Jason SchupbachDirector of Design Programs

CREATIVE PLACEMAKING & LIVABILITY

Sunil IyengarDirector of Research

National Endowment for the Arts

CREATIVE PLACEMAKING

In creative placemaking, partners from public, private, nonprofit, and community sectors strategically shape the

physical and social character of a neighborhood, town, city or region around arts and design activities.

- Markusen, A. & Gawda, A (2010) Creative Placemaking

PARTNERSHIPS

Federal Partners

Foundation Partners

Our Town

LOCAL GOVERNMENT +

ARTS ORGANIZATIONS

Our Town Grants 2011 + 2012 + 2013

<1,000

1,000-10,000

10,000-50,000

50,000-100,000

100,000-200,000

>200,000

35 of 59 < population 100,000

Our Town FY13 population size of recommended awardees

439 partners

6 State Arts Agencies: CT,ME,NC,OK,WA,WI

33 Local Arts Agencies

147 arts partners

Our Town 2013 Partners on 59 Grantees

Our Town 2013 147 Art Partners

Artist Communities

Arts Education

Dance

Design

Literature

Media

Multidisciplinary & Presenting

Museum

Music & Opera

Theater & Musical Theater

Traditional and Folk Arts

Visual Arts

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Nonprofit Organizations: • Aging services• Botanic gardens• Development/community reinvestment • Environmental • Historic preservation • Land planning (Main Streets)• Libraries • Religious• Recreation• Scientific• Youth development

Education: • Private K-12

schools• School districts• Universities

Government: • Non-arts local, state and federal agencies

Local businesses: • Banks• Construction firms• Farms• Galleries• Hospitals• Newspapers• Restaurants• Real estate developers

Other:• Business associations • Business Improvement Districts• Foundations• Land Trusts

Our Town 2013 Partners

Asset Mapping

Creative Industry

Artist Space

Creative Entrepreneurship

Cultural Facility

Public Art Planning

Cultural District Planning

Public Space

Festival/Performance

Public Art

Multidisciplinary Arts Programming

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Our Town 2013 Project Types

The Bridge by Elena Colombo Courtesy of ArtsQuest, photos by Ryan Hulvat

ArtsQuest SteelStacks, Bethlehem, PA

The Bridge by Elena Colombo Courtesy of ArtsQuest, photos by Ryan Hulvat

ArtsQuest SteelStacks, Bethlehem, PA

Sugar Hill Landscape Arts Masterplan, Detroit, MI

Courtesy of Trey McIntrye project

Boise Bright Spot Project, Boise, ID

Arts Incubator of the Rockies, Fort Collins, CO

Photo by  Samuel Burns 

Main Terrain Art Park, Chattanooga, TN

Datagroove by Future cities lab

Silicon Valley Inside/Out, San Jose, CA

Photo by Mark Van Cleave

Plan-It Hennepin Workshop, Minneapolis, MN

Design Museum Boston, Boston, MA

Rendering, La Dallman Architects

Harmony Center, Milwaukee, WI

Wormfarm Farm Art – Dtour Reedsburg, WI

CultureBlocks, Philadelphia, PA

FIELD BUILDING

Podcasts

Webinars

CREATIVEPLACEMAKINGeSTORYBOOK

MEASURING IMPACT

EVALUATION

NEA Strategic Goals with Measurable Outcomes

GOAL 1 To Create Art That Meets the Highest Standards of Excellence

GOAL 2 To Engage the Public with Diverse and Excellent Art

GOAL 3 To Promote Public Knowledge and Understanding about the Contributions of the Arts

Example #1: Outcome Measurements

OUTCOME

PERFORMANCEMEASURE

PROGRESS

The Portfolio of American Art is Expanded

Post-Award Review, by Independent Experts, of Artistic Excellence in NEA Grants Supporting Arts Creation

NEA conducting pilot study of post-grant reviews to assess artistic excellence of completed projects

Example #2: Outcome Measurements

OUTCOME

PERFORMANCEMEASURE

PROGRESS

Americans Throughout the Nation Experience Art

Percent of Adults Who Report Being Affected by NEA-Funded Art

NEA conducting pilot study to survey audiences at grantees’ art exhibits, performances, and screenings

Example #3: Outcome Measurements

OUTCOME

PERFORMANCEMEASURE

PROGRESS

American Communities are Strengthened through the Arts

Percent of Grants Awarded for Projects that Demonstrate Improved Livability in Specific Impact Areas

NEA preparing technical documentation to assist CP practitioners in using national and local data sources to track outcomes related to the arts and livability

Arts & Livability Indicators: Why now?

• Open Government/Data Environment

• Publicly Accessible, but Scattered Sources

• Empower Communities to Have Data-Driven Conversations about Priorities and Resources

• Supplement Planned or Ongoing Evaluations

1. Attachment to Community

2. Arts Communities and Artists

3. Economic Conditions

4. Quality of Life

Arts & Livability Indicators: Domains of Impact

• Determine whether the national data capture local conditions

• Identify local-level indicators and data sources of CP-related impacts

Validating Arts & Livability Indicators (VALI): Project Goals

VALI Methods

Site visit Convening with representatives

Focus group with uninvolved experts

• Majority of indicators were deemed relevant

• Mixed results for some indicators

• Urban and rural respondent views differed infrequently

• Problems with using county and zip-code level data to capture local outcomes

• More contextual indicators requested

VALI Early Findings

@jackiebrookner

Example #1: Indicator and Contextual Issues

Domain: Attachment to Community Indicator: # of civic engagement establishments per 1,000 people Geo level: Zip code, county Data source: County Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau

• Data may not be available for some low-population areas• Purely voluntary organizations (no paid employees) are excluded• Educational institutions and some commercial establishments (e.g., local coffee shops) are excluded

Data Concerns:

Example #1: Notes for Interpretation

• In low-pop areas, a simple count of civic establishments can replace or supplement this indicator

• Location of civic establishments may not reflect community where members live

• Indicator should be paired with economic indicators such as median income and poverty rate

• Saturation-level effects should be considered

Example #2: Indicator and Contextual Issues

Domain: Arts Communities and Artists Indicator: # of arts, culture, and humanities nonprofits per

1,000 people Geo level: Census tract, county Data source: National Center for Charitable Statistics,

The Urban Institute

• Location may not reflect where nonprofit is active or delivering services• Nonprofits earning revenue less than $25,000 are excluded

Data Concerns:

Example #2: Notes for Interpretation

• Does not account for organizations that are non-arts-centric, but which yet provide venues for arts engagement

• Increasing density of arts organizations in a community not always desirable

• Indicator could be enhanced with more information on the scope of a community’s nonprofit activities in the arts

Example #3: Indicator and Contextual Issues

Domain: Economic Conditions Indicator: Active businesses (% of businesses collecting mail)

Geo level: Census tract Data source: U.S. Postal Service, U.S. Department of Housing &

Urban Development

• Businesses that collect their mail through post office boxes (instead of location address) are excluded• Businesses under construction are also excluded

Data Concerns:

Example #3: Notes for Interpretation

• Indicator could be enhanced with a count of the actual number of businesses in the area

• For example, a high percentage of “active” businesses but a low number of commercial addresses might suggest less economic stability

1. User’s Guide to National Arts & Livability Indicators

2. Guide to Local Data Sources and Indicators Relevant to CP

3. NEA/Urban Institute Report on VALI Study, Methodology, and Findings

4. Web Presence for CP Evaluation Tools

VALI Planned Product Releases

7 out of 31 grants awarded in 2012-2013 went to arts and livability related projects

More in the Pipeline

Arts and Livability Related Projects

Other Projects

NEA Research: Art Works Grants Program

QUESTIONS?

Jason SchupbachDirector of Design Programs

CREATIVE PLACEMAKING & LIVABILITY

Sunil IyengarDirector of Research

National Endowment for the Arts