modern and contemporary art.” More specifically, museum planning documents emphasize promoting awareness, appreciation, and education of fine and applied arts; presenting and interpreting art “for the enjoyment of all;” acquiring and conserving significant works of art; and developing mutually beneficial relationships with civic, social, and cultural organizations and businesses to promote creativity and art.7 Overall, staff agreed that the program supported AAM’s mission, but they also pointed out that its mission is very broad to begin with. Several said the program supported the mission because it is “about people,” reaching communities and enriching their lives without requiring them to come to the museum for an experience with art. However, a few others felt the goals of the program and its alignment to broader museum goals could have been more defined to give the program clearer purpose and direction, as illustrated in the quotation below.

Mission alignment “It does fit with the mission, but our mission is broad. We are pushing toward being more accessible to the community, but we haven’t really been talking about what that means and who we want to be accessible to. Who is the audience we want to see? It hasn’t been defined. The department needed some parameters about the goals for the program.”

6 See for example: http://betterblock.org/blog/2015/05/28/akron-better-block-transforming-north-hill-into-a-vibrant-international-district/ 7 Summarized from Akron Art Museum Institutional Plan, 2017.

18 │ RK&A

INTERNAL PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Inside|Out was housed within the education department at AAM and primarily staffed by one part-time coordinator, although the coordinator worked closely with staff across several departments throughout the process (e.g., curatorial, marketing, design, director’s office). A few AAM staff said that the program would have worked best in a department for community outreach or community relations, but that type of department does not exist at AAM. Therefore, they said the education department seemed to “make the most sense” to manage Inside|Out for several reasons—education is already a public-facing department, staff in education are familiar with developing programming, and some believed the department had the best staff capacity to support the program. Moreover, staff worried about how the program would be executed if run from another department (e.g., if it was in the communications department it waould have felt like it was more of an advertising campaign.

PRIMARY DEPARTMENT: Education

PRIMARY STAFF: 1 part-time coordinator Occasional visitor services support

There were several challenges to the internal staffing organization of the Inside|Out program at AAM, mostly related to capacity. Although the coordinator position was only part-time, the responsibilities of the position actually required much closer to a full-time commitment to manage the substantial coordination with other museum departments and with the community partners. Staff noted that they could have built stronger connections between the museum and the community if there was additional staff capacity for developing programming, coordinating, and communicating with community partners. Moreover, it was difficult to sustain ties with communities after the coordinator’s term ended because the coordinator position was temporary. Community partners built relationships with the coordinator (who they interacted with almost exclusively as the face of the museum). It was difficult for the museum to continue those connections when the coordinator left, particularly without any existing community outreach or community relations department.

Staff capacity “It takes personnel to get Inside|Out out in the community and to make the program effective. If the coordinator’s position was full-time, the level of opportunities would go up exponentially.”

19 │ RK&A

SITE SELECTION/COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS

AAM worked with 18 communities over the course of its participation in Inside|Out, and the process for community selection evolved over the course of the project. During the first year, the project coordinator conducted research early on to gather information about potential communities to approach for participation. The coordinator took a number of factors into account when researching communities, including (1) their location relative to the museum;8 (2) community characteristics; and (3) their existing infrastructure for arts programming via community organizations and local government. The coordinator then worked with the Director of Education and the CEO to finalize the communities selected. During the second and third years, the museum elicited applications from communities to participate in the program, but AAM also independently reached out to a few communities they thought would be a good fit for the program. As one staff described it, the museum wanted to be equitable in the communities it served through the program, but also needed to select communities that had the capacity and interest to work with the museum. Staff described the characteristics of the most engaged communities as those who were already interested in revitalizing or expanding arts programming in their cities, had some existing capacity to support programming, and who were “hungry” to be involved. AAM found that communities with more established arts programming or other community events already in place were sometimes less invested in putting time into Inside|Out because they had other obligations. Staff also found that sometimes the communities they approached outside of the application system were harder to work with, perhaps because they did not have the same level of motivation or buy-in as communities that decided to apply of their own accord.

8 Communities were located between one and 10 miles from the museum.

20 │ RK&A

Map of community host sites in Akron and surrounding area. Akron Art Museum is designated with orange marker.

SITE DEMOGRAPHICS

Census data on population, age, race, income, and education for the zip codes of community sites indicate AAM served a diverse set of communities through Inside|Out (see summary table below and expanded tables in the Appendix). The median age, median income, and educational attainment of residents in communities served is close that of the city of Akron as a whole. Compared to the general population in Akron, on average AAM served communities with a slightly higher representation of White residents (72 percent versus 62 percent) and lower representation of Black residents (21 percent versus 32 percent).

21 │ RK&A

Host Community

Akron city Minimum Maximum Mean

Total population 5,916 31,919 19,431 199,110

Median Age 20.8 47.0 35.6 35.7

Median Income $17,725 $83,516 $40,189 $34,359

Race9

White 12% 95% 72% 62%

Black/African American

2% 83% 21% 32%

Asian 0% 7% 3% 2%

Hispanic or Latino10 1% 5% 2% 2%

Education

High school or higher 73% 96% 87% 85%

Bachelor’s or higher 2% 51% 22% 20%

ARTWORKS AND INSTALLATION

Staff at AAM sought to select and install artwork that reflected the spectrum of the museums’ collections and connected to the environments where they were installed (when possible). The Inside|Out coordinator assembled a list of artworks from the collection she thought would work well for the program, including some of the museums more notable works (e.g., Chuck Close’s Linda), and a variety of selections from 1850 to 1950, contemporary art, and highlights from local artists or artworks featuring local places. Museum staff voted on this list to narrow the selections, and then the coordinator worked with curatorial staff to make the final selections. As much as possible, the coordinator and curatorial staff tried to choose artwork that could be reproduced close to a 1:1 scale (i.e., no very small or very large works). AAM contracted with a local sign company to fabricate and install the works of art.

9 Represents census data for total population reporting one race. 10 Represents census data for total population reporting as Hispanic or Latino of any race.

22 │ RK&A

When asked about the strengths of the artwork selection and installation, several said they liked that the museum tried to highlight any historical or aesthetic connections between the installation site and the artwork whenever possible (e.g., Dwight W. Tryon’s The New Moon placed in a similar natural setting). A few also said that the coordinator worked well with curatorial staff to select the artworks that would appeal to communities. Overall, artwork was well-received by community partners and installation site partners, although one business owner had concerns about the content of one reproduction and asked that it be removed (James Gobel’s I’ll Be Your Friend, I’ll Be Your Love, I’ll Be Everything You Need). Staff explained that obtaining copyrights for reproduction and working within a short timeline for artwork selection, fabrication, and reproduction were challenges of the artwork selection and installation process. A few said the copyright process took longer than expected during the first year, particularly because the artworks were being reproduced as close to scale as possible. Then, when coordinators changed in the middle of the project, there were delays in fabricating some artwork because the new coordinator was unfamiliar with the filing system established by the first coordinator for the copyright records. Maintaining the reproductions from season to season was another challenge because reproductions were exposed to a variety of weather conditions and some minor vandalism over time. The expense of maintaining high quality reproductions for each season was higher than anticipated.

Dwight W. Tryon's The New Moon installation

23 │ RK&A

PROGRAMMING

Responsibility for programming was shared between the museum and community partners, but the division of responsibilities varied widely depending on each community’s engagement and capacity to program their own events. Given the broad and consuming responsibilities of the one part-time coordinator to manage program planning and operations, the coordinator had limited capacity to enhance programming and coordinate with communities about their upcoming events. AAM planned a Block Party event for each participating community at the museum at the beginning of each season, helped organize trolley tours and workshops in some communities, and expanded on existing events planned by communities when possible. Similarly, a few staff also noted that the museum’s ability to market the programs in each community was limited by staff capacity and budget, although the museum cross-marketed via social media when it was aware of community events. Each community was responsible for creating at least one program around the Inside|Out installations. Staff noted that some communities were very actively engaged with planning multiple events around the installations, but for others, creating just one program was a challenge. As one AAM staff put it, there was a “passive element” to Inside|Out with the art just sitting out in the community waiting to be “activated” by programming, and sometimes it was difficult to inspire communities to “think creatively about how to engage with the art.” Another suggested that a standardized list of types of programs (e.g., workshop, poetry reading, walking tour, etc.) to provide to communities might have helped them conceptualize and plan more events.

Host community programming “One of the goals was for the communities to plan events around the artwork on their own. Some communities were great about creating their own programming, but others were not very involved. For community-generated events, the museum would promote the events when they were aware of them. . . . [and] would tag on to community events that were already happening that the museum could enhance.”

24 │ RK&A

OTHER INSIGHTS

COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES

AAM used the online platform Basecamp to coordinate program communications, both internally and with community partners. Staff generally felt that this platform was very successful in providing a forum for communications between the program coordinator, museum staff across many departments, community partners, and installation site partners. It also provided a place to store and share important documents and to track conversations about these documents. Several said they would recommend having a strong communication platform (like Basecamp) to help with project management. COMMUNITY PARTNERS/INSTALLATION SITES BECAME FUNDERS

One staff noted that some of the businesses and community organizations that hosted an Inside|Out installation at their location became funders for museum events later on. For example, a Chipotle restaurant hosted an artwork at one of their locations, and that started a relationship with the museum. Chipotle later donated food to an AAM event and worked with the museum to develop educational programs for an exhibition about food. FUNDING

Several staff noted lessons learned related to funding and grant administration. Regarding designing the budget, AAM said they underestimated the amount of funding needed in the first year considering they were starting the program from scratch. They also said budgeting for a full-time program coordinator would have greatly enhanced the programs capacity in many ways (e.g., community relationship building, creation of programming, coordination with sites, coordinating with staff internally). Finally, several noted that communication about the funding to continue the program was often ambiguous until the last minute, which made starting up a new season difficult. Short notice on funding also contributed to turnover in the coordinator position (e.g., the coordinator in the first year left the museum because it sounded like the program was ending, and when the grant was renewed AAM had to hire and train a new coordinator quickly).

25 │ RK&A

In April 2018, RK&A conducted onsite interviews with seven staff from the Bechtler Museum of Modern Art, and six staff from the Harvey B. Gantt Center for African-American Arts + Culture. Positions of staff interviewees at both institutions included those in education, marketing, design, guest services, collections and exhibitions, as well as museum directors and CEOs, and finally Inside|Out coordinators. Along with the interviews, RK&A reviewed institutional documents from the Bechtler and Gantt that provided additional context about program goals and operations, including strategic planning documents, social media reports, articles and press releases, task lists, installation agreements, artwork lists, program descriptions and tracking, installation maps and labels, and photographs.

Inside|Out Logo for Inside|Out Charlotte

CASE STUDY: CHARLOTTE

26 │ RK&A

SITE BACKGROUND

The Bechtler and Gantt have participated in Inside|Out for two seasons (spring and fall 2017) and are about to launch two more seasons (spring and fall) for 2018. The Bechtler and Gantt partnered with 14 communities in the spring and fall of 2017, each hosting installations for three-month periods. In 2018, they have seven community locations planned for the spring. The number of artworks installed at each site varied from two to 17 in 2017. For 2018, one to nine artworks will be installed for spring. The Bechtler includes reproductions of mid-20th-century modern art, including paintings and sculpture (represented as images), and the Gantt includes reproductions of art by African-American artists and artists of African descent, including paintings and photographic series.

2 YEARS OF

PARTICIPATION11

14 HOST


PARTNERS

104+ ARTWORKS


FOR THE INSTITUTIONS

Most staff from the Bechtler and Gantt cited three primary goals for Inside|Out: (1) to bring art outside the institutions’ walls into the community, particularly neighborhoods without many visual arts resources; (2) to increase awareness of and connections to their respective collections, modern art and African American art; and (3) to increase awareness of the Bechtler and Gantt in the Charlotte community and encourage visitation to both institutions. More specifically, the term “cultural desert” was used by staff in each organization to describe communities with a lack of visual arts resources; staff emphasized the importance of “art being for everybody,” even if there are barriers to them coming to the physical buildings to see the collections. Staff also spoke to the power of their collections to connect with people “on a visceral level” through “access to ideas and stories” behind the art. About one-half of staff interviewees also talked about the opportunity for Inside|Out to bridge communities in Charlotte, bringing individuals outside their neighborhood bubbles, which are often divided along racial and socio-economic boundaries. A few interviewees spoke about the potential of Inside|Out to build long-lasting relationships between the Bechtler, Gantt, and

11 Charlotte has completed one year of Inside|Out and is in the process of launching the spring season of the program for 2018.

2017 201

27 │ RK&A

community organizations. And, a few interviewees discussed building relationships with local artists as a future goal of Inside|Out.

Organizational Goals “We want to make sure that we operate in a way that is welcoming and not insular; even if you provide folks with free admission and transportation, there are a lot of audiences that fear they won’t see anyone like themselves [at the museum]. The only true alternative is for us to go to them.”

FOR THE COMMUNITIES

The majority of staff at the Bechtler and Gantt identified three primary goals for the community partners who are involved in Inside|Out: (1) to build relationships among individual members and organizations in the community; (2) to foster awareness of and pride in what the community has to offer residents; and (3) to bring visual art and art resources to their community members. More specifically, staff spoke of Inside|Out “bringing people together” in a community, “driving communities to converse with each other” around art and acting as a “coalescing agent for the neighborhood.” Staff interviewees also spoke of communities wanting neighbors “to know about the different amenities in their community,” including the art on display, with one staff interviewee saying the communities are “starved for art.”


The Bechtler’s mission is “[to share] the joy and excellence of the Bechtler collection with all in order to inspire, inform and enhance cultural and intellectual life.” And, the mission of the Gantt is to “present, preserve and celebrate excellence in the art, history and culture of African-Americans and those of African descent” as well as to “ignite engagement and conversations that inspire, empower and enlighten all.” Staff from both institutions underscored the importance of the word “all” in their mission statements when describing the alignment with Inside|Out. Most staff said that Inside|Out fits perfectly with the concept of “breaking down a fourth wall” and “bringing art into the communities” for all to enjoy. Staff from both institutions also talked about strategic initiatives, such as “Gantt Beyond the Walls,” that demonstrate broad institutional commitment to community engagement and outreach.12 A few staff from each institution also talked about exposing more individuals to their respective collections through Inside|Out to increase awareness and understanding of modern art and art created by African-Americans and those of African descent.

12 Harvey B. Gantt Center for Africa-American Arts + Culture, Strategic Plan, December 2016.

28 │ RK&A

Mission alignment “The collection was gifted to the city of Charlotte. It really does belong to the city. Inside|Out gives that ownership for the collection; these really are your works, and they belong to you.”


Inside|Out in Charlotte is a collaboration between the Bechtler and Gantt (the only such collaboration reflected in this report). The Bechtler has a larger staff than the Gantt and thus assumed more of the tasks related to Inside|Out. Using grant funds, a part-time position in Public Programs at the Bechtler was converted to full-time to coordinate the Inside|Out program. At the beginning of the project, staff from both institutions collaborated on the structure of Inside|Out and, over time, roles and responsibilities were assigned to individual staff based on expertise. The Bechtler coordinator leads the installation process for both institutions, and staff from other departments support her in selecting art, writing labels, marketing, and programming. The two institutions also hired a program designer in the beginning to help create a thematic framework for Inside|Out programming. The two organizations continue to have a weekly meeting to discuss Inside|Out tasks and operations.

PRIMARY DEPARTMENTS: Public Programs (Bechtler) Collections & Exhibitions (Gantt)

PRIMARY STAFF:13 Public Programs Manager (Bechtler) Manager of Collections & Exhibitions (Gantt) Cross-department support for marketing, art selection, label writing, and programming

Staff interviewees cited two challenges of the internal program’s structure: (1) staff capacity; and (2) collaborating between two institutions. First, most staff interviewees discussed the enormity of the work for Inside|Out as a challenge, describing it as a “second job” and noting that everyone “wears many hats.” Second, while the collaboration between the Gantt and Bechtler has been an asset in many ways (see “Other Insights” below), several staff noted that the nature of collaboration always initially presents some challenges with communication and assigning roles and responsibilities.

13 While cross-departmental involvement was evident at all sites, Charlotte is unique in that the staff at both museums is small, so responsibilities for the program were more evenly dispersed across staff.

29 │ RK&A

Staff capacity “Inside|Out really is continuous work. I thought we would have a 6- to 8-week break but getting the artists’ rights, deciding on the art works, it really is year-round. *I’m already familiar with this advance concept of working with exhibitions and programs but if you don’t know that, this is going to be a big-time commitment. You have to be good at multi-tasking, organized, and able to think ahead.”


During their first year, the Bechtler and Gantt worked with 14 community sites over two seasons (spring and fall 2017), with 55 and 49 works of art among them, respectively. For the spring 2018 season, there are currently seven community sites planned with 58 works of art among them. Site were/are located between one and 10 miles from the museum. The Bechtler and Gantt collaborate on selecting the sites and community partners. Charlotte communities are invited to submit an online application if they would like Inside|Out in their community. Communities learn of Inside|Out through media channels (e.g., press releases), word of mouth, and through encounters with the program—for example, one community partner partnered with the institutions to help write labels for the works of art and later applied for a work of art to be installed on their campus. Both institutions also invite communities to participate. Criteria for community selection include: (1) equity, especially serving those of diverse races and socio-economic backgrounds; (2) why the community wants Inside|Out, (i.e., those who need and want art in their communities and want to “grow, inspire, and empower” their communities); and (3) whether the community has existing programming or program ideas they wish to leverage. Both institutions also spent a whole day (or more) driving through the communities to get to know them better and with an eye toward possible installation sites.

30 │ RK&A

Map of community host sites in Charlotte and surrounding area. The Bechtler and Gantt are designated with orange markers.

SITE DEMOGRAPHICS

Census data on population, age, race, income, and education for the zip codes of community sites indicate the Bechtler and Gantt served a diverse set of communities through Inside|Out (see summary table below and expanded tables in the Appendix). The median age, income, and educational attainment of residents in communities served is close to that of the city of Charlotte as a whole. Compared to the general population in Charlotte, on average the Bechtler and Gantt served communities with a higher representation of Black residents (51 percent versus 35 percent) and a lower representation of White residents (36 percent versus 50 percent).

31 │ RK&A

Host Community Range

Charlotte city Minimum Maximum Mean

Total population 11,195 47,208 31,270 731,424

Median Age 26 34 32 33

Median Income $28,034 $84,688 $48,585 $52,446

Race14

White 13% 66% 36% 50%


29% 75% 51% 35%

Asian 2% 12% 4% 5%


Education




The Inside|Out coordinator at the Bechtler works with staff from both institutions to select the works of art. Staff from each institution take the lead on selecting works from their own collections/exhibitions and selections are narrowed down based on criteria, listed in no particular order: (1) two-dimensional; (2) reproduce well (not too large or small); (3) align with current and upcoming exhibitions (so that visitors have the opportunity to see the original works on display); (4) reflect the experiences and histories of the communities; and (5) have artists’ rights and permissions. After selecting the works of art, staff from the Bechtler and Gantt tour the neighborhoods to choose potential sites and then work with community partners to gain their insight on installation location. The installation is contracted through a local company after securing any necessary permits. Staff interviewees mentioned several strengths of their art selection and installation process. First, several said that the diversity of collections between the two institutions allows them to


32 │ RK&A

have meaningful works of art on display for Inside|Out. For example, the Gantt chose a work of art that spoke to the experience of African-American fathers and their children and the Bechtler was able to tie in works from their own collection that spoke to the experience of motherhood. Second, several staff said that touring the neighborhoods helped them understand the best artworks and placement, tying the two together with the appropriate environment and surroundings. Third, staff interviewees universally praised the local installer. Staff said the local installer was consistently flexible with last-minute changes, timelines, and the installation process. Staff also said they came up with a way to reuse the frames and panels for subsequent installations, which amounts to cost-savings over time.

Touring Communities “Getting on the ground and seeing the neighborhoods is really important. It will take a day and sometimes you need to walk through to see it but I don’t think if they just showed us pictures . . . we chose to place a work somewhere because you can see the skyline and [the work is] a father and son and skyline, and you don’t know that unless you get out into the neighborhoods. It’s more than just putting something on a stake; it’s the aesthetics of the surroundings.”

Zun Lee’s Jerell Willis and son Fidel on a walk through their neighborhood Biddlesville/Smallwood/Seversville installation

Staff interviewees also mentioned several challenges of the artwork selection and installation process. Two primary challenges are (1) securing artists’ permissions (though this was easier when dealing directly with the artist); and (2) obtaining permitting from the city to install the works. These two barriers can significantly delay the original timeline for Inside|Out and impact the ability of people to see the original Inside|Out artwork at each institution, as the exhibition schedule cannot be adjusted to accommodate such delays. Other challenges mentioned by a few staff include occasional perceptions among community sites that installations will cause damage and isolated incidences of damage to the reproductions (graffiti, stealing).

PROGRAMMING

Staff at the Gantt are primarily responsible for programming. In the planning stages, a program designer and local artist assisted the Gantt and Bechtler with creating a program framework that used a thematic approach, such as fatherhood or the color red. The Manager of Exhibitions and

33 │ RK&A

Programs then adapted that framework and took the lead on working with communities to schedule programming or integrate Inside|Out into existing programs in those communities. Programs for the 2017 season of Inside|Out included art-making (splash painting, paper flowers), guided tours, music, and food. Some programs were integrated into existing events including street festivals, block parties, and 5K races. Others were stand-alone programs, including a Day of the Dead festival and an Outdoor Cultural Living Room (where furniture, food, music, and art were integrated into an outdoor neighborhood gathering).

Inside|Out Charlotte Bike Tour

Staff interviewees generally praised the success of Inside|Out programming. They said programs were well attended, and those that used existing programming structures as well as programming that was created by the Gantt and Bechtler were well received. Several staff said that many communities wanted the works of art to stay installed, sometimes because they had additional programs or events where they wanted to integrate them. Staff interviewees also mentioned challenges of programming, including the logistical challenges involved in developing programming from scratch (a great deal of time and effort). A few also mentioned that programming was fairly segregated by neighborhood and that little cross-pollination occurred. And, a few said that marketing the programs can present challenges. For

34 │ RK&A

example, aligning the timing of social media posts with changes to programs and discovering the most effective marketing strategy by neighborhood.

OTHER INSIGHTS

COLLABORATION OF TWO INSTITUTIONS

Charlotte is the only Inside|Out location that involved a collaboration between two arts/cultural institutions. Many staff talked about the benefits and challenges of employing this model. For instance, several staff said that theirs has been a successful collaboration primarily because the two institutions have worked together before, and a senior level staff member has worked at and knew the culture of both institutions. Staff also scheduled a weekly meeting devoted to Inside|Out and assigned roles and responsibilities early on. Several staff also spoke of the benefit of having two diverse collections to pull from for Inside|Out, allowing them to make more meaningful connections between the works of art and the communities where they were installed. Yet, even given the existing relationship between the two institutions, several staff said it is always challenging to divide work among staff and maintain consistent communication.

Collaboration “If Knight Foundation wants to do this again, the two institutions need to have worked together before. It can take longer to get through barriers [if that is not the case]. I think we work well together; we have different collections but our objectives are similar. If two organizations work together, they need time to get to know each other first.”

LABEL WRITING

From the beginning, the Bechtler and Gantt chose to collaborate with a local community college and a local middle school on writing labels for the Inside|Out artworks. One staff at the Bechtler and one staff at the Gantt generally took the lead on supervising the students and reviewing/editing the labels. Using guidelines from the DIA Inside|Out labels, staff generally took the approach of writing for a layperson and including information about the artist, an interpretation of the work, language that encourages close-looking, and sometimes background/fun facts. Overall, staff described the collaboration as mutually beneficial, although staff also noted that careful attention must be paid to ensure that the final label accurately reflects the work of art.

35 │ RK&A

SUSTAINING THE INSIDE|OUT PROGRAM AND COMMUNITY RELATIONSHIPS

Several staff expressed a desire for continuing the Inside|Out program but also uncertainty about continued funding. A few staff in leadership positions also expressed concern about losing the trust of community partners if the relationships built through Inside|Out could not be sustained over time through Inside|Out or other collaborations.

Sustaining Community Relationships “One of the saddest elements is when great success has been achieved, and an organization [has to] move on to the next community . . . . Not to have the apparatus in place to [maintain relationships] is unfortunate at best and dangerous at worst. The reason I use ‘dangerous’ is because this is about faith-building. When that faith is not fulfilled, it makes it harder to try something new the next time around. These are fragile [relationships] that need to be attended to over time not just one time.”

36 │ RK&A

In April 2018, RK&A conducted eight onsite interviews and three telephone interviews with staff from the Pérez Art Museum Miami (PAMM). Positions of staff interviewees included those in education and programs, marketing, curatorial, legal and government affairs, as well as the museum director and a part-time Inside|Out coordinator. Along with the interviews, RK&A reviewed institutional documents from PAMM that provided additional context about program goals and operations, including the community partner application, marketing materials, installation contracts/agreements, artwork lists, and installation maps.

Inside|Out Logo for Pérez Art Museum Miami

CASE STUDY: MIAMI

37 │ RK&A

SITE BACKGROUND

PAMM has participated in Inside|Out for two seasons each year from 2016 to 2017 and is currently participating in a third season (2018). PAMM partners with a new cohort of communities each season. PAMM partnered with three communities in the winter/spring and three communities in the summer, each hosting installations for three-month periods. Each community site typically has nine to 20 contemporary artworks installed, drawn from a collection of 50 Inside|Out artworks.

3 YEARS OF

PARTICIPATION

18 HOST


PARTNERS16

50 ARTWORKS


FOR THE MUSEUM

PAMM staff cited two primary goals for Inside|Out: (1) to engage Miami communities with contemporary art, especially those that do not have as much arts exposure; and (2) to increase awareness of PAMM in the community and hopefully drive people to visit the museum. More specifically, several staff spoke of “sparking an interest” in contemporary art and providing the community the “opportunity to see contemporary art through a Miami lens.” Several staff also spoke of increasing communities’ awareness of who PAMM is and what it has to offer. For example, there is a desire among staff and PAMM as a whole to be viewed as a “meeting place” or “town hall.” Also, staff want communities to realize that “PAMM’s collection represents the community; our collection reflects you.” One desired result of this increased community awareness is that more people visit PAMM.

Museum Goals “I thought that the art needed to go in underserved communities, those who are not engaging with art or coming to the museum, but this year helped me realize that just because a community has a high socio-economic status, they might still not be engaging with art, and [art] needs to be in every community.”

16 RK&A is still awaiting a full list of community partners from PAMM, so this number underestimates the total community partners involved in the program thus far.

2017 201 2016

38 │ RK&A

FOR THE COMMUNITIES

PAMM staff identified two primary goals for the community partners who are involved in Inside|Out, depending on the community: (1) to bring contemporary art and art resources to their community members; and (2) to foster awareness of and pride in what the community has to offer residents. More specifically, staff spoke of communities wanting to “beautify” and “bring art into their communities,” and, in particular, staff said some communities demonstrate a “desire to show contemporary art” when submitting their applications, showing that they have “an understanding of what [kind of artworks] will go up [be installed].” Several staff also spoke of communities using Inside|Out as a “platform for community engagement” or to show that the “community can be a meeting place to spend time in.”


PAMM’s mission is “to be a leader in the presentation, study, interpretation, and care of international modern and contemporary art, while representing Miami-Dade and cherishing the unique viewpoint of its peoples.” Through its exhibitions and programs, PAMM “aims to encourage everyone to see art as an incentive for genuine human interaction, communication, and exchange.” Many staff spoke of Inside|Out’s alignment with the mission of the museum to engage people with contemporary art through a “Miami lens.” Staff said the museum is intentional in collecting internationally renowned works of art that represent communities around Miami, for example Latin American artists and artists from the African Diaspora, some of whom are local artists. Several staff also spoke of the museum’s goal to be a “front porch” and/or “town hall” gathering space, one that engages the Miami community, especially those that do not currently engage with contemporary art and/or the museum.

Mission alignment “It is important that we are a collecting institution, a public inheritance; we are allowing that accessibility, meeting people where they are and making a connection to art.”

39 │ RK&A


Initially, the Inside|Out program came into PAMM through external affairs but was eventually integrated into the adult programs and community partnerships department. The manager of this department shares the responsibility of Inside|Out with a part-time coordinator, of which there have been four since the program’s start. The manager is responsible for all tasks leading up to the artworks’ installation, including community/site selection, art selection and labels, and contracts/permitting. The part-time coordinator is primarily responsible for overseeing the installations of the artwork and facilitating programming. Other departments provide support as needed, including selecting the artworks, marketing the program, reporting to Knight Foundation, and facilitating programming (occasional support from teaching artists).

PRIMARY DEPARTMENTS: Adult Programs & Community Partnerships

PRIMARY STAFF: Manager of Adult Programs & Community Partnerships 1 part-time coordinator

Staff interviewees cited two challenges of the internal program’s structure: (1) staff capacity; and (2) staff consistency. First, most staff said the amount of work for Inside|Out is too much for two staff, one with other responsibilities and one part-time, to manage. Staff praised the primary staff for Inside|Out as “good-natured,” “motivated,” and “organized,” and they said the program would not be as successful if the primary staff were not the ones managing it. Second, several staff said it is challenging not to have the same person contracted as the part-time coordinator; the position has changed four times since Inside|Out began primarily because PAMM cannot continue to employee the existing coordinator until they are sure funding exists for the next year of Inside|Out.

Staff capacity “I don’t think the program should be primarily [her] responsibility. We need a completely separate person to manage Inside|Out. She’s a team player, motivated; if we hired anyone else, they would not be able to do it [in addition to other responsibilities].”

40 │ RK&A


PAMM has worked with six communities each year that they have had Inside|Out, three in the winter/spring season and three in the summer season. In the first year (2016), 30 works of art were installed among the six communities for a three-month period; and, in the second and third years (2017 and 2018), 50 works of art were or are being installed, each for a three-month period. Community sites were/are located between one and 30 miles from the museum. The process for selecting sites and community partners has varied from year to year. In 2016, communities were invited to participate with the goal of improving relationships between those communities and PAMM. In 2017 and 2018, interested communities submitted an application, and PAMM selects from among those communities. Communities learn of Inside|Out through media channels (e.g., press releases) as well as through marketing to city managers and community leaders who can send out the application. Criteria for community selection include: (1) range of community sizes (big and small) and types (those with and without existing art resources); (2) those that are motivated to collaborate with and strengthen their relationship with PAMM; and (3) those with existing programming or program ideas. Several staff expressed a desire to expand the program to work more with communities underserved by arts programming but acknowledged that communities who are motivated to apply for Inside|Out are easier starting points for cultivating relationships since they already have an interest in the art and existing programming ideas.

Map of community host sites in Miami-Dade and surrounding area. PAMM is designated with orange marker.

41 │ RK&A

SITE DEMOGRAPHICS

Census data on population, age, race, income, and education for the zip codes of community sites indicate PAMM served a diverse set of communities through Inside|Out (see summary table below and expanded tables in the Appendix). The median age, income, and educational attainment of residents in communities served is close to that of Miami-Dade county as a whole. However, compared to the general population in Miami-Dade, on average PAMM served communities with a lower a lower representation of Hispanic residents (51 percent versus 65 percent).

Host Community Miami-Dade County Minimum Maximum Mean

Total population 11,165 60,512 34,112 2,496,435

Median Age 32 46 38 38

Median Income $21,356 $100,531 $47,820 $44,224

Race17

White 23% 95% 67% 74%


1% 71% 25% 19%

Asian 0% 4% 2% 2%


Education




In the first year, a curator worked with a contractor to select 30 works of art; and, the Manager of Adult Programs and Community Partnerships and curator selected 20 additional works of art to use in the second and third years, which brought the total number of Inside|Out works to 50.


42 │ RK&A

Artworks are selected based on the following criteria: (1) remarkable in some way (e.g., aesthetically pleasing, internationally renowned, and/or local); (2) two-dimensional; (3) “read well” in reproduction (96 inches or less); (4) reflect the experiences and histories of the partnering communities; and (5) have easily-obtained artists’ rights and permissions. After selecting the works of art, the manager and part-time coordinator have a kick-off meeting with individual communities where they share the artworks and visit the proposed installation locations. Communities sometimes provide feedback about artworks and site location; however, the sites are usually selected during this initial meeting. After securing permits, the part-time coordinator works with different contractors to print, frame, and install the works of art. Staff mentioned several strengths of their art selection and installation process. First, many said that PAMM intentionally collects works of art that are “inspired by the various communities” in Miami, and that the artist’s background often “ties to [communities’] own experiences and background.” Second, several staff said that the “conversational” style and translation into three languages (English, Spanish, and Creole) makes the labels accessible to a broad audience. On the other hand, staff mentioned several challenges of the art selection and installation process. First, artworks are limited to those for which it is easy to secure artists’ permissions and to those that are two-dimensional, eliminating many compelling contemporary artworks in the museum’s collection that are three-dimensional. Second, several staff mentioned that obtaining permits to install the works is much more difficult when the works are on city property; though, one staff interviewee said that private property can be equally challenging if owners have concerns about property damage from installation. Third, several staff said that the timing of installations is not ideal for Miami weather; the summer season happens when it is “unbearably hot” and “[local] people are taking vacations from Miami.” A few staff also said the installation period is too short to allow the community to engage and that the installation period should be extended to six months. Finally, a few staff closely involved in the installation process said that they are not able to work with the same contractors for each step of the installation process, which increases the likelihood of damages to the reproductions (and limits their ability to reuse the reproductions).

Vik Muniz’s Cloud Cloud, Miami (Pictures of Clouds) Ironside installation

43 │ RK&A

PROGRAMMING

The part-time Inside|Out coordinator is primarily responsible for programming. Programs are scheduled, on average, one to two times per week during the three-month installation period. PAMM tries to select community partners who already have existing programs that can integrate Inside|Out. Examples of programming included integrating tours of Inside|Out artwork and art-making into existing events, such as pop-up markets and educational tours. For example, a teaching artist from PAMM led a guided tour of Inside|Out artworks in Overtown that tied in the history of the surrounding area and buildings. Most staff interviewees said that integrating Inside|Out into existing community programs and events is the most successful model since PAMM does not have the capacity to design programming from scratch. Several staff also said that programs where community leaders attended seemed more successful because they added insights to the history of the community.

Integrating Community Members “Some of the community was resistant to the artwork, and one community leader was on the tour, and he told them why it was important, that the artwork had a personal connection to the building across the street. It was not just me leading it, the community leader helped out to relate the artwork to the neighborhood. That was impactful not only for the community but for the representatives of PAMM who got a better idea of what was around.”

Staff mentioned two primary program challenges: (1) planning them in a short time period; and (2) marketing them to the communities. Staff involved in program planning and logistics said they are planned within one to two weeks of the event and it is often a “scramble.” Many staff spoke of the challenges involved in marketing the program given the short lead time, as well as finding the most effective strategies to market in each community (see more about marketing Inside|Out in the “Other Insights” section below).

OTHER INSIGHTS

MARKETING STRATEGIES

Nearly all staff spoke about PAMM’s struggles with marketing Inside|Out, specifically as it relates to: (1) staff’s capacity to market the program in addition to existing institution-wide marketing responsibilities, and, more specifically, needing to prioritize marketing for internal

44 │ RK&A

museum programs if the two are happening simultaneously; (2) the misalignment between the longer lead time needed for marketing and the shorter lead time for implementing Inside|Out programs; and (3) the strength of the connection between Inside|Out and PAMM (whether the community realizes that PAMM is responsible for Inside|Out). Staff discussed many things to consider when moving forward with marketing, including matching the marketing strategy to the individual community and having communities commit to cross-promotion. Specifically, staff spoke of leveraging existing communication strategies (community newsletters, flyers, web sites, email distribution lists, radio, etc.); in other words, more “grassroots” marketing strategies to reach individuals in a community with trusted sources. Staff also discussed developing a marketing strategy that can match the “on our feet,” more fast-paced approach used for Inside|Out programming. Finally, several PAMM staff said they did not think the logo on the labels connecting PAMM to Inside|Out was sufficient enough for individuals to recognize the association between the two.

“Grassroots” Marketing “I think at the planning stage, we need to coordinate with the community to find out where the audience gets its information. These are diverse communities getting their information in different ways. Where do folks get their information? Radio, community boards? We will have much more success if we use platforms that the community is already using to get their news.”

CONTINUED FUNDING

Similar to other sites, PAMM staff raised the issue of not knowing from one grant cycle to another whether funding for Inside|Out would continue. At PAMM, this has resulted in yearly turnover of the part-time coordinator position and a delayed timeline for some installations, since planning for new seasons of Inside|Out cannot begin until funding is assured. One result for PAMM is that the second season of Inside|Out is typically in the summer months when it is less popular for the local population to be outside due to high temperatures.

45 │ RK&A

In March 2018, RK&A conducted onsite and telephone interviews with eight current and former staff from the Philadelphia Museum of Art (PMA) and program partners. RK&A conducted interviews with staff in the education, community engagement and access, and government and external affairs departments, as well as current and former Inside|Out coordinators and project managers and a representative from the sign company used for fabrication and installation of reproductions. RK&A reviewed institutional project documents from PMA that provided additional context about program operations and programming, and evaluation reports from the 2017 season.

Image capture from Inside|Out promotional video from Philadelphia Museum of Art’s Inside|Out website

CASE STUDY: PHILADELPHIA

46 │ RK&A

SITE BACKGROUND

PMA participated in Inside|Out for two seasons each year from 2015 to 2017. PMA partnered with a new cohort of communities each season during the first two years—five communities per season in 2015 and six communities per season in 2016. During the final year of the program, PMA returned to six communities that had previously hosted an installation and added installations in two new communities as well. Each community site had between eight and 13 artworks installed around the community, including a selection of artworks from their encyclopedic collection (the American, East Asian, South Asian, European, Contemporary, Modern, Prints, Drawings and Photographs, and Textiles departments).

3 YEARS OF

PARTICIPATION

24 HOST


PARTNERS

69 ARTWORKS


FOR THE MUSEUM

When asked about the goals of the Inside|Out program for the museum, one of the overarching themes that emerged among most staff was a personal goal of creating “spontaneous interactions with art” in communities across greater Philadelphia, thereby increasing accessibility to art outside the museum. For example, one said the goal of the program was to “take the painting off the wall and into the communities, for them to touch and spark conversations.” Several made a point of saying they were intentional in the way they carried out the project to keep that goal in mind, “without any ulterior motives” (e.g., marketing for the museum, increasing membership). These staff said they thought the larger goal of the museum was to “gain access to communities” and hopefully inspire visitation to PMA, but they worried that this approach might be perceived by communities as only a marketing initiative.

Building friendships with no strings attached “One of the goals was building friendships within our region, with communities. When the project first started, marketing wanted to market, membership wanted to build membership. We said no, this is not a marketing initiative. It is long-term friend-making. . . . It’s about long-term relationship-building, building familiarity and trust.”

2015 2016 2017

47 │ RK&A

FOR THE COMMUNITIES

When asked about the goals of the Inside|Out program for communities, there were several goals that emerged from staff. A few said the goal for the communities was to feel a sense of connection to or “ownership” of the museum and the installations in their communities. A related goal was for communities to see themselves as a valued partner of the museum (e.g., “to feel a sense of pride that PMA selected them, that they were a chosen community”). A few others said the goal for communities was to increase their interest in or capacity for arts programming in their communities.


When asked how the program relates to the museum’s mission and institutional goals, some staff saw alignment with the PMA’s mission, but others felt the connection was more tenuous. A few, particularly those who are not permanent staff, were unsure how the program aligned with the PMA’s mission and institutional goals. Some full-time staff said there were some connections to the museums mission,19 but were vague in articulating these connections (e.g., “there are four new brand values, and this was about the ‘connected’ and ‘provocative’ brand values” or “the strategic plan includes community engagement, so it is in line with that”). Others didn’t think there was a strong connection to the museum’s mission—one of these pointed out that because the program was transplanted from the Detroit Institute of Arts, it was not created with the PMA in mind.

Mission alignment “Within the community engagement and access area, it aligns. There have been recently initiatives to make everything more accessible to the community. That’s the strength. But because Inside|Out wasn’t created here, it didn’t have our museum in mind. We don’t have a mission statement right now, but if we have built the program from the ground up it might have been more tailored to us. That said, I’m not sure we would have done a program like this on our own.”


Inside|Out was housed within the education division at PMA.20 During the first two years of the program it was located in the special projects department within the education division and primarily staffed by one full-time coordinator and a part-time project manager.21 The project

19 A few staff mentioned that the museum is currently undertaking a planning initiative, which includes revising the mission statement and rebranding. 20 One staff said it seemed like the program was put in the education division because the museum wasn’t sure where to put it and thought the special projects staff was best equipped to handle it. 21 The project manager during the first year was a full-time staff at the museum with part-time responsibilities toward Inside|Out.

48 │ RK&A

manager was responsible for project start-up, including hiring staff, selecting communities and artworks, and identifying a fabricator/installer for the reproductions. The coordinator worked under the direction of the project manager on the day-to-day management of working with communities and securing agreements with businesses and organizations. When it seemed as though the program was ending and funding would not continue after year two, both the project manager and coordinator left PMA, and the executive assistant to the education division took over the responsibilities of the coordinator, overseeing the deinstall and maintaining community contacts.

PRIMARY DIVISION: Year 1-2: Education (Special Projects) Year 3: Education (Community Engagement and Access)

PRIMARY STAFF: 1 full-time coordinator 1 part-time project manager Support from executive assistant to education division during project staff vacancy

PMA hired a new project manager and coordinator for the third year of the program when the funding was renewed by Knight Foundation. During the third year of the program, it was managed under a different department within the education division—community access and engagement—following the recommendation of the project manager who thought it would fit better in that department. During the last year, the focus of the program shifted toward PMA developing more programming with the communities, driven by the new coordinator’s background in education. Since the museum mainly partnered with repeat communities during the last year, they could devote less time to start-up (e.g. establishing community contacts and installation logistics) and more time to developing programs and lesson plans around the installations. Staff said they were glad that the program was housed in education rather than another division or department because, as one put it, departments like marketing and curatorial would have “missed the point” of the program. For example, as previously mentioned, some staff worried that if the program was housed in marketing it would become too much about recruiting visitors, and others thought the program would become “too scholarly” if it was run by the curatorial department. However, two staff said they did not think Inside|Out was really an education program as much as a community outreach program—one said, “It wasn’t really designed to be an educational experience, it was more ephemeral, and you just go and get what you get.”

49 │ RK&A

Best fit in education division “Education was the department that could pull it off the fastest. . . .[Also], with it in education, we didn’t ask anything of the communities. It was just to make them feel better about their community and the museum. It was just about generosity and sharing resources without a call to action. The only ask was at least one public program.”

Organizational challenges of the program included capacity and staff turnover due to uncertain funding. Staff said the program needed at least one full-time and one part-time staff to function, due to the time needed to coordinate with sites, partners, manage installations and rights to reproductions, maintain the artworks, and manage internal and external communication about the program. Staff said the program lost “momentum” between the second and third years when the program appeared to be ending due to the end of the funding term, and the project manager and coordinator left to find other positions. When funding was extended late in the year, PMA had to find replacement staff quickly and acclimate them to the project in time for the next round of installations.


PMA worked with 24 communities over three years of Inside|Out. The process for selecting community sites evolved over the course of the project. During the first year, the project manager worked with the coordinator to select and invite communities based on a number of factors. They considered: (1) advice from the DIA about the types of communities that had worked well in Detroit (lower-middle class communities with a developing art scene and some existing arts infrastructure); (2) demographic and geographic criteria (population data, distance from museum22); (3) existing municipal organizations and arts resources, and 4) at least a few blocks of walkable downtown area. They also wanted to select communities in the five counties surrounding the museum for geographic equity. The museum selected communities by invitation during the first year, but changed to an application system after the program was more established in the second year and there was more community awareness about the program. When selecting from the applications in year two, the museum “didn’t want it to feel like a private club, but also needed to be strategic and make sure the community goals were aligned with the museum’s goals and that there was a certain level of excitement and engagement from the community during their initial meetings.” Staff generally agreed that the communities that worked best (i.e., were responsive, engaged, and created successful programming) were those that had a developing art scene and/or some

22 Host communities were located between about one mile to 37 miles from the museum.

50 │ RK&A

existing areas of programming to tie the installation to (e.g., farmer’s markets and other community events). Some staff described a “knee-jerk” reaction from the museum to put installations in the poorest areas of the surrounding community, but these communities did not always have the capacity to support the community obligations of the program (e.g., having a responsive point of contact, creating at least one community program). A few staff also reported more difficulty working with communities within the Philadelphia city limits due to increased regulations and restrictions on setting up the installations, but this was a bureaucratic issue unrelated to the ease of working with the community partners and community members.

Map of community sites in Philadelphia and surrounding area. Philadelphia Museum of Art is designated with orange marker.

SITE DEMOGRAPHICS

Inside|Out served communities of varying sizes, ages, incomes, races/ethnicities, and educational attainment (see summary table of census data below and expanded tables in the Appendix). PMA selected communities within the city of Philadelphia, but also in the suburbs

51 │ RK&A

of the five counties surrounding the city23—three-quarters of the host communities were located six or more miles from the city center. The median demographics for communities served by Inside|Out differ demographically from the city of Philadelphia as a whole.24 For example, compared to the city of Philadelphia, host communities on average had higher median income ($69,067 versus $39,770), a higher proportion of White residents (72% versus 41%), a lower proportion of Black/African American (18% versus 43%) and Hispanic residents (7% versus 12%), and higher educational attainment (46% with a bachelor’s degree or higher versus 26%).

Host Community Philadelphia city Minimum Maximum Mean

Total population 4,282 82,795 20,571 1,526,006

Median Age 24.0 52.8 37.2 33.9

Median Income $18,877 $135,700 $69,067 $39,770

Race

White 14% 95% 72% 41%

Black/African American 1% 81% 18% 43%

Asian 1% 17% 4% 6%

Hispanic 2% 28% 7% 12%

Education



23 Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery and Philadelphia counties. 24 Aggregated census data is not available for the five-county area around the museum.

52 │ RK&A


Just before Inside|Out began at PMA, the museum released a new handbook that identified artworks that were important or iconic to the museum. The Senior Curator of Education and Public Programs and project manager used the handbook as a guide for selecting artwork to be reproduced for Inside|Out, with an eye toward works of art that reflected “the diversity of the collection, the diversity of media, a balance of different time periods, and things that the education division knew would be ‘crowd-pleasers’.” The Director reviewed and approved all selections. Scale was an important factor, since reproductions were scaled as close to the size of the original artwork as possible, so very large or very small artworks were not ideal. In selecting the installation sites, the museum also tried to be intentional in placing artworks in a place that made sense (e.g., a garden scene near a garden). During the final year, communities had more opportunities to select the particular artworks they wanted and where they would be located, and the museum tried to take into account which locations would work best for programming. The museum also tried to select works that were “accessible” and had the community in mind (e.g., selecting works by and depicting African Americans for communities with a high African American population). While most artworks were well received, PMA did have a few issues with particular works of art. Most frequently mentioned was the installation of the Moorish Chief by Eduard Charlemont in Brewerytown, which different “factions” in the community disagreed about including because of the Moorish/Muslim associations.25 Staff also noted that Soft Construction with Boiled Beans (Premonition of Civil War) by Dali was rejected from multiple sites. Most challenges arose during the preparation for selecting installation sites and in the process of physically installing artworks. There were substantial hurdles in working to get approval from the city and state for digging to install posts in

25 The particular disagreements that arose in this community are unclear.

Daniel Gardner’s Tanis installation

Eduard Charlemont’s Moorish Chief

53 │ RK&A

the ground for artworks, making sure they were contacting the right people, and filing the correct paperwork, as well as getting agreements signed with the organizations and businesses that were hosting an artwork on their property.

PROGRAMMING

Communities were largely responsible for creating their own programming around the installations, especially in the first two years of the project. Each community was expected to create at least one program around the installation as criteria for participation in the program, but staff reported that some communities did not generate any programs, while others created rich programming around the installations. PMA offered to train community members as guides for community programs and hosted a “Zip Code” weekend for each community with free admission to the museum but did not organize events for the communities during the first two years. During the third year when new staff were hired for the coordinator and project manager positions, PMA took on more programming responsibilities with communities (e.g., an art project table at a community event related to a nearby artwork, flash tours that spotlighted a particular artwork, or youth programming at a local community center). This aligned with the coordinator’s own interest in making the artworks an educational resource for communities.

OTHER INSIGHTS

SOCIAL MEDIA

Staff had mixed perceptions about the success of social media in promoting Inside|Out as a program or as a tool for engaging with artworks. Several staff were unsure how much the hashtags and app associated with the program were used, or believed they weren’t used very much. In contrast, other staff thought social media was very successful at promoting

54 │ RK&A

engagement with the program, including participation with the national Instagram contest. One said, “The social media aspect was really interesting on Instagram…some people were really passionate about the artworks and created Instagram videos, and some even made their own interpretations of the art. It touched all different ages and types of people.” FRAMES

Multiple staff reported lessons learned regarding maintenance of the frames for artworks across the lifespan of the project (e.g., what types of materials worked and didn’t work in different environments like high heat, water, wind, and cold). One recommended that it would be helpful for all the different museums that have hosted Inside|Out to share a “communal source list” of framing materials that worked well so that each location could save time and money on experimenting with trial and error on framing and installation materials and processes. Another underscored the importance of having a strong partner for the reproduction fabrication and installation to make the whole process run more smoothly. COMMUNITY SELECTION

As mentioned above, there was consensus among staff about the types of communities that worked best as Inside|Out host sites. Staff generally said that near and far “suburban” or “middle class” communities worked best because they were excited to participate and felt that the recognition of their community by the PMA marked them as a community “on the rise.” Staff also said communities that have some existing arts programming resources and organizations in place are strong partners because they had the capacity to take on the programming responsibilities asked of each community.

55 │ RK&A

HOST COMMUNITY DEMOGRAPHICS BY CITY

The tables below present 2010 Census data by zipcode, sorted by distance from the Museum.

AKRON

Akron Host Community

Total population

Median Age

Median household income

Race/ethnicity Education Distance from AAM

Year

Middlebury (same as Goodyear Heights)

22,294 37.3 $36,551

74% White 21% Black 1% Asian 2% Hispanic/Latino

86% HS degree or higher 14% BA or higher

1 mile 2017

North Hill 22,786 36.2 $35,038

63% White 26% Black 4% Black 5% Hispanic/Latino


1 mile 2015

Downtown (same as Towpath)

8,782 23.9 $18,348



1 mile 2015

University 5,916 20.8 $19,075



1 mile 2015

Towpath/ Metroparks (same as Downtown)

8,782 23.9 $18,348



1 mile 2015

Sherbondy Hill 7,643 34.9 $17,725



2 miles 2017

West Hill/ Highland Square

7,700 47.0 $51,769



2 miles 2015

South Akron and Summit Lake

8,782 23.9 $18,348



2 miles 2016

Goodyear Heights (same as Middlebury)

22,294 37.3 $36,551



3 miles 2016

APPENDIX

56 │ RK&A

Akron Host Community

Total population

Median Age


Race/ethnicity Education Distance from AAM

Year

Firestone Park 15,340 33.9 $37,821



4 miles 2016

Northwest Akron/ Wallhaven

24,935 42.7 $55,571



4 miles 2016

Cuyahoga Falls 29,587 37.6 $49,664



4 miles 2015

Kenmore 18,825 37.6 $32,077



4 miles 2016

Merriman Valley

18,185 44.9 $59,620



5 miles 2016

Ellet 31,919 43.0 $48,773



5 miles 2017

Copley 15,200 40.7 $83,516



7 miles 2017

Barberton

41,249 41.2 $46,235



7 miles 2016

Kent 28,904 23.5 $36,539



10 miles 2016

57 │ RK&A

CHARLOTTE

Charlotte Host Community

Total population

Median Age


Race/ethnicity Education Distance from Bechtler

Year

South End (same as Dilworth)

11,315 32.1 $82,609



1 mile 2017

Dilworth (same as South End)

11,315 32.1 $82,609



1 mile 2017

First Ward 11,195 30.3 $84,688

61% White 33% Black 4% Asian 4% 4% Hispanic/Latino


1 mile 2018

CPCC University Campus Uptown

Unavailable Unavailable Unavailable Unavailable Unavailable 1 mile 2018

Biddleville/ Smallwood

34,167 31.5 $29,643



2 miles 2017

Stewart Creek Greenway (same as Biddleville/ Smallwood)

34,167 31.5 $29,643



2 miles 2017

Lockwood

11,898 31.3 $28,034



2 miles 2017

Plaza Midwood (same as Echo Hills)

43,931 33.6 $40,996



3 miles 2017

Washington Heights (same as Beattie Ford)

47,208 34.4 $48,356



3 miles 2017

Beatties Ford Corridor (same as Washington Heights)

47,208 34.4

$48,356



3 miles 2017

Sugar Creek Greenway/ Kings Drive/ Freedom Park

20,317 35 $67,529



3 miles 2018

58 │ RK&A

Charlotte Host Community

Total population

Median Age


Race/ethnicity Education Distance from Bechtler

Year

Echo Hills (same as Plaza Midwood)

43,931 33.6 $40,996



4 miles 2017

West Boulevard (same as Biddleville)

34,167 31.5 $29,643



4 miles 2017

Mason Wallace Park

38,457 30.7 $35,635



7 miles 2017

University City Boulevard

37,547 25.8 $50,397



10 miles 2017

59 │ RK&A

MIAMI

Miami Host Community

Total population

Median Age


Race/ethnicity Education Distance from Perez

Year

Overtown

13,791 38.7 $21,356 35% White 55% Black 1% Asian 37% Hispanic/Latino


1 mile 2017

Baywalk



1 mile 2018

Little Haiti



4 miles 2018

Ironside District



5 miles 2018

Biscayne Park



7 miles 2017

Surfside 13,971 43.0 $46,463 93% White 2% Black 1% Asian 43% Hispanic/Latino


10 miles 2017

Hialeah



10 miles 2016

North Miami Beach



11 miles 2017

Opa-locka 29,061 32.4 $22,840 23% White 71% Black 0% Asian 29% Hispanic/Latino


12 miles 2017

Pinecrest



13 miles 2018

Doral



13 miles 2018

60 │ RK&A

Miami Host Community

Total population

Median Age


Race/ethnicity Education Distance from Perez

Year

Miller Drive Park (Olympia Heights)



13 miles 2018

West Kendall



20 miles 2016

Homestead 60,512 31.1 $40,452 67% White 20% Black 1% Asian 15% Hispanic/Latino


30 miles 2016

61 │ RK&A

PHILADELPHIA

Philadelphia Host Community

Total population

Median Age


Race/ethnicity Education Distance from PMA

Year

Brewerytown



1 mile 20162017

Fishtown



3 miles 2015

Ambler 6,417 34.8 $57,210 76% White 13% Black 3% Asian 8% Hispanic/Latino


3 miles 2015

East Passyunk



3 miles 2015 2017

Old City



3 miles 2016 2017

Manayunk



6 miles 2017

Lansdowne 10,620 39.3 $54,608 47% White 45% Black 4% Asian 3% Hispanic/Latino


6 miles 2016 2017

Narberth 4,282 39.5 $93,382 90% White 2% Black 4% Asian 2% Hispanic/Latino


6 miles 2016

Chestnut Hill/Mt. Airy



7 miles 2015

Upper Darby 82,795 34.6 $50,615 57% White 27% Black 11% Asian 4% Hispanic/Latino


8 miles 2016

Tacony



9 miles 2016

62 │ RK&A


Total population

Median Age



Year

Haddonfield 11,593 43.2 $135,700 95% White 1% Black 2% Asian 2% Hispanic/Latino


10 miles 2015 2017

Jenkintown 4,422 40.1 $69,750 90% White 6% Black 2% Asian 3% Hispanic/Latino


10 miles 2016

Glenside 8,384 36.4 $83,735 87% White 7% Black 3% Asian 3% Hispanic/Latino


11 miles 2017

Media 5,327 39.1 $68,827 83% White 11% Black 3% Asian 2% Hispanic/Latino


12 miles 2015 2017

Conshohocken 7,833 32.5 $78,801 89% White 6% Black 2% Asian 3% Hispanic/Latino


12 miles 2016

Wayne



17 miles 2015

Norristown



18 miles 2015

Bristol 9,726 38.5 $42,962 81% White 9% Black 1% Asian 14% Hispanic/Latino


21 miles 2016

West Chester 18,461 24.0 $50,853 79% White 21% Black 1% Asian 13% Hispanic/Latino


24 miles 2015

Newtown



24 miles 2015

Doylestown 8,380 52.8 $73,185 95% White 1% Black 2% Asian 2% Hispanic/Latino


26 miles 2016

Phoenixville



27 miles 2016

63 │ RK&A


Total population

Median Age



Year

Coatesville 13,100 30.2 $36,212 38% White 46% Black 1% Asian 23% Hispanic/Latino


37 miles 2016

Date post:	29-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

IMPACT PLANNING EVALUATION AUDIENCE RESEARCH · RK&A, Inc. │ │May 2017 IMPACT PLANNING...

Documents