Looking Back to Move Forward

LOOKING BACK

TO MOVE FORWARD

PLACE AND RHYTHMS OF CHANGE

DETROIT, MEMPHIS, AND NEW ORLEANS

LOOKING BACK TO MOVE FORWARD

Copyright © 2024 by rootoftwo

Editors: Cézanne Charles and John Marshall

Co-Authors: Cézanne Charles, John Marshall, Ash Arder, Lauren Rossi and Elizabeth Vander Veen

Book Design: Middlecott Design

Copy Editor: Eva Munz

Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)

rootoftwo is Cézanne Charles’ and John Marshall’s research- and practicedriven art, design, and technology studio. Using participatory methods, rootoftwo facilitates, imagines, and shapes collective actions for more just and equitable transformations. rootoftwo creates innovative and tangible experiences, events, artifacts, spaces, methods, research, and strategies.

https://rootoftwo.com

rootoftwo resides in Waawiiyaatanong (Detroit) – the ancestral, contemporary, and future lands of the Anishinaabe people. We would like to specifically acknowledge the elders and people of the Three Fires Confederacy, an enduring Anishinaabe alliance of the Ojibwe, Odawa, and Bodéwadmi nations.

Looking Back to Move Forward would not have been possible without the generous support of The Kresge Foundation. The Kresge Foundation is a private, national foundation that works to expand equity and opportunities in America’s cities through grantmaking and social investing in arts and culture, education, environment, health, human services, and community development, nationally and in Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans. In collaboration with our partners, we help create pathways for people with low incomes to improve their life circumstances and join the economic mainstream. https://kresge.org/

WELCOME

INTRODUCTION

PART 1

LOOKING BACK TO MOVE FORWARD APPROACH

CREATIVE PEOPLE + PLACE DIMENSIONS

ACCESS + OPPORTUNITIES

ASSETS + INFRASTRUCTURE

EDUCATION + TOOLS

HEALTH + WELL-BEING

MONEY + LEGAL

DISCUSSION

PART 2

LOOKING BACK TO MOVE FORWARD

PROMISING PRACTICES

METHODS + ACTIVITIES

PART 3

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: QUANTITATIVE APPROACHES + ADDITIONAL REPORTING

APPENDIX 2: SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDIX 3: DEFINITION OF TERMS

PART 4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS THANKS + CREDITS

WELCOME

In January 2021, rootoftwo began the participatory, mixed-methods research project called Looking Back to Move Forward to understand the catalysts, foundations, and scaffolds needed to support artists and culture bearers involved in social justice and community development endeavors in Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans.

The three communities faced cumulative challenges – long overdue and persisting reckonings with racial injustice, COVID-19, the continued spread of variants, extreme weather events linked to the climate crisis, and disruptions of travel and in-person gatherings. We took a step back. Our research needed to be more facilitative and adapt the engagement with participants to respect the complex realities of people, place, and moment. Looking Back to Move Forward was always structured as a participatory research project, listening to and learning from participants. In the process, we adjusted our approach based on the insights gathered at each research stage. Ash Arder (transdisciplinary artist), Lauren Rossi (cultural producer), and Elizabeth Vander Veen (integrative designer) grounded and completed our research team.

A WORD ABOUT LANGUAGE

Language and identity often go hand in hand. Both inform how we name and organize in community. This publication references the following terms:

• BIPOC: Black, Indigenous, and all People of Color

• LATINX: Gender-neutral term used to describe people of or that relate to Latin American origin or descent

• SWANA: Southwest Asian North African

• AANHPI: Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander

• ALAANA: African, Latinx, Asian, Arab, and Native-American communities (Grantmakers in the Arts 2020)

These terms do not fully encompass the complicated, multi-faceted, and intersectional nature of indigeneity, native and tribal status, ethnic and racial identities, nationality, or cultural heritage. Wherever possible and appropriate, we used and preferred precise language. Throughout this publication we capitalize capitalize Black, Brown, Latinx, Indigenous, and White when referring to race and ethnicity (Mack and Palfrey 2020).

Throughout the publication, creative practitioner refers to artists, culture bearers, and other culture makers and producers. The term broadly covers people working in and across all artistic and creative disciplines, cultural practices, and traditional knowledge.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INDEBTEDNESS

rootoftwo operates on the occupied territory called Waawiiyaataanong, also known as Detroit. Waawiiyaataanong is part of the ancestral, contemporary, and future lands of three Anishinaabe nations of the Council of Three Fires: the Ojibwe, Odawa, and Bodéwadmi. We benefited from the knowledge and wisdom of participants in New Orleans and Memphis. New Orleans is situated in the place known as Bulbancha, a Choctaw term meaning place of many tongues. This place was inhabited by the Chitimacha nation and served as an essential hub for more than 40 diverse peoples, including Atakapa, Caddo, Choctaw, Houma, Natchez, and Tunica nations. Memphis is the historic homeland of the Chickasaw nation.

Our ability to gather and learn here is the result of continued coercion, dispossession, and colonization. We recognize the grave harms colonialism brought to these lands, including the intertwined legacies of racialized slavery, laws, policies, displacement, and segregation in Detroit and the nation-state. We are grateful for the land itself and the people who have stewarded it through generations.

These acknowledgments do not exist in a past tense or historical context. They persist today. We are committed to building awareness of our present participation in these systems of oppression as we work toward supporting movements for sovereignty, self-determination, justice, equity, and liberation. This is a living acknowledgment, and we will continue to revise and strengthen it in collaboration with community members.

Cézanne + John Partners, rootoftwo

INTRODUCTION

Looking Back to Move Forward was designed to inform strategies and identify opportunities to center racial equity in recovery and renewal efforts for creative practitioners and communities within the context of grantmaking and other investments by funders and intermediaries. To accomplish this, our research team used various methods, such as reviewing over a hundred relevant sources and conducting semistructured conversations with twenty-four BIPOC artists, culture bearers, artist service organizations, and other intermediaries. The team also engaged nine representative artists and culture bearers (three from each city) and shared three self-directed workshop activities with 32 artists and culture bearers to visually map their support networks, barriers, interconnected issues, and critical inflection points related to place-based creative work. The research team continuously reviewed and analyzed the data, resulting in this report including two key sections: Looking Back and Move Forward. Looking Back provides a deep dive into the research approaches, findings, and recommendations. Move Forward shares promising practices from the field as well as methods and activities for engaging and supporting BIPOC artists and culture bearers. The report highlights participants’ experiences surrounding support programs for creative practitioners. The study focuses less on the types of funding and award programs available and desired. Instead, we share reflections and recommendations on issues of process, transparency, relationships, power, and equity in the development and implementation of programs. These specifics can inform future grantmaking and other investments by funders and intermediaries to center racial equity.

BIPOC CREATIVE PRACTICE + PLACE

– A DEEP DIVE

Between February 2021 and March 2022, rootoftwo facilitated:

4 STATISTICAL STUDY OF CREATIVE WORKERS

Analyzed economic, labor, demographic, and digital inclusion data for the three cities from the 2019 American Community Survey

5 STUDIO/ FIELD VISITS

Initiated 36 sustained conversations: nine artists, three from each city, four conversations each, over a threemonth period

1 INTERVIEWS

Conducted sense-making, semistructured conversations with 24 different culture bearers, artists, artist service organizations, and other intermediaries

3 ARTIST AWARDS AND GRANTS FIELD SCAN

Conducted field scan of 48 USbased awards and grants available for artists, including national, regional, city-based (local to Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans), and one international program

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Reviewed 100+ salient research publications and programs

6 WORKSHOP IN A BOX

Shared three self-directed workshop activities with 32 culture bearers and artists

7 MOMENTUM

Organized an online assembly and gathering for all Looking Back to Move Forward participants, facilitating critique and inquiry in response to the research findings and testing of prototype program models

LOOKING BACK TO MOVE FORWARD PART 1

APPROACH

Looking Back to Move Forward engaged artists and culture bearers working at the intersection of social justice, racial equity, and community development endeavors. The aim was to provide funders and other intermediaries with information that could lead to new and reimagined programs and investments. Looking Back to Move Forward was designed to be a highly participatory peer-driven research study on the ground in Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans. However, due to COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns and cumulative challenges faced by artists and culture bearers, the research approach needed to be more facilitative, adaptive, and trauma-informed (Wong 2021). The realities of the pandemic meant that much of the planned in-person and in-community methods and activities had to be rethought. The project aimed to identify opportunities for recovery and renewal efforts that advance racial equity for African, Latinx, Asian, Arab, and Native American artists and organizations in the three cities. rootoftwo played a facilitative role, asking questions and uplifting responses and insights that were meaningful and culturally relevant to the participants. At each stage, the design of the study’s activities created opportunities for the team to recommit to participants and build with them to expand and explore the relationships and networks at the project's core.

METHODS PAR

Looking Back to Move Forward was a participatory action research project that involved ongoing critical dialogue between the research team members and participants. Throughout the project, the research team had weekly meetings to decide on issues and identify roles and responsibilities for any matters arising. Team members collaboratively designed research processes and tools, analyzed findings, and planned future actions by combining their skills and experience. We were all accountable for feeding research back to the project participants and gathering feedback on our process and findings.

PRINCIPLES

The research team established guiding principles that prioritized the values and interests of the community and considered the potential harm the research might cause. Additional team members were added to expand the diversity and scope of experience available within the team. In all decisions, participantsʼ comfort was prioritized over convenience for researchers. We believe those who take on the burdens of research participation should share the benefits of the knowledge gained.

services. Our approach to this data was informed by prominent studies in the arts, such as Artists and Other Cultural Workers: A Statistical Portrait (National Endowment for the Arts 2019) and Arts Workers in California: Creating a More Inclusive Social Contract to Meet Arts Workers’ and Other Independent Contractors’ Needs (Yang et al. 2021). We gathered data at the Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA) level (see Creative People + Place), comparing data by worker occupation groups (See Appendix 1) across various demographic, social, and economic categories. The data provided valuable baselines for each city, though there are some limitations to using the Standard Occupational Codes to capture and reflect the demographic and economic presence of artists, culture bearers, and creative practitioners, especially within smaller geographies, such as cities where there may be insufficient data to produce estimates. We also understand that creative practitioners often engage in legitimate work beyond the purview of formal employment contexts (Yang et al. 2021), which is not reflected within the ACS. These limitations mean that the ACS will likely underrepresent the variation and precarity of creative and artistic labor. Nevertheless, the ACS offered a triangulation source for the qualitative and participatory aspects of the research project.

LITERATURE

To identify relevant literature on philanthropy in the arts and its relation to racial equity, we initially searched and reviewed 113 documents. We identified 33 documents as the most significant for our study. All documents were read and analyzed, and the results were systematized

ARTIST AWARDS AND GRANTS FIELD SCAN

We conducted a field scan of 48 US-based awards and grants available for artists, including national, regional, and city-based programs (local to Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans) and one international program. For each program, we recorded information such as award size and duration, number of awards per year, application and selection processes, and program focus. This field scan provided a comprehensive overview of the philanthropic landscape for artists and culture bearers in the US, highlighting opportunities, needs, and gaps in funding. The research team used the information as a resource throughout the study. The field scan served as a benchmark for the investment and support needed to achieve success in the field.

PARTICIPANT SELECTION

For participant selection in Looking Back to Move Forward, we purposefully chose community members who were most likely to provide valuable information for our study. We targeted African, Latinx, Asian, Arab, and Native American artists and culture bearers in Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans, working at the intersections of community development and social justice. The research team generated a long list of potential participants. Local funders and intermediary organizations were also consulted. The final selection was based on ensuring that various disciplines across performing, visual, and literary arts were represented. The list of approximately seventy practitioners was downselected by including diverse approaches and representation

to minimize barriers and increase inclusivity in research participation is to build long-term, community-based relationships characterized by overt efforts to build equitable relationships. However, we needed more on-the-ground access to achieve this in many respects. We relied heavily on existing networks within the team and local intermediaries, which likely skewed our participant pool. We invited prominent artists or culture bearers in each city to represent subgroups under the ALAANA community. However, we also discovered that some individuals were frequently asked to speak for their communities and declined our invitation due to representation fatigue. We decided not to pursue others because we determined it would be more harmful to include someone simply because they would allow us to check a box exclusively based on their heritage.

INFORMED CONSENT

To ensure that participants understood their rights and could make an informed decision to participate, we provided them with information sheets outlining the research’s purpose, the expected time commitment, and their rights as participants. These information sheets were given to all participants, including those who participated in the 24 semi-structured interviews. All participants received stipends for their involvement, which they were informed about in advance, and they were assured that they would be compensated even if they chose to withdraw from the project. Participants received a range of choices regarding the situations they were willing to discuss, and they learned of the questions they would

notes from debriefing sessions. During the initial meeting, we asked about the participants’ motivation, COVID-19 pandemic-related challenges, resources, goals, and short-, mid-, and long-term plans. For subsequent visits, we discussed participants’ personal and professional successes, challenges, and terminology or framing of issues. These conversations provided rich information about the participants’ work context, allowing us to deeply understand their activities and creative processes over an extended period, building a rich picture of their experiences. We compensated all BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants and had several compensation options available. The field notes from these conversations allowed us insights unavailable through our other data collection techniques and provided vital context for understanding that data. Originally, these encounters were planned as weeklong immersions in each city. Due to ongoing travel restrictions, they were expanded and adapted, as discussed above.

WORKSHOP IN A BOX

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown and online meeting fatigue, we utilized a self-guided cultural probe called Workshop in a Box to gather insights from 32 BIPOC artist- and culture bearer participants (Gaver, Dunne, and Pacenti 1999). The conversations with Studio Visit participants identified key issues that led to the Workshop in a Box activities — exploring ecosystems and networks (Circuit Diagram), communications and relationships (The Gathering), and future-oriented planning and program development (In 2030…). Interviewee artists and those who were primary participants in the Workshop in a Box. They were encouraged to invite others from their networks to participate, while the research team added additional artists and culture bearers to broaden engagement. Participants were given three weeks to complete and return the three included worksheets in a pre-paid envelope or by emailing photos of the worksheets back to us. The worksheets were designed to generate individualized insights on how best to support and honor the various practices across the group from Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans. Participants were encouraged to prioritize breaks, self-care, and everyday life while completing the activities. The box also contained refreshments sourced from small, BIPOC, LGBTQ+, womxnowned, or social enterprises based in our three cities as well as Baltimore. All participants were compensated, regardless of whether they completed

MOMENTUM

The Momentum: Placekeeping and Rhythms of Change activation was a three-hour virtual gathering for all Looking Back to Move Forward contributors. During the first two hours, BIPOC artists and culture bearers shared and reflected on their work, evaluated the action and reflection processes, and collectively identified recommendations for future programs, investments, and opportunities to support their communities. They also offered honest critical feedback on the research findings and ensured that the requests to funding organizations, intermediaries, and service providers were accurate and aligned with their views. In the final hour, funders and intermediaries were invited to a moderated panel discussion featuring four creative practitioners from the three cities. As panelists, they shared perspectives on what it means to offer transformative support for BIPOC artists, culture bearers, and their communities. All participants were given several options for compensation.

SENSE-MAKING

The research team used a sense-making methodology (Dervin 2003) to structure their interactions with participants throughout Looking Back to Move Forward. This approach involved asking participants to talk about a situation step by step and to describe what they needed to make sense of each step. The interviewers used iterative sense-making questions to understand better the participants’ experiences, perspectives, and histories. This allowed the team to gain insights into the nature and direction of artists and culture bearers working in place-based social justice contexts, the pre-conditions of place, and system supports that are existing, missing, failing, and succeeding. The approach also helped to identify the immediate past and present context for creative work and ecosystem challenges presented by COVID-19. Using this approach, the team could respectfully explore sensitive topics and obtain detailed information about each participant’s unique perspective while mitigating biases within the team.

ANALYSIS

Throughout Looking Back to Move Forward, the research team used various methods to examine the information gathered and generated by our engagement with artists and culture bearers from Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans. Our goal was to problematize our assumptions and

develop comprehension so that we could communicate what artists and culture bearers want for themselves and their communities and test potential programmatic and grantmaking models that would support this. The research team sought to explore phenomena through the application of complementary methods (e.g., a literature review, awards and Grants Field Scan, a review of exemplar promising practices, semistructured sense-making Interviews, Studio Visits, Cultural Probes, and a network gathering) to collect, verify or contest information as a means of triangulation (Jick 1979). Using these methods in iterative cycles allowed us to elicit and categorize responses to describe and explain relationships and document individual experiences from participants.

Our analysis aimed to produce a thick description (Geertz 1973) of artists’ and culture bearers’ thoughts, emotions, and behavior regarding philanthropy beyond mere descriptions of situations. Our goal was to generate recommendations from these that funders and intermediaries could use to meet these artists’ and culture bearersʼ preferences, expectations, and concerns. Our overarching approach to analysis involved reading through published literature, interview transcripts, other collected documents, and our notes to identify the main concepts and issues arising as descriptive or conceptual labels (codes) and then categorizing and developing these into an analytical framework (Ritchie and Spencer 1994) based on the topics and themes discussed. This was achieved using multiple methods, such as affinity mapping (Doria 2019), to discern patterns and think-aloud protocols (Lewis 1982) to articulate key preferences, issues, and concerns.

At each step, discoveries were shared among the project team members in analytical sessions using Mural, an online visual collaboration platform. This form of peer debriefing (Lincoln and Guba 1985) allowed us to review and assess field notes, codes, themes, and dimensions from the research, uncover biases and assumptions, and provide opportunities to test and defend emergent theories. Each team member’s positionality, subjective knowledge, skills, and values contributed to the research. All team members assessed whether critical points had been missed or were overemphasized. They also provided rationales for selecting participants at each stage and were involved in co-designing research protocols and approaches.

SUMMARY

Looking Back to Move Forward is a mixed-methods study – engaging both qualitative and quantitative approaches. In parallel, data collection and analysis methods produced insights at each phase and helped shape subsequent steps. The quantitative data provided an initial baseline or snapshot for understanding and comparing the particulars of each city. In contrast, the qualitative focused on developing a rich knowledge of artists’ and culture bearers’ individual and daily experiences (pathways, barriers, issues, and networks). The methods allow for breadth, depth, and triangulation within the study.

The scope of Looking Back to Move Forward was designed to elicit insights and evidence that provide rich storytelling, case-making, and recommendations for new and or strengthened interventions, programs, funding, and other strategic supports for artists and culture bearers in their roles as:

• Creative practitioners – Making a life and, at times, a living through their work and practice

• Activists, advocates, and translators – Working at the intersections of social justice and social transformation on a broad range of issues

• Neighbors, community members, and residents – Working at the intersection of city-building, community development, economies of solidarity, and mutual aid

Throughout the process, mechanisms were in place to ensure that participants understood what it meant to participate in the research study so they could decide consciously and deliberately whether to participate. All participants were compensated for their time and insight at every project stage. The target audience for this work is funders, intermediaries, and other researchers. However, it is also crucial to confirm that the research accurately reflects what the BIPOC artists and culture bearers shared and how they shared it. We have endeavored to ensure that the research findings effectively address the participants' perspectives, avoid being extractive, and provide practical utility for their needs and goals.

CREATIVE PEOPLE + PLACE

DETROIT, MI

MEMPHIS, TN

NEW ORLEANS, LA

PEOPLE

Looking Back to Move Forward centers the stories and experiences of primarily Black, Latinx, and SWANA artists and culture bearers in the majority Black cities of Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans. The study engaged participants with diverse backgrounds, such as varying genders, abilities, immigrant experiences, LGBTQ+ identities, and multi-racial or multi-ethnic identities, aged between mid-20s and early 50s. The research reflects a broad understanding of creativity. It includes artists and culture bearers from various disciplines, emphasizing those with practices rooted in place and engaging directly with community members, organizations, and development.

The quantitative snapshots use federal statistics from the American Community Survey and select data from additional sources such as the National Endowment for the Arts and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Conducted by the US Census Bureau, the Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS) of the American Community Survey (ACS) 2019 1-year estimates provide key household statistics for Creative Workers and All Workers. The selection of occupational codes relies on research from the report Artists and Other Cultural Workers: A Statistical Portrait (National Endowment for the Arts, 2019). The complete list of occupational codes used in this study is provided in Appendix 1, with comparisons to the NEA’s classifications.

For quantitative snapshots, we have used the label Creative Workers to preserve the use of the terms artists, culture bearers, and creative practitioners to reflect broader understandings of creative endeavors by people which may not be captured sufficiently through the prism of the American Community Survey (see Appendix 1). BIPOC labels within the quantitative snapshots refer to the aggregation of data for Black or African American, Latinx/Hispanic, AANHPI (Asian or Asian American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander), Native American (American Indian or Alaskan Native), Multiracial or other, race and ethnicity groups as classified by the US Census Bureau. For each data snapshot, fully disaggregated data is available from linked publications for each city (see Appendix 1).

PLACE

Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMA)1 were used to build relevant city- and location-level profiles for Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans. Data at the individual PUMA level was reviewed for each city to understand the overall impact each PUMA had on the location. For clarity, it is presented in this study aggregated into city profiles (see Appendix 1).

DETROIT

The ACS 2019 estimates for Detroit include the PUMAs Detroit City (Northeast), Detroit City (North Central), Detroit City (Northwest), Detroit City (Southwest), and the locations of interest Wayne County (Northeast) I-94 Corridor and Wayne County (Central) Dearborn and Dearborn Heights Cities. The Wayne County Northeast PUMA contains part of East Detroit and the cities of Hamtramck, Highland Park, Harper Woods, and the communities of Grosse Pointe.

MEMPHIS

The ACS 2019 estimates for Memphis include the PUMAs Memphis City (Central Midtown), Memphis City (Central Riverside), Memphis City (Southwest), Memphis City (Southeast), Memphis (North) & Bartlett (Southwest) Cities, and Memphis (East), Lakeland Cities and Arlington Town (South). To include locations of interest in Memphis (North) and Memphis (East), data for Bartlett, Lakeland, and Arlington Town also had to be included.

NEW ORLEANS

The ACS 2019 estimates for New Orleans include the PUMAs New Orleans City (Northeast), New Orleans City (Central), New Orleans City (South), and the neighboring locations of interest Jefferson Parish (West Bank), and St. Bernard, Jefferson (South) and Plaquemines Parishes.

1 Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMAs) are non-overlapping, statistical geographic areas that partition each state or equivalent entity into geographic areas containing at least 100,000 people each. They cover the entirety of the United States, Puerto Rico, and Guam. The Census Bureau defines PUMAs for tabulating and disseminating decennial census and American Community Survey (ACS) Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) data. The ACS and Puerto Rico Community Survey also use them to disseminate their respective period estimates. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/geo-areas/pumas.html

CREATIVE PEOPLE + PLACE OVERVIEW

Working with our data partners, Data Driven Detroit, the team developed its basic approach to collecting and reviewing information from the American Community Survey from March to July 2021. The survey provides a variety of demographic and other characteristics of interest to our understanding of the pre-conditions of place concerning creative workers. The latest available data at the time of collection was the 2019 1-year estimates. Clearly, this data would serve as a baseline snapshot of the conditions before the COVID-19 pandemic. Our approach, where possible, takes an intentional racial equity lens so that we are disaggregating data that would otherwise mask inequalities faced by BIPOC workers. This report presents this as aggregated categories labeled BIPOC Creative Workers and BIPOC Other Workers. We prioritized information from the ACS related to the study’s five thematic dimensions, covering topics like employment and earnings, digital inclusion and homeownership, health insurance coverage, educational attainment, and more. This snapshot provides summary data and serves as an orientation for the snapshots in this report's Dimensions section.

CREATIVE PEOPLE + PLACE

TOTAL WORKERS

In 2019, there were 7,500 Creative Workers in Detroit, 7,453 in Memphis, and 11,401 in New Orleans. This represents 1.6, 1.8, and 3.1 percent of the labor force. BIPOC Creative Workers account for 0.8 (Detroit), 0.7 (Memphis), and 1.1 (New Orleans) percent of the labor force. The low representation of BIPOC Creative Workers within the labor force for our three cities is consistent with findings from the National Endowment of the Arts. For context, in 2012-2016, the NEA reported that nearly 36 percent of US workers were Non-White or Hispanic 1; for artists, that share was just under 25 percent.

1 Non-White includes people of the following races: Hispanic (of any race), African American, Asian; American Indian or Alaska Native; Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander; some other race; and people of two or more races. Source: Artists and Other Cultural Workers: A Statistical Portrait pp.12

Source: Authors’ calculations using the American Community Survey 2019 1-year estimates. The labor force includes all employed and unemployed persons. This data excludes retired persons and others who are neither working nor seeking work.

CREATIVE PEOPLE + PLACE

CORE CREATIVE WORKERS + RELATED CREATIVE WORKERS

The data was initially collected and reviewed within the classifications of Core Creative Workers and Related Creative Workers. Below is a summary description of each category.

Core Creative Workers include architects, artists and related workers, designers, actors, producers and directors, dancers and choreographers, musicians, entertainers, announcers, writers and authors, and photographers. The classification Core Creative Workers contains 20 unique SOC codes that closely map to the NEA’s Artist Occupations classification.

Related Creative Workers include occupations such as archivists, curators, and museum technicians; librarians and media collections specialists; editors; other media and communications workers; television, video, and motion picture camera operators and editors; and other entertainment attendants and related workers. The classification Related Creative Workers contains 18 unique SOC codes that closely map to the NEA’s Other Cultural Occupations classification.

Looking Back to Move Forward represents a deep desire to understand and reflect the conditions for BIPOC artists and culture bearers. As a result, the quantitative snapshots focus on comparing BIPOC Creative Workers to their White counterparts and other BIPOC workers. This necessitated the consolidation of the Core Creative Workers and Related Creative Workers into the Creative Workers label. For each data snapshot, the information broken down by Core Creative Workers and Related Creative Workers is available from linked publications for each city (see Appendix 1).

Within Creative Workers, there are two categories: Core Creative Workers and Related Creative Workers. Presented as Count and Percentage by City.

CREATIVE PEOPLE + PLACE BIPOC CREATIVE WORKERS

The 2020 US Census indicates that 77.9, 64.6, and 58.1 percent of the population are Black or African American for Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans, respectively. Black or African American makes up the majority of our aggregated BIPOC label in all three cities, with Hispanic/Latinx the second largest group for Detroit and New Orleans. For Memphis Creative

Workers, AANHPI is the second largest group; for All Workers and BIPOC Other Workers, Hispanic/Latinx is the second largest group. Given that our focus is on cities and metro regions, there are limitations within the data for smaller geographies compared to state and national-level data. The primary implication is that some of the Creative Worker occupation codes do not have enough significant presence to produce reliable

DETROIT

CREATIVE PEOPLE + PLACE

SUMMARY

The quantitative data on creative workers reflects the experiences of workers for whom this is their primary occupation. The ACS doesn’t include information for multiple job holding. Many artists and culture bearers do their creative work as a second job, side hustle, or outside the formal labor market. While not entirely reflective of who is an artist, culture bearer, or creative practitioner, the data provides clear insights into characteristics explored in the next section that would be difficult to collect and analyze by other means. The quantitative data offers opportunities to describe the underlying context to better ground this research project’s qualitative and participatory aspects.

DIMENSIONS

Throughout Looking Back to Move Forward, we created affinity-based clusters (Kawakita 1982) of topics from our notes and insights to form research-based themes or dimensions. These were initially constructed during the analysis of our sense-making Interviews with creative practitioners and intermediaries from Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans. At that stage, we used eight dimensions to code and organize key qualitative data points: Access, Assets, Economics, Education, Health and Wellness, Infrastructure, Relationships, and Tools. These topics had many overlaps and adjacencies and were refined iteratively over subsequent stages of this research study.

For example, for the Circuit Diagram activity from the Workshop in a Box, we used the following:

• Access + Opportunities

• Assets + Infrastructure

• Education + Tools

• Equity + Justice

• Health + Wellness

• Money + Legal

In the final analysis, we have employed only five of these and extracted Equity + Justice, which cuts across all dimensions by the nature of our study. The remaining five dimensions are presented alphabetically, not by importance, to organize the study’s key findings.

ACCESS + OPPORTUNITIES

Across the various qualitative approaches, we explored situations related to access and opportunities arising from funding programs and other validation systems for creative practitioners. We also considered the possibilities and networks for creative practitioners to share their work with relevant audiences and communities.

Many artist and culture bearer participants indicated that they have a complicated relationship with funders and intermediaries – appreciative that the support exists while calling out the exclusionary practices, behaviors, and norms prevalent within the grant and professional development programs available to them. In November 2021, rootoftwo conducted a field scan of grantmaking programs for creative practitioners as part of the research. By and large, the programs reviewed were fellowships or project grants targeted primarily at individuals with panel, jury, or nomination processes ranging from six months to a year to get from application to award and grant periods of 12-18 months. Over a third of the 48 programs reviewed were actively reviewing and overhauling their existing programs at the time of the field scan. The field scan provided background information for understanding the concerns shared by BIPOC artists and culture bearer participants from the three cities focused on how the awards:

• Recognize, validate, and value creative work and labor

• Impact their livelihoods and relationships with their peers and creative ecosystems

• Intersect with community and place (e.g. place-making, placekeeping, place-tending, etc.)

The initial sense-making Interviews invited participants to recount the situations in which they sought funding or support for their practice. We invited them to walk through the journey/process and identify help and barriers they experienced. These Interviews revealed a common perception that award programs were take-them-as-is or leave-them resources. Participants indicated a lack of transparency around how the programs were designed and implemented and by what process artists

“Iʼve been a part of projects where we donʼt have that institutional structure, we donʼt have that 501(c)(3), we donʼt have that board. Does that mean that the work that weʼre doing is any less meaningful? Because weʼre still trying to give people opportunity.”

Detroit Artist + Culture Bearer

and culture bearers could participate in program critique, evaluation, and evolution—regardless of whether a creative practitioner received the award or not. Interviewees also stressed that open calls, open applications, and openness to feedback should not be mistaken for inclusive and equitable processes and practices.

One participant shared an example of a nomination-only award program that helps artists while they complete the application process. Nomination awards can seem exclusionary, but for this artist, the thoughtful and responsive assistance they received from the grantmaker made them feel like they weren’t just jumping through unnecessary hoops.

As we continued to probe the dimension of Access + Opportunities with our Studio Visit participants, questions of agency and flexibility dominated and animated our conversations. Participants wanted to be engaged throughout the design and decision-making process for funding programs and other opportunities. Many acknowledged the complexity of establishing and managing structures to support increased accountability and transparency, noting that representative artists and

“When you create a project, you really have no transactional expectation. Then that project becomes super big, and everybody has this blank check that they’re trying to cash.”

New Orleans Artist + Culture Bearer

community advisories (standing or rotating) would be one possible means of addressing this concern.

One participant shared their positive experience with a national peerto-peer award program they had received because the program was crafted from beginning to end involving the artists. They stated that this inclusive approach gave them the confidence to ask for flexibility related to a program component during the grant period and to know that the request would be heard and respected.

Studio Visit participants shared other examples of programs that were evolving positively by:

• Streamlining the application process (e.g., expediting turnaround with fewer and more precise questions)

• Refining flexibility in the award process (e.g., adjusting grant period, requirements, and payment procedures)

• Improving the suitability of awards (e.g., providing self-determined support for process, R&D/experimentation, self-care/well-being, capacity, infrastructure, etc.)

• Enhancing communication and messaging regarding awards (e.g., clarifying the selection process, monetary and non-monetary support, and advocating for supporting artists and culture bearers)

Related to their experiences with funding explicitly designed for BIPOC artists and culture bearers, examples tended to highlight communityspecific forms of storytelling, tradition-bearing, or organizing practices. Many stated that BIPOC-focused grant programs still operated within Eurocentric constructs of the individual artist. Even when collectives or collaboratives were invited to apply, it was clear that this was considered a deviation rather than the norm (e.g., use of the language of lead applicant, seemingly arbitrary limitations on numbers of collaborators, requirements for each to apply individually, questions asking to specify roles). On the positive side, participants noted that the application, panel, and nomination/invitation processes for BIPOC-focused programs offered improved clarity and transparency. During the sense-making Interviews, a New Orleans-based funder and intermediary related their story about how they worked to explicitly ensure that BIPOC artists were seen in the jury process – starting with demonstrating their approach to racial equity and composition in the selection process. The intermediary noted that at that point, they hadn’t made too many other program changes but that this initial change shifted the whole way the jury was able to operate and, as a result, how they, as a grantmaker, built trust with BIPOC artists and culture bearers.

Participants also indicated that they had turned away from some of the artists’ relief and emergency awards (BIPOC-specific or otherwise) available to them to develop frameworks for themselves and others that generate funding and mutual aid without perpetuating oppressive and colonial structures. They stated that some artists’ relief and emergency awards processes required them to prove their distress and hardship (economic, environmental, physical, etc.) through the requested narrative statements. One interviewee stated, “I felt like throughout this grant, I was reliving my trauma, reliving the situation I’m in. I have to explain it in detail because that’s what they were asking for. It was stripping me. This process of asking for funding was stripping me of my dignity in order to live, in order for my practice to survive.” Participants in the Workshop in a Box activities and the Momentum gathering indicated their wish for relationships with funders and intermediaries to be grounded in respect and care, intending to create equitable funding and pathways for greater resiliency.

All the BIPOC artists and culture bearers who participated in Looking Back to Move Forward shared a desire for their livelihoods, not solely to

depend on philanthropy and grant funding. Increasingly, participants stated that they value funders and intermediaries for their ability to use their knowledge, experience, positionality, and relationships to advocate and effect broader changes that lead to better conditions and ecosystems for creative work and practices. Participants believed that too often, funders and intermediaries rely on assumptions or generalizations about creative labor and its value to places, neighborhoods, and communities. With transparent evidence, expertise, and care driving any decision-making process; participants encourage funder and intermediary organizations to seek input from those directly impacted and implicated in place-based programs.

Funding and other supportive programs for creative practitioners are interventions into existing dynamic ecosystems that can have both positive and negative impacts and network effects. Throughout the Studio Visits and Workshop in a Box activities, more details surfaced about how the awards impact their livelihoods and relationships with their peers and creative ecosystems. Participants strongly indicated that they rely on their peer artists and culture bearers for Access + Opportunities (e.g., presentation of their work, knowledge, skills exchange, fundraising, etc.), mutual aid, and professional and personal relationships.

Given the significant and complicated structures for creative practitioners, our research focused on understanding some of the negative and unforeseen impacts experienced by participants. For example, one of the participants received a no-strings-attached public award that resulted in a loss of income-based health insurance and tense interactions with peers, friends, and family sparked by a perception of wealth. At the time, the funder did not provide any flexibility in payment of the grant award, and professional development programs addressed budgeting, finance, and tax but not the emotional and personal relationship awardees might have to money, wealth, and well-being.

Participants in the study expressed concern about the impact of awards on creative practitioners, particularly in contributing to a perception of winners and losers and potentially narrowing the range of approaches and practices. Awards often have specific models, viewpoints, and assumptions about the creative practices they support (conscious and unconscious). If an award program is one of the only available at the local level, it can send a message that this is the only acceptable model for successful creative practitioners. Participants felt pressure to constantly shift their practice to receive funding. Winning an award can also lead to

other opportunities and resources, creating a ripple effect that benefits a few artists, culture bearers, and their networks. This can limit the diversity of creative approaches and practices supported as artists and culture bearers attempt to make their ideas and works conform to what has previously been successful. Participants suggested that having a greater diversity of awards reflecting a range of creative practice models could help mitigate these effects. However, this is a challenge in the three cities studied, where few award programs are available to creative practitioners. Of those, many emphasize community benefit, city building, and efforts to create vibrancy, both overtly and implied.

After decades-long work and investments to position the arts and artists within community development (Sherman, Hand, and Bruck 2020), the BIPOC artists and culture bearer participants in this study indicated that they still felt, at best, that the relationships were transactional and, at worst, perpetuated actual harm in the communities they live and work. The research findings suggest a need to recognize and support the complex relationship between BIPOC artists and culture bearers and their communities. Interviews provided examples of participants’ deep work alongside community members to build collective power and create positive change. Moreover, participants indicated that placebased funding programs would benefit from adding affected community members into project and artist selection and decision-making processes. This approach allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of potential creative projects while also ensuring that the voices of community members are prioritized and amplified.

However, participants expressed concern that many place-based funding programs perpetuate scarcity models that can lead to distrust and broken relationships between communities and artists, with artists indicating that their creative labor is undervalued. This is particularly evident in projects where artists are often used as under-resourced labor, and community members rarely receive financial support for their contributions. One interviewee gave the example of a city agency whose original draft request for proposals and budget for a mural project only had $500 allocated to the artist fee for a large site. As an artist and consultant on the project, the interviewee encountered the need to educate their client, specifically in advocating for a more equitable artist fee and including stipends for community advisory members. Through our discussions with Studio Visit participants, we uncovered this

shared experience among them: having to engage in the unseen and uncompensated work of educating clients, partners, commissioners, organizations, and intermediaries. This labor often served as a driving force behind their preferred involvement in self- and community-initiated projects, where they took on the financial burden themselves, but did not have to do the additional labor. Recognizing and addressing these issues can foster greater equity and collaboration between BIPOC artists and their communities.

For some Studio Visit participants, issues and concerns arose from how the money and resources changed and challenged longstanding community and peer relationships. One participant expressed doubts about the sustainability of supporting their project and community partners after tapping out local funders, networks, and peers. They are now overcommunicating about the financial and capacity resources and realities to partners and peers so everyone knows there will be peaks and troughs, disruptions, and hiatuses – based on when funding is secured. The participant indicated that community members are mostly understanding of this approach. Still, they feel the pressure and responsibility to deliver more consistently, knowing that the community’s trust can’t be taken for granted. Another artist described their work with communities as “…this is a space I’ve been invited into. I have a responsibility. This is not about me; this is about all those people who have not been invited into those rooms.” One intermediary spoke about how they view their role and responsibility, indicating that the challenge is “that inclusion is not just removing barriers but creating slopes” for those who otherwise would remain excluded.

For Workshop in a Box and the Momentum gathering, we invited and included BIPOC artists and culture bearers whose work spans communitybased social practice and more conventional studio-based approaches to music, performance, creative technology, and visual art practice. One participant declared that their work and identity as an artist was a social justice statement. Their work was not created through community engagement or decision-making processes. Instead, it spoke to issues, lifeways, and cultural aesthetics vital to the Black community in their city, and they argued that this should be as worthy of support as community placemaking projects. During the Momentum gathering, some participants expressed frustration that as BIPOC artists and culture bearers, they were disproportionately expected to work in community-

“I’ve seen the horror stories where something started for Black people, and then it became for people of color. And then it became for everybody. And I’m not going to lie, and I’m not quite interested in that.”

Memphis Artist + Culture Bearer

engaged and directed ways or that their creative work should narrowly focus on issues of identity compared to their White counterparts. This discussion prompted reflection that the terms socially engaged and social justice as applied to artists’ and culture bearers’ creative practice has perhaps become much more narrowly understood, in contrast to the variation across spectrums as reported in Mapping the Landscape of Socially Engaged Artistic Practice (Frasz and Sidford 2017).

Creative practitioners, particularly BIPOC artists and culture bearers, often face significant barriers when accessing funding programs and other validation systems. When they do secure these opportunities, they feel a deep sense of responsibility to use them to uplift their communities and represent those who have not been afforded the same access. In this context, it becomes essential for messaging around awards and fellowships to emphasize the value and benefit that these creative practitioners bring to their communities rather than simply the amount of money spent. Beyond the resources they provide, participants indicated that funders and intermediaries could better advocate and frame the intrinsic value of artists.

ACCESS + OPPORTUNITIES

QUANTITATIVE SNAPSHOT OVERVIEW

This section considers key characteristics of employment across Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans. From the literature review and participatory aspects of this research, artists are more likely to hold multiple jobs than their non-artist counterparts. For national context, 2.4 million workers were employed as artists in their primary occupation in 2017. That same year, an estimated 333,000 workers held second jobs as artists, roughly adding 12 percent to the total artist employment of 2.7 million workers (National Endowment for the Arts 2019, p 5). In addition to holding multiple jobs, artists are more likely to be self-employed. The publications Creativity Connects: Trends and Conditions Affecting U.S. Artists (Center for Cultural Innovation 2016) and Arts Workers in California (Yang et al. 2021) address the challenges, dilemmas, and opportunities for artists navigating contingent and gig working. Both publications outline recommendations for building a more inclusive social contract, not just for artists but to benefit all workers. Here, we dive into the self-employment and working hours for BIPOC Creative Workers in Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans.

ACCESS + OPPORTUNITIES SELF-EMPLOYMENT

Source: Authors’ calculations using the American Community Survey 2019 1-year estimates. Worker Classification indicates whether respondents worked for their own enterprise(s) (Self-employed) or someone else as employees (Works for Wages). Workers with multiple sources of employment were classified according to the work relationship in which they spent the most time during the reference day or week.

Creative Workers are more than three times more likely to be self-employed than All Workers. BIPOC Creative Workers are more likely to be self-employed when compared to Other BIPOC Workers. While BIPOC Creative Workers are less likely to be self-employed than their White counterparts, the variances are insignificant. While self-employment may often be regarded as providing increased flexibility and agency, participants in this study were more likely to indicate that their time was instead spread between many competing demands and responsibilities. Participants consistently said that programs and services needed to better align and accommodate their work realities.

ACCESS + OPPORTUNITIES

WEEKLY HOURS

Source: Authors’ calculations using the American Community Survey 2019 1-year estimates. This reports the number of hours the respondent usually worked per week if the person worked during the previous year. The ACS uses the last 12 months as the reference period. This consolidates data within three groups: 0-19, 20-39, and 40+. Appendix 1 contains five groupings of hours to reflect overwork percentages (defined as 50+ hours).

BIPOC participants in the study routinely discussed the idea of the invisible unpaid and excluded labor they perform in their homes (as caregivers), in their communities (as neighbors and stewards), and in maintaining their personal and professional networks outside of working hours. With this context in mind, Creative Workers are less likely to work 40+ hours a week than All Workers. BIPOC Creative Workers are less likely to work 40+ hours a week than their White counterparts. The differences are minor for Detroit and Memphis.

ACCESS + OPPORTUNITIES

RECOMMENDATIONS

Involve artists and culture bearers in all stages of a funding program to enhance flexibility and empower their agency. relationships with BIPOC artists and culture bearers, it is recommended to adopt the following strategies:

• Establish regular and transparent feedback processes that allow artists to provide input and share their experiences. This demonstrates a commitment to valuing their voices and incorporating their perspectives.

• Actively engage with artists’ communities through participation in community events, exhibitions, performances, readings, and other experiences. This direct engagement helps build connections and understanding within the artistic community.

• Prioritize seeking new voices and perspectives, avoiding the temptation to rely on the same artists as usual out of convenience.

• Embrace diversity and inclusivity in programming to ensure a broad representation of artistic voices.

• Create a culture of learning and flexibility by encouraging programs and resources to have a high tolerance for failure and a willingness to experiment. This allows creative practitioners to adapt their plans based on the realities they encounter, fostering an environment conducive to growth and innovation.

Create programs that value artists and culture bearers as part of existing ecosystems and networks built on trust. BIPOC artists and culture bearer participants want to build trust and relationships with funders and intermediaries over time. Participants indicated that more face-to-face (in-person or online) and informal communication (texts and phone calls) are preferred instead of just submitting forms and reports. The research also suggests that funders and intermediaries would benefit from regular interaction with BIPOC artists and culture bearers as a network of peers rather than individual relationships, particularly for those doing place-based work. This could lead to better recognition of networks and groups of artists and communities or create more informed existing programs that can anticipate and be sensitive to the complexity of on the ground relationships.

Co-define and create with artists and culture bearers the structures and processes for working together based on mutuality and clarity. Participants indicated a strong preference for funders and intermediaries to increase transparency and accountability, bringing clarity to: What they are providing and what they are not What is expected of the artist and what can be negotiated or adapted

Providing explanations, answering questions, and receiving feedback

The ideal is for programs, their evaluation, and the reporting or metrics expected of artists to be co-designed with the awardees, community members, or representative advisories (as appropriate). Participants also welcomed application processes that provide alternative opportunities for those not awarded or selected (e.g., promotion of shortlisted artists or projects, feedback on their application and summaries from panels and juries, invitations to professional development, etc.). BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants recognize the power dynamics, hierarchies, and bureaucracy in their interactions with funders and intermediaries. Participants call for funders and intermediaries to take responsibility for mitigating these power dynamics and hierarchies, creating opportunities for increased reciprocity in their relationships.

ACCESS + OPPORTUNITIES

SUMMARY

• Artists and culture bearers seek to leverage awards and opportunities to maximize benefits without reinforcing a scarcity mindset among their peers.

• Artists and culture bearers seek partnerships with funders and intermediaries that respect their agency and allow them to make decisions aligned with their needs and aspirations.

• Building productive relationships with funders and intermediaries based on trust and shared power is a common goal for artist and culture bearer participants.

Peers and community members play a core role in many of our participants’ creative practices. BIPOC artists and culture bearer participants are interested in the evolution of awards, programs, services, and other opportunities that recognize the interdependence of creative and community networks. Participants are looking for funders and intermediaries to be more mindful of the negative disruptive effects of their interventions while encouraging the development of programs and organizations designed to benefit these networks. This could look like more significant resources for BIPOC artist-led or artist-centered intermediaries (collectives, co-operatives, micro-, and meso-non-profits) that provide critical infrastructure, advocacy, and support for artists and culture bearers. It could also mean investing in novel forms of funding—like guaranteed income and artist employment programs. Participants also communicated that not being selected for an opportunity should be the beginning or continuation of a relationship with a funder or intermediary and not the end — transforming the no to a not yet. As creative people and community members, they expressed a strong desire to engage with funders and intermediaries to cooperatively develop new and evolve existing programs, funding, and services based on mutualism. Trust is necessary to upend the status quo, the imbalances in social arrangements, and the hierarchies that define artists’ relationships with funders and intermediaries. Funders and intermediaries need to take meaningful steps to engage in productive building with BIPOC artists and culture bearers.

ASSETS + INFRASTRUCTURE

The research study focused on the tangible and intangible assets, infrastructure, connectivity, equipment, and property developed or required by creative practitioners to sustain their practice, networks, and communities. We were also interested in the means and models of interest to creative practitioners in attaining and maintaining assets and infrastructure.

BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants emphasized that they are community members whose lives and work are impacted by the availability and status of broader community assets and infrastructure. The quantitative snapshot provided background information on housing and digital inclusion. Throughout our engagement with participants, we mainly focused on understanding their situations and identifying commonalities and differences in their experiences. One consistent theme that emerged was the importance of having safe, affordable, stable, and secure places to live and work to sustain their creative practices. Given the place-based framing of the study, we observed stark contrasts in the availability of assets and infrastructure for creative practitioners. On one side, many of our participants and their peers have significant experience contributing to vibrant community assets through public art, placekeeping, community development projects, and social justice work. Conversely, they lack access to quality assets, infrastructure, and amenities to support their lives and livelihoods. In relation to assets and infrastructure, BIPOC artists and culture bearer participants expressed the need for:

• Multi-year, flexible funding

• Pathways to property ownership

• Recognition of emerging models in organizing and entity types

From the Interviews, Studio Visits, and In 2030… workshop activity, participants expressed clear visions for their creative work, practice, and organizational structures. In addition, they modeled ways of working that build and share power with peers and community members to address systemic racial equity issues, including the wealth gap.1

Throughout the study, participants consistently expressed the need for more sustainable, adaptable, and forgiving funding. They desired a funding model that would empower them to make strategic investments in themselves and the necessary infrastructure for their practice. Specifically, they highlighted the importance of multi-year general operating support, which provides flexibility and resources without overly restrictive conditions. Studio Visit participants emphasized that while awards provide valuable financial resources, they often lack additional support, such as access to specialists or expert advisors who can assist with asset and infrastructure development. One participant said, “I want to work with someone with a longer-term view of assets, infrastructure, and community that is intergenerational and considers the legacy of those doing the work.” More than just access to legal, financial, and real estate professionals, BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants are looking for these specialists to be values-aligned, with the capacity to help them anticipate and mitigate challenges in this realm. Participants also indicated that no strings attached awards, with a few exceptions at the national level, tended to be for 12 months and were impractical for pursuing ambitions focused on developing assets and infrastructure.

1 Wealth is the financial value of what an individual or household owns (assets) minus what they owe (debts). Beyond an accounting of income inequality, the racial wealth gap measures disparities experienced by race and ethnicity, usually in contrast to White households. The overwhelming disparities stem from the present and the legacy of generational racist policies and actions that held back people of color from wealth building. Participants candidly spoke about and referenced the racial wealth gap throughout the study. It was beyond the quantitative research scope to investigate the racial wealth gap for creative workers within the three cities. However, the study does report on income and earnings within the Money + Legal quantitative snapshot. To better inform our thinking around policies and programs that address assets and infrastructure, the team reviewed:

Closing the racial wealth gap requires heavy, progressive taxation of wealth (Williamson 2020)

Addressing the Racial Wealth Gap for an Inclusive Recovery (Milner 2021)

How the racial wealth gap has evolved—and why it persists (McKay 2022)

Racial Differences in Economic Security: The Racial Wealth Gap (Harris and Wertz 2022)

As community members and creative practitioners, participants in the Momentum gathering expressed that they deserve to be valued for their strengths and not defined by their problems and experiences of disadvantage. The civic and creative capacities of BIPOC artists and culture bearers, if recognized and appropriately resourced, can have tangible beneficial community impacts (Springboard for the Arts and Helicon Collaborative 2018). However, participants cautioned against drawing a direct line or rushing to measure impact, highlighting several challenges that arise when funders and intermediaries prioritize outcomes over the needs of creative practitioners. During the gathering, participants expressed their perception that many project and place-based funding programs are primarily focused on producing beneficial results for communities and neighborhoods rather than supporting the needs of creative practitioners. This approach can lead to a sense of instrumentalization among artists and culture bearers. Furthermore, participants felt that the specific framing of their work (such as placemaking, city building, or community impact) created unnecessary expectations and burdens that detracted from their creative process.

under-supported they and their partners were during these early parts of the process. As one participant pointed out — deep engagement takes time and continuity of resources to sustain relationships built on trust.

“If we’re not coming at equity with the same energy, the same resources, the same policies, the same passion and dedication that we came at inequity with [then], we’re just talking…we’re not lessening any gaps.”

New Orleans Intermediary

From our prior work with Studio Visit participants, most indicated that working with and in the community began without set expectations. Participants we spoke with tended to view themselves as engaging in community activism through relational rather than transactional art – collaboratively defining roles, building structures, and establishing goals and expectations. BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants created more formal arrangements and entities to attract resources and partners and limit liabilities to themselves. Participants noted how under-resourced financially and

Most of our interviewees and Studio Visit participants also explicitly wanted their work to last beyond them. An interviewed intermediary shared their thoughts on having and keeping physical assets, “None of us are the first at this. We just keep redoing it. We have to keep restarting because none of our organizations make it long enough to pass it off. And if we can’t hand off a baton, and the next generation has to start from scratch… we have failed completely.” While another participant reflected on raising children in the same place they grew up, “… it’s really an ancestral mission…that I also pass on to my children that there is something, not just that we owe to this place and space, but something about it that makes us who we are. And if we want to be fully us, then we have to make sure that this place can reach its full potential.”

Cycles of precarity keep many participants from building the necessary assets and infrastructure for their practice. While grant awards cannot fully address these issues, most indicated that guaranteed, flexible, multi-year financial support from funders and intermediaries would allow them to plan and chart more confident paths for their creative work and practice.

Participants also responded with suggestions for award programs that provide capital and other resources, specifically focusing on helping individual artists and collectives/co-ops acquire, develop, and maintain physical assets – regardless of nonprofit status. This was especially true for the participants with place-based and community-engaged approaches who expressed the need for quality space to produce

work that accommodates regular public-facing activities, events, and neighborhood gatherings.

Flexible and forgiving investments in assets and infrastructure for BIPOC creative practitioners can have far-reaching benefits. Still, their livelihoods, ambitions, and value as artists and culture bearers must be central to any new program or fund. Participants emphasized the need for multiple pathways to access quality housing and workspaces, extending beyond funding programs. Historically, asset and infrastructure funding has been primarily directed towards institutions such as museums, theatres, galleries, parks, and libraries rather than supporting individual artists and culture bearers. There needs to be more investment in the space needs of artists (individuals, cooperatives, and collectives) and artistfocused intermediary organizations (Jackson and Kabwasa-Green 2007). As such, participants called for a shift in focus toward supporting artists’ spaces and ensuring they have access to the resources needed to thrive.

During the Interviews and Studio Visits, most participants shared their situations of being locked out of home and studio ownership and the displacement and instability they experienced. Participants spend valuable time and energy piecing together temporary solutions for making and presenting their work and meeting their basic needs. For several participants, this has meant working in rented spaces that lack amenities and could be sold at any moment by the owners. One Studio Visit participant was given 30 days to vacate a live-work space they had occupied for almost a decade. Since then, they’ve bounced around between temporary studios, finding it difficult to store and move the equipment needed for their practice. As described by participants, the fear and constant anxiety of displacement has a toll — physically, mentally, emotionally, and creatively.

When asked about barriers and challenges to ownership, participants indicated that irregular income or the lack of employer-based income had prevented them from qualifying for home mortgages and other traditional forms of financing for commercial projects and other substantial studio expenses (e.g., specialist equipment, hardware/software, special flooring, and surfaces, etc.). Without this financial scaffolding, BIPOC artists and culture bearer participants stated that they often sacrificed quality, safety, and accessibility for affordability when finding places to live and work. Participants also shared that they relied on credit cards, running up personal debt to cover living, studio, and project expenses.

“Those nonprofits, for instance, are becoming real corporations with all kinds of infrastructure that require increasingly high levels of professionalism and experienced credentials to generate reliable revenue.”

Detroit Artist + Culture Bearer

Interviewees and Studio Visit participants currently possessing or developing significant physical assets discussed the stresses and benefits of ownership and stewardship in detail. One interviewee shared how they redeveloped and owned property for the Black repertory theatre company they founded, without debt and with establishing a healthy endowment. It has allowed the theatre to survive and bounce back from the pandemic at a time when many of their peers around the country are still struggling to reemerge after the pandemic shuttering stages in 2020 and 2021. Participants also shared that the constant pressure to fundraise, network, and professionalize in property and community development left them little time or bandwidth for creativity – within the broader context and in their practice. One participant feared they would be unable to do the work anymore and would have to close the organizational entity or downscale. For many participants, there was a clear sense of responsibility for legacy building as part of the development of physical assets and administrative entities so that they are not carried by the founders alone.

Increased stability and resilience were shared goals for those with and without appropriate assets and infrastructure. Participants indicated that funders and intermediaries could partner and lend their knowledge and influence to create bridges and pathways to ownership of physical spaces and other assets. Participants said that a good first step was establishing working groups, convenings, and assemblies led by BIPOC artists and culture bearers that would provide them with a better

understanding of what funders and intermediaries may already be doing. In addition, participants were interested in collaborative forums for codesigning what else is possible and desirable for ensuring the just and equitable development of assets and infrastructure.

Across each of our three focus cities, several participants own the spaces they are developing or are working to acquire and shape assets and infrastructure significantly within the next five years. For many, the driving purpose is that the currently existing spaces do not have the features, amenities, and usability necessary to be productive spaces to live, work, and engage others. In Memphis, participants shared with us some of the motivations and obstacles for charting a path forward for their communities: “This is Memphis, there’s a lot of major stages. None of them are owned by a Black man. That don’t make no sense. There’s 70% Black people here.” For the participants, Black artists and culture bearers, having access to Black-owned venues to create is not just about principle. It’s about feeling safe, seen, and understood inside the culture Black-owned spaces create. This sentiment was shared about the need for BIPOC-led and allied womxn’s creative spaces and, in one instance, spaces for Latinx youth focused on creativity and entrepreneurship.

BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants are embarking on cooperative forms of ownership and governance. Studio Visit participants stated that they were embracing these models on principle but also because they needed to overcome the systemic biases of regular financial systems. For example, in Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans, participants are formalizing the support and mutual aid networks they belong to, emphasizing community governance – many of these were established before the COVID-19 pandemic, stemming from preexisting economic and environmental challenges and hardship.

For the participants, creative work and practice are catalysts for extending property ownership at scale for themselves, their collaborators, friends, and neighbors. One participant offered some perspective on the nuances of collective ownership models: “Housing co-ops benefit those who are part of a co-op and no one else. Community land trusts have broader implications and greater benefits for neighborhoods and cities.” Most participants were interested in community land trusts as models for developing physical assets and cited the learning and opportunities coming out of Art.coop and in Detroit, the offerings of Detroit Community Wealth Fund. Detroit Community Wealth Fund empowers historically

marginalized Detroiters, blending education and programming about cooperatives with non-extractive loans to support democratic and community-based businesses in Detroit. In addition, Art.coop exists to grow the solidarity economy (see Money + Legal dimension and Appendix 3 Definitions) movement by centering systems-change work led by working class, queer, trans, Black, Indigenous, People of Color (QTBIPOC) artists and culture bearers.

During the studio visits and Momentum gathering, participants expressed a shift in focus from solely dismantling and critiquing existing systems to envisioning more inclusive and equitable pathways for the future. They emphasized the importance of addressing generational traumas and inequities by building sustainable models and creating opportunities for the next generation. One participant highlighted the need to not only pass something down to future generations but also ensure their presence and readiness to receive it, “For us not just to have something to hand off to the next generation but ensure that the generation is here to receive it, we got to build that stuff up.” For community governance, co-ops, community land trusts, non-extractive loans, and other empowering structures to flourish among BIPOC artists and culture bearers, funders, and intermediaries must prioritize capital, capacity building, advocacy, and education.

“This organization was funded to do big and amazing and phenomenal things on shoestring budgets. We give Black people these mandates.”

New Orleans Artist + Culture Bearer

ASSETS + INFRASTRUCTURE

QUANTITATIVE SNAPSHOT OVERVIEW

The study’s place-based framing meant that issues surrounding the availability and affordability of high-quality living and working spaces were deeply explored with participants. Participants animatedly discussed visions and values of stewardship of property and land beyond the traditional ownership models that had failed to deliver the promise of real generational wealth and a safety net. The American Community Survey provides estimates which indicate rates of homeownership. While this information helps understand homeownership compared with renting, the data is silent on the quality of both rentorship and homeownership. It is also worth noting that the data does not likely reflect the housing realities for all artists and culture bearers within these cities, especially those living in informal or off-the-books situations. It is clear why participants seek more just models of cooperative and community ownership of assets. Black people often face unequal and predatory access to capital and other resources, unjust appraisals and overall lower values of homes in majority Black neighborhoods, and high levels of segregation, which persist in Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans. For reference, Homeownership, racial segregation, and policy solutions to racial equity (Ray et al. 2021) informed our understanding of the complexities surrounding primarily Black homeownership in the US context.

Given the realities of the COVID-19 pandemic, digital inclusion and transformation became a pressing issue for artists, arts and cultural organizations, and societies—globally aware of the reliance on critical digital infrastructure, platforms, and devices for their lives and livelihoods. Inspired by the Detroit Community Technology Project’s Equitable Internet Initiative, the research work of the National Digital Inclusion Alliance, and the City of Detroit’s partnership with the Connect 313 initiative, the team decided to produce a pre-pandemic snapshot of digital inclusion data. This data focuses narrowly on access to and type of connectivity and devices, so it isn’t sufficient to tell a full story of digital inclusion that would also encompass digital skills, opportunities, and confidence information. However, it extends the information usually reported for creative workers using the ACS estimates.

ASSETS + INFRASTRUCTURE HOMEOWNERSHIP

Source: Authors’ calculations using the American Community Survey 2019 1-year estimates. This indicates whether the housing unit was rented or owned by its inhabitants. Housing units acquired with a mortgage or other lending arrangement(s) are classified as “owned,” even if repayment was not yet completed.

BIPOC Creative Workers across each of the three cities had homeownership rates on par with those of All Workers. In each of the three cities, the estimates were above 50 percent and were higher than that of Other BIPOC Workers. For Detroit and Memphis, BIPOC Creative Workers’ homeownership was at a lower percentage compared to their White counterparts. Again, the ACS doesn’t speak to the conditions surrounding homeownership.

ASSETS + INFRASTRUCTURE DIGITAL INCLUSION

CELLULAR DATA ONLY

BROADBAND ONLY

In general, Creative Workers are more connected than All Workers. Fewer have cellular or broadbandonly connections, with 63 percent possessing both broadband and cellular connectivity. Creative Workers are less reliant on mobile phones for their primary connection, with 82 percent possessing or able to access a PC (desktop, laptop, netbook, or notebook) in their household. Among the three cities, Memphis Creative Workers were more connected than their counterparts in Detroit and New Orleans. Detroit had the highest percentage of Creative Workers with access only to a mobile device.

BIPOC Creative Workers are less connected than their White counterparts, with 70 percent having access to a PC compared to 94 percent in Detroit, 82 percent compared to 92 percent in Memphis, and 80 percent compared to 91 percent in New Orleans. Fifty percent of BIPOC Creative Workers have broadband and cellular connections compared to 75 percent of their White counterparts in Detroit, and in Memphis, it is 64 percent compared to 73 percent. For New Orleans, BIPOC Creative Workers have equivalent rates of connection for broadband and cellular access compared to their White counterparts.

BROADBAND + CELLULAR DATA HAS PC

MOBILE DEVICE ONLY

CELLULAR DATA ONLY

BROADBAND ONLY

BROADBAND + CELLULAR DATA HAS PC

MOBILE DEVICE ONLY

CELLULAR DATA ONLY

BROADBAND ONLY

BROADBAND + CELLULAR DATA HAS PC HAS MOBILE DEVICE ONLY

PC, NO MOBILE DEVICE

Source: Authors’ calculations using the American Community Survey 2019 1-year estimates. For Cellular Data Only, Broadband Only, Broadband + Cellular Data: Derived from IPUMS fields at a survey response level. Queries survey responses to determine if an individual has a Broadband, Cellular Data, No Data, or some combination of those. For Has PC, Has Mobile Device Only, and No PC, No Mobile Device: Derived from IPUMS fields at a survey response level. Uses logic to determine if an individual has a PC, mobile device, no device, or some combination of those.

ASSETS

+ INFRASTRUCTURE DIGITAL INCLUSION

BIPOC CREATIVE WORKERS

ASSETS + INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS

Enable artists and culture bearers to invest in long-term assets and infrastructure required for self-determination and self-sufficiency. The need to rethink funding and investment models comes with embracing creative practices that work at the intersections of non-arts fields and in collaboration and solidarity with peers and community members. The BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants in this study amplified ideas that are gaining traction at the local and national level for more multi-year and flexible forms of funding generally. These include guaranteed income models, embedded employment models (e.g., artistin-residence in non-arts organizations and government agencies), and more multi-year support, similar to general operating for nonprofits. Participants also indicated that cohort-based multi-year programs that address space and infrastructure needs would be welcome.

Participants were also interested in fellowship programs that made explicit or normalized that the funds be invested in assets and infrastructure. The suggestion is to use language during the application and award process that encourages the use of award monies for living costs and specific costs related to physical assets and other infrastructure needs (Internet connectivity, equipment, software, etc.) and included examples of how past awardees have used the funding. They also suggested providing consultations or access to specialists to address individualized financial planning, assets and infrastructure, and entity and tax questions.

Participants highlighted the importance of allocating dedicated funding for creative practitioners distinct from overall project financing, particularly in the context of place-based and socially engaged project grants. They shared instances where insufficient funding hindered their ability to fully realize projects, leading to financial sacrifices and missed opportunities despite receiving significant funds. This resulted in limited compensation for artists/culture bearers due to the ongoing needs of the project and the community. Participants emphasized that discussions around project funding allocation and expectations can be challenging to navigate with partners and community members. Creating explicit guidelines and expected practices for equitable compensation for creative practitioners and community participants as part of these

programs can relieve this burden, making the discussion of how to allocate resources for a project less fraught.

Whether evolving existing programs or developing new programs, participants suggested funding interventions be mindful and take seriously the long-term visions they hold for their lives, creative practices,

Consider investing in workspace and housing initiatives that benefit

BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants suggest that funders and intermediaries are uniquely positioned to support and guide longer-term infrastructure and ecosystem developments beneficial to artists. They pointed to funders and intermediaries who have supported placekeeping, placemaking, and city-building efforts over the past decade, providing funding, knowledge, and influence through partnerships with city

development organizations. By leveraging their resources and expertise, these funders and intermediaries can help build equitable infrastructure for creative practitioners and support their communities' continued

Participants highlighted the urgent need for affordable housing, production spaces (such as studios, fabrication facilities, rehearsal rooms, and music recording studios), and community gathering spaces. They stressed the importance of having culturally relevant and sensitive spaces that reflected and amplified the surrounding communities and specific identities. For instance, participants mentioned artists and collectives that used domestic spaces to host events and present their work. BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants noted that, in addition to the relative affordability of some single-family dwellings, they were attracted to these spaces for their intimacy and neighborliness. However, they also identified several challenges, such as ensuring appropriate access for people with diverse abilities, adequate safety measures, parking, toilet facilities,

Many participants wanted funders and intermediaries to provide guidance on whether these spaces are eligible for grant funding,

investment, and development. They hoped for specific advice for individuals and incorporated entities, including non-profits, for-profits, low-profits, and co-ops. Overall, participants stressed the need for support to help address the challenges facing creative practitioners seeking affordable and culturally relevant spaces to live and work.

Participants also shared their concerns that any new infrastructure developments shouldn’t come at the expense of the broader community. Most BIPOC artists and culture bearer participants are embedded deeply into their communities and strive to ensure their space needs overlap with the underlying needs of the neighborhood and city. Participants indicated that models that do not invest economically and socially in the surrounding community only perpetuate cycles of displacement. Participants discussed the role of robust community benefits agreements (voluntary if not required) in addressing this. However, many recognized this as a workaround and called for more projects to embrace community governance, cooperative ownership, and land trust models. Participants seek opportunities to contribute to their and the wider community’s longterm success and resilience.

Participate and partner in co-ops, community land trusts, nonextractive loans, and other initiatives that promote more equitable futures as artists and culture bearers advocate. Ultimately, most participants desired greater self-sufficiency, determination, and resiliency for themselves and their communities. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed and exacerbated the precarious existence of artists and culture bearers (Guibert and Hyde 2021). While this condition might have gained greater recognition, it has long been understood and experienced by most of the participants in this study. Participants emphasized the importance of acknowledging creative labor as legitimate work. The suggestion is that funders and intermediaries can play a more significant role in promoting equitable compensation practices for artists’ fees in the nonprofit sector (Working Artists and the Greater Economy n.d.) – especially tied to their funding of arts organizations and community organizations working with artists. The shift towards more equitable, transparent, and accountable compensation practices requires an informed and nuanced understanding of local art markets/economies and local living wages (Glasmeier 2024).

Throughout the study, BIPOC artists and culture bearers have continued to develop networks of mutual aid, micro-grants and lending,

cooperative fiduciary platforms, and community/cooperative governance structures for land and property. They seek equitable relationships with funders and intermediaries genuinely interested in advancing these models and frameworks. The research suggests that traditional grants alone may not be sufficient to support creative practitioners, and additional tools and support are needed. This includes access to diversified capital, low to no-interest loans from values-aligned lenders, and financial education focused on navigating existing systems.

Most participants are interested in building generational and community wealth that has been out of reach due to colonization, racial injustice, and neoliberal capitalism. They recognize the harms caused by these systems and seek to address them by developing models for economic exchange that prioritize equity and community wealth-building. Funders and intermediaries can support these efforts by providing the necessary knowledge, networks, and resources to help creative practitioners navigate these complex systems and build more just and equitable economies.

ASSETS + INFRASTRUCTURE SUMMARY

• Artists and culture bearers want to be able to use funds for investment in infrastructure and assets, not just creative work.

• Artists and culture bearers need physical spaces that are safe, affordable, stable, and secure.

• Artists and culture bearers would benefit from non-traditional forms of investment that assist them in overcoming structural inequities relating to property ownership and other forms of infrastructure.

BIPOC artists and culture bearers are subject to structural inequities in infrastructure (e.g., homeownership, the digital divide, wealth, and income gaps). The research indicates that BIPOC artists and culture bearers reject the idea of investment in their work as a charity. Instead, participants work with other community members to effect transformative change through creativity. Many pursue economic paradigms beyond neoliberal capitalism, such as community ownership, mutual aid, selfsufficiency, shared governance, and collective action. Participants are interested in cultivating relationships and opportunities with funders and intermediaries committed to addressing underlying, systemic, and structural barriers with a willingness to challenge dominant models and embrace emerging ones. One participant stated, “There is a real opportunity to break with cycles of oppression and scarcity to build legacies to pass on to future generations of BIPOC artists, culture bearers, and community members.”

EDUCATION + TOOLS

The research investigated the range of educational training, professional development, and tools offered to creative practitioners predominantly within award programs. We were particularly interested in models relevant to the shifting context and understanding of creative practice and the role of artists and culture bearers working within communities and across sectors.

Most of the BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants indicated that access to professional development, tools, mentorship, and educational opportunities was a significant factor in the sustainability of their creative practice. For some, it had made the difference in pursuing their practice full time, as one interviewee shared, “…that’s when I started getting more official training. I pulled in some mentors, took classes, started reading things, and started developing our kind of theory of practice around how we do engagement and just solidifying it. And then I quit my job, and then the rest is history.” Participants were most interested in offerings beyond those typically imported from traditional entrepreneurship and small business management. Instead, most participants were looking for educational opportunities to help them develop self-sufficiency, while contributing to their communities and building a solid foundation for future resilience. BIPOC artists and culture bearer participants describe desirable educational opportunities as those which:

• Tailor and ground learning in context, community, and inclusion

• Amplify and resource existing networks of creative practitioners

• Facilitate the development of intentional communities of practice across different locations

We asked interviewees to share situations where they have encountered pre-application learning experiences offered to potential applicants, such as information sessions, office hours, application writing workshops, assistance with work samples, and other assets (artists’ statements, bios, CVs/resumes, etc.). We also inquired about experiences offered specifically to awardees of grant programs and those more generally offered by artist service organizations or other intermediaries.

Pre-application learning experiences are designed to promote programs, clarify guidelines, and make applying more inclusive. BIPOC artists and culture bearer participants suggested that these offerings would be more useful if they helped artists to understand and decide if a particular program is right for them. Researching and applying for a grant program takes significant time and effort, usually without guaranteeing success. Most rejected the idea that programs are neutral and do not have baked-in frameworks and thinking about creativity and creative people. Example frameworks include programs that reinforce and privilege: professionally and academically trained creative practitioners, solo work with limitations on collaborative or community-based work, narrowly defined creative disciplines, and predetermined notions of desirable

“I think the majority of arts funders just needs substantial education on how the ecosystem works here, how power and privilege and representation operates in the landscape, and how to operationalize that knowledge or how to make investments that do not advance White supremacy or White logic.”

New Orleans Artist + Culture Bearer

aesthetics. BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants indicated that pre-application learning opportunities seemed to serve only to help them fit into these frameworks, which were described as problematic, not helpful, and, at worst, oppressive. Participants discussed the need for grant programs, application processes, and learning programs to be reviewed to identify frameworks that embed and perpetuate ethnocentrism, colonialist, or outdated perspectives on creative practice and labor (Borstel and Korza 2017).

BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants indicated that preapplication learning opportunities and communications should be more transparent about funding organizations’ and award programs’ diversity, equity, access, and inclusion efforts. For instance, funders and intermediaries could share information about the applicant pool, including the number and demographics of applicants and breakdowns by discipline, if applicable. They could also provide details about the awards, such as the number, the amount and requirements, and sample agreements. Additionally, participants suggested sharing information about panel, jury, or nominator composition and rotation frequency, including the disciplines, geographies, and members’ demographics. They could provide trends or historical information if this data is unavailable for the current award cycle. Access to information such as this can aid artists’ decision-making and provide greater accountability from funders and intermediaries to overcome and mitigate negative perceptions about embedded sources of unconscious bias and structural inequities in award processes (Savage 2018). Overall, participants emphasized the importance of transparency and openness in the grant application process to ensure that all artists have a fair and equitable opportunity to access funding and support.

Participants suggested including presentations/talks, storytelling, and one-on-one meetings/office hours by successfully awarded BIPOC artists and culture bearers. For example, one participant shared how speaking with another BIPOC culture bearer helped them tackle an award program's CV/resume requirement. Required application materials, like CVs that emphasize educational attainment, bibliographies, residencies, etc., made the program feel exclusionary. However, the conversation helped the participant to reframe the supplemental application material as another way to tell the story of where they’ve been, what they’ve done, what they’ve learned and from whom, and why it matters to the practice

they’ve built. This exchange came about through their efforts and networks and was not offered or organized by the funder/intermediary.

Participants appreciated pre-application learning opportunities focusing on helping artists communicate their valuable competencies, experiences, and aspirations. These opportunities can engage artists in reflection, storytelling, and self-advocacy rather than reinforcing academic or so-called grantspeak. Most participants believed this approach could benefit them regardless of whether they received an award.

One participant also noted that there is still a significant gap in understanding and awareness about the nature of artists’ work, labor, and expertise. They observed that it may not be apparent to the public what artists do and the impact of their work. This lack of understanding can create challenges regarding messaging and advocating for the value of artists’ contributions. This point was especially significant for artists and culture bearers applying for awards, programs, and other opportunities outside of the arts. In this context, BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants sought increased support to facilitate institutional and community connections. Participants agreed that efforts to support artists in communicating their value and advocating for themselves are crucial and should be prioritized in pre-application learning opportunities.

Participants shared information about their experiences with professional development opportunities that were part of the awards they received. These opportunities included entrepreneurship and business of art training, thematic summits, talks, access to consultants (legal, accounting, marketing), mentorship, peer-led opportunities, and more. In conversations with some Studio Visit participants, tension surfaced around how these professional practice opportunities were communicated to awardees. Some participants felt that there was a mixed message being conveyed. On the one hand, these artists and culture bearers had been competitively selected based on the quality of their work and their achievements, but on the other hand, they were still being told that they needed professionalization and schooling. Participants often shared this sentiment when the learning opportunities lacked flexibility, were not sensitive to context, and did not align with the awardee’s values and direction.

As BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants elaborated during the Momentum gathering, learning opportunities connected to awards are

“When we've defined entrepreneurship in terms of economic development, who are we including and supporting in terms of businesses? I believe creatives are oftentimes left out of that discussion.”

Memphis Artist + Culture Bearer

desirable when communicated as tailored, flexible, and optional. They emphasized the importance of these opportunities being grounded in supporting the awardees’ goals, ambitions, and pursuit of knowledge and additional capacities on their terms. Overall, participants felt that professional development opportunities should be communicated to align with, and support awardees’ needs and aspirations rather than creating an additional burden or suggesting a lack of achievement.

As we dove into the issue of formats, environments, and content of learning opportunities, participants reflected that opportunities, meetings, and events often took place in locations and at times of the day that seemed most convenient for the funder and intermediary. Participants also shared frustrations that most opportunities seemed to favor the interests and perspectives of the funder and intermediary. Opportunities were formulated around ideas of success, impacts, outcomes, and sustainability drawn from non-profit and for-profit startup or small business models with little evidence that they have sought the input of creative practitioners.

Participants spoke about the need for learning opportunities that supported their ability to act in an entrepreneurial manner but that

most offered canned rhetoric or theoretical advice that was difficult to translate or put into practice for their and the community’s benefit. One intermediary interviewee shared an example of the experiential learning they offer to neighborhood creative people and small and home-based businesses using an annual festival as a catalyst. These neighborhood artists and entrepreneurs participate in three professional development classes, receive access to a mentor, and are provided with a free booth at the festival. The information covered through the learning and mentorship opportunities is put into immediate practice through festival vending. The intermediary indicated that the goal is to create pathways for people in the neighborhood to stay and grow in place by supporting their creative pursuits and businesses.

Participants highlighted the importance of connecting with trusted sources of information and support as part of professional development opportunities connected to awards. Many BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants expressed interest in access to advisors, mentors, consultants, facilitators, and trainers to whom they can relate and who have the skills and lived experience to build a sense of mutuality. Participants believe these affinities must be intersectional and tailored to their unique interests, perspectives, and circumstances. One participant spoke about the importance and lack of affinity spaces for learning, feedback, and critique. They emphasized that their most successful opportunities involved other Black artists and culture bearers, as their shared cultural experiences allowed for more immediate and profound reflection on the work. However, participants also noted that these spaces are built over time and are difficult for funders and intermediaries to create within the typical constraints of award programs. Despite this challenge, participants emphasized the need for affinity spaces as a crucial aspect of professional development opportunities. They stressed the importance of providing access to trusted sources of information and support.

Participants also indicated that there needed to be more formalized mentorship, coaching, and skill-sharing opportunities, suggesting that establishing these would help make the learning experiences more relevant and personalized. Finally, Momentum participants echoed the call for awardees and other creative practitioners to have a role in shaping the learning opportunities—through consultation, co-creation, and self-determined pathways to make participating more valuable. During the Momentum gathering, participants discussed extending learning opportunities beyond just the awardees to engage better

and support their existing peer networks. For example, one Studio Visit and Momentum participant shared that being part of a Black-led artist collective has significantly impacted their development — through mentorship, access to a live-work space, and connections to a network of galleries and art dealers. This intentional community extends care beyond the professional realm into the personal in ways that have created lifechanging relationships and opportunities for them. For most participants, the learning opportunities they sought were grounded in their existing networks of peers and other professional relationships, primarily within their broad creative disciplines (e.g. visual art, performing art, music, literary, media/filmmaking, etc.).

BIPOC artists and culture bearers with socially engaged and place-based practices described the need for learning opportunities that address resiliency, developing physical assets and infrastructure, and systems change/movement work. As previously noted in Assets + Infrastructure, artist-led spaces for cultural production and services have historically been under-resourced. Participants stated that few of their local peers have the resources and opportunities to develop physical assets and infrastructure or engage with community development. In addition, these participants shared that they do not quite fit into the learning and leadership opportunities for non-profit leaders, traditional studio artists, or start-up founders and entrepreneurs. They view their work as encompassing facets of each of those roles. As a result, participants seek learning and exchange opportunities beyond their immediate creative communities.

One participant spoke positively about how feedback from a national cohort of artists with socially engaged and place-based practices helped them to carve out some intentions for a large-scale project, stating, “It helped me to see that what I was doing was not an isolated thing. That this was happening in other spaces. Some artists were transforming space and being intentional about it. That helped a lot.” In addition, participants shared that working with peers undertaking similar work creates regular opportunities for exchanging ideas and developing solutions and approaches to shared problems and challenges.

practitioners. Tools were broadly defined as toolkits, zines, workshop activities and facilitation guidebooks, and curriculum development. In response to this need, Move Forward Part 2 of this report is designed to share promising practices, workshop activities, and practical approaches for research and co-creation with BIPOC artists and culture bearers.

“Thereʼs also a professionalization of artistry too now. Itʼs a real hustle in a way that... I just think about the machine that Beyoncé is, and I just think about her counterpart 60 years ago. Beyonce is a corporation. Sheʼs unique and special, but the amount of infrastructure around her as an artist is new and itʼs a thing that I just feel like is... I donʼt know. Itʼs defining a certain kind of artistry more and more.”

Detroit Artist + Culture Bearer

There was less emphasis on tools and platforms by BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants. However, from the literature review and our interviews, funders and intermediaries identified the need for better tools to support their professional development programs for creative

EDUCATION + TOOLS

QUANTITATIVE SNAPSHOT OVERVIEW

Professional development and other learning opportunities are increasingly integrated into funding and award programs for artists and culture bearers. But participants expressed valid critique and concerns with these programs, questioning their delivery models, content, and appropriateness in the context of the awards. For some participants, professional development programs reinforce exclusionary practices in the arts and evoke negative schooling experiences. At the core, this is a conversation about racial inequalities in the US education system that has consistently failed and penalized communities of color and lowincome people. The National Endowment for the Arts found that artists have a high level of educational attainment, indicating that 63 percent of artists hold bachelor’s degrees or higher levels of training compared to 36 percent for all US workers (National Endowment for the Arts 2019, p 14).

We wanted to document the levels of educational attainment for Creative Workers in the three cities to understand how closely they relate to the national picture and how that picture changes for BIPOC Creative Workers. Like the national findings, Creative Workers have high completed levels of education compared to All Workers, with 40 percent of Detroit Creative Workers completing four or more years of college compared to 22 percent for All Workers, for Memphis Creative Workers, it is 53 percent compared to 27 percent, and for New Orleans Creative Workers, it is 57 percent compared to 32 percent for All Workers.

EDUCATION + TOOLS EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

22

11

This picture significantly shifts when we look at education levels of BIPOC Creative Workers compared to their White counterparts. Only 26 percent of BIPOC Creative Workers in Detroit completed 4 or more years of college compared with 54 percent of White Creative Workers, for Memphis, it is 36 percent compared to 63 percent, and in New Orleans, it is 40 percent compared with 67 percent. BIPOC Creative Workers do have higher levels of educational attainment compared to All Other BIPOC Workers. Detroit BIPOC Creative Workers are less likely to have completed four or more years of college (26 percent) compared to their BIPOC Creative Workers

counterparts in Memphis (36 percent) and New Orleans (40 percent). Additionally, Detroit BIPOC Creative Workers are more likely to have only completed 12th grade (32 percent) compared to one to three years of college (27 percent) or four or more years of college (26 percent).

Source: Authors’ calculations using the American Community Survey 2019 1-year estimates. This indicates respondents' educational attainment, as measured by the highest year of school or degree completed. Note that completion differs from the highest year of school attendance; for example, respondents who attended 10th grade but did not finish were classified as having completed 9th grade.

EDUCATION + TOOLS RECOMMENDATIONS

Collaboratively design programs and application processes with artists, culture bearers, and relevant communities to ensure more appropriate and inclusive learning experiences.

Participants in this study routinely surfaced the necessity of informal and formal learning opportunities for the stability and growth of their creative practice. Key to the evolution of these programs is finding meaningful and compensated ways for them to be co-created with and shaped by creative practitioners. From the Artist Awards and Grants Field Scan and literature review, funders and intermediaries have sought input on learning programs generally and those connected to award programs by:

• Creating and compensating artists and culture bearers to participate in program advisories (may be standing or ad hoc and consist of a mixture of past participants/awardees, non-awardees, past panelists/ nominators, other arts and cultural workers, and community members)

• Inviting and compensating artists and culture bearers to develop and facilitate learning opportunities, both non-awardees and program alumni

• Engaging with peer artist service organizations alongside creative practitioners (local and national convenings)

• Commissioning and conducting independent program evaluation and research into promising practices (creative practitioners compensated through the study and also contracted as researchers and consultants)

• Developing and evaluating surveys and feedback forms

BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants strongly suggested that co-creation, evaluation, and recommendation processes seek input and perspectives from creative practitioners who are not already engaged. This may help uncover sources of unconscious and structural bias in program frameworks, point out exclusionary language in favor of plain language (academic jargon, grant-speak, etc.), challenge group thinking, and facilitate the positive beginning of relationships with future participants. This is particularly relevant in the context of a more nuanced understanding of educational experiences and attainment for BIPOC artists and culture bearers.

Participants emphasized the importance of learning opportunities that adapt quickly to changing circumstances. They highlight the need for quick access to responsive training and education, considering factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, environmental disasters, and ongoing discussions about racial injustice. These learning opportunities should enable artists and communities to navigate emergency relief funds, benefits, and evolving local, state, and federal policies.

Engage artists and culture bearers in determining the type and modality of professional development opportunities made available to them.

BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants discussed the importance of framing learning opportunities in ways that reduce stigma. Normalizing that learning opportunities are fundamentally about supporting a creative practitioner’s goals and ambitions will help mitigate the sense that programs are about the ‘professionalization’ of artists and culture bearers to fit into molds and models irrelevant to them. Participants also stated that learning opportunities must be designed and delivered to accommodate different learners and allow participants and facilitators to ask for their needs. Participants discussed that this is about meeting people where they are and rooting professional development opportunities in social justice and the participation of artists and culture bearers in highly engaged forms of learning. BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants also cited the need for more multi-lingual support, assistive technologies, spatial accessibility, and other accommodations to ensure welcoming learning opportunities. Most participants also wanted opportunities beyond award periods, sustained engagement, and relationships with funders, intermediaries, advisors, mentors, consultants, and other institutional connections and networks.

Support intentional cohort work with broadly defined peers of artists and culture bearers from various contexts.

Participants welcomed learning opportunities that allowed them to leverage the experience and expertise of peers from different artistic disciplines and geographies, working toward a common purpose to

use their creativity to advance systems change. Cohort work was less apparent in traditional fellowship and project grant award programs for creative practitioners. However, the Artist Awards and Grants Field Scan indicates they are more prevalent in award programs with a strong focus on socially engaged, place-based practices. From our interviews with intermediaries and funders, most said that cohort work was attractive to participants when it was coupled with personal development and grounded in spaces of mutual trust, respect, and vulnerability. According to our interviewees, cohort work requires much thought and care in its design and execution.

Participants equally articulated the necessity of resourcing selfdirected opportunities for BIPOC artists and culture bearers, including peer-to-peer sharing, residencies, workshops, and courses. Participants did not consistently recognize or consider these opportunities as professional development. Instead, they were a part of the reciprocal exchanges and natural networks with their peers and communities. The research speaks to the need to support and resource these organically occurring networks of artists while evolving and strengthening learning programs and training offered by funders and intermediaries.

EDUCATION + TOOLS

SUMMARY

• Artists, culture bearers, and communities desire to be valued and listened to as experts.

• Artists and culture bearers value a variety of educational options and modes.

• Artists and culture bearers desire meaningful connections and exchanges with their peers and others.

The research shows that most participants want to build new skills as part of their creative practice. Participants in this study heavily favored tailored, relational, and experiential learning opportunities, including mentorship (both having and being mentors), personalized coaching, and skill-building through informal and formal peer exchanges and residency opportunities. The research suggests that granting access to learning opportunities for peer networks is an attractive route to increasing engagement and trust with BIPOC artists and culture bearers. For participants in this study, learning opportunities need to go both ways – with funders and intermediaries committed to evolving programs by listening to and acting on the input of creative practitioners.

HEALTH + WELL-BEING

The research explored situations surrounding the holistic consideration of BIPOC creative practitioners’ health and well-being as an integral part of forming and implementing award programs. For this study, health and well-being are primarily discussed as part of services and initiatives offered by funders and intermediaries to artists and culture bearers— akin to programs that offer access to legal and accounting professionals.

The COVID-19 pandemic is a stark reminder of the health disparities Black and Latinx communities face. Most participants in the study indicated that issues surrounding health and well-being were priorities before the pandemic. BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants indicated that the pandemic exacerbated issues surrounding benefits and health insurance access, public and community health, and access to mental and behavioral support systems. As we discussed these situations with participants, our focus on health and well-being centered BIPOC artist and culture bearer experiences of:

• Structural disparities and inequities

• Mutual aid and healing practices

• Award programs and other services/initiatives

Interviewees were asked to provide information about major and minor changes they have experienced because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Interviewees in the three cities shared a sense of hustle culture as a dominant feature of their practice and creative ecosystem before the pandemic. One participant shared, “…nobody was getting consistently paid, everybody was getting close to 50, 60 hours a week. It was ridiculous. And a lot of folks were still working other jobs to be able to do it. So, we had burnt ourselves out. If 2020 hadn’t happened, we would have probably had to just close for two or three months. Because folks had just hit a wall.” Overall, interviewees indicated that the pandemic represented the first time they could slow down. For some, it reignited their creativity and sense of agency; for others, it was a time to pause and reflect. One interviewee shared that the pandemic allowed them, for the first time to think about the long term instead of being reactive.

As interviewees continued to reflect on their experiences during the pandemic, they shared some of their struggles and frustrations with the healthcare system. Most interviewees noted that income-based health insurance programs created challenges due to the variability in their annual earnings. These interviewees indicated that they were underinsured and left paying out-of-pocket medical expenses or choosing to go without regular access to health and well-being services. The literature review provided insight into the persistent and disproportionate health inequities experienced by Black and Latinx communities (Baumgartner, et al. 2021). Multiple social determinants of health impact communities of color, including intersectional discrimination, socioeconomic, and place-based factors (US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion n.d.).

Participants also shared that they and many others in their communities carry trauma from their engagements with the medical and public health establishments due to ongoing and historical harms — citing experiences of interpersonal and structural racism. While not referring to specific artists’ relief programs or COVID-19 pandemic-era expansion of benefits, some participants expressed anger and frustration. One participant stated, “And it just really hit me how all these emergency grants are so incredibly dehumanizing. They are set up because someone is going through something, they recreate a structure for it that we go through when you’re filing for food stamps. So, you’re recycling this colonial structure that we live in. It’s just like, this is out of control.”

During the studio visits of the study, BIPOC participants discussed their concerns about having fewer resources to address health and well-being challenges. One participant shared their experience of having access to quality health insurance coverage through full-time employment in the arts and cultural non-profit sector. However, they also mentioned experiencing racism, tokenism, and stress in their position, which negatively impacted their mental and physical health. The participant stated that they regularly access talk therapy and other well-being services to help address the health issues arising from their employment.

“Even

our own health department competed against us... Purely White-led work. They called me after they got the award because they needed somebody to go with them to DC to look like they really weren’t what they are.”

Arts + Health Intermediary

To gain financial stability and benefits, BIPOC artists and culture bearers undertake full-time employment with resulting tradeoffs to their creativity, creative practices, and community organizing work.

BIPOC participants also indicated that when the pandemic hit, they were immediately concerned with how this would impact communities of color broadly, while also navigating impacts to their health and those of family groups (chosen or otherwise). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data from 2020 revealed that Black and Latinx people were nearly three times more likely to become infected with COVID-19 than White people and twice as likely to die from the virus (Baumgartner, et al. 2021). Interview and Studio Visit participants described some of their experiences during the pandemic, noting moments of public and private grief, economic uncertainty, the collapse of income and savings, and housing insecurity. Participants were also impacted by the continued anti-Black and anti-AANHPI violence happening nationally and in the three cities. BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants indicated that the toll of trying to cope with these issues has both immediate and likely lasting impacts on their well-being. Against this backdrop, one participant stated that they “…felt like the most important thing for us all to do was to reassess where we were all at and figure out how we could all support each other.”

As the study progressed through 2021, participants increasingly spoke about the care networks integral to their past and present survival and part of the more resilient and liberatory frameworks they will continue to cultivate. Mutual aid networks, while gaining increased recognition nationally during the COVID-19 pandemic, have a long history in each of the three cities—from emergency response and disaster relief circles to resource banks and food co-ops. Mutual aid is characterized as people participating in the reciprocal exchange of services and resources to help one another to meet needs. Mutual aid can take the form of political and solidarity networks where people organize to care for one another outside of and in the struggle to transform unjust systems and conditions (de Loggans 2021).

Participants, across the Interviews, Studio Visits, and the Momentum gathering, varied in their openness to discussing their current mental, physical, and spiritual status. Those who did volunteer information described tightly woven networks of barter, trade, and community-based care circles, with BIPOC artists and culture bearers serving as and receiving the gifts of herbalists, medicine-makers, and bodyworkers. One participant discussed their participation in a mutual aid framework that provides access to healthy fresh produce in exchange for their physical volunteer work at an urban farm, indicating a sense of being in the right relation with people, land, and community benefit. We interviewed an intermediary who spoke about their long-running support for artists and musicians before the COVID-19 pandemic and how it amplified the need for those resources. Before the pandemic, when artists would show up for shows and gigs, it was a common practice for them to have a meal together at the venue. As this music venue, like others across the country, canceled artists’ shows, the intermediary stated, “…once a week, on Fridays, we would call all the artists that would normally gig and say, ‘Hey, come get your plate.’”

Emerging from the Literature Review, Interviews, and Studio Visits, we learned that artists and culture bearers play a significant role in mutual aid and well-being networks among their communities. “Art & WellBeing: Toward a Culture of Health” (Goldbard 2018), “Opportunities at the Intersection: Advancing Racial Equity via Arts and Culture in the Public Sector” (Cole and Kinslow 2020), and “Creating Healthy Communities through Cross-Sector Collaboration” (Sonke et al. 2019) were beneficial to understanding the policy and political environment around public health, precedent case-studies of initiatives led by artists and culture bearers, and collaborative frameworks for community and neighborhood-scaled arts and health initiatives.

Emerging from this review, the team invited questions and responses from interviewees and Studio Visit participants about their capacity and experience leading arts and health initiatives while facing disparities in their health and well-being. One participant stated, “We know that our artists are the most trusted messengers in our communities because they are of the community, they honestly reflect the community… and they have a way of recreating messages in a way that is affirming to us, and in a way that we could believe.” As they continued, they shared information about a program they struggled to get funded for a long time. The program aimed to train artists as community health workers, focused on the right to good care. The program was informed by insights from a deep dive health impact assessment in the communities they work with. The assessments detailed key disparities between Black and White residents, with a 25-year difference in life expectancy. They surfaced disappointment as people felt disempowered in their relationships with healthcare providers. When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, after years of trying to get this off the ground, philanthropic funders were suddenly interested. The organization ultimately received two-year funding for this program. However, they shared how difficult it was to build this resource during a pandemic rather than already having this form of community resiliency in place.

Participants shared that amidst the ongoing impact of COVID-19 in their communities, cultural venues evolved into multifunctional spaces that catered to health and well-being. These spaces provided testing and vaccinations and hosted food distributions. They offered guidance on accessing expanded benefits, grants, and loans from various relief and recovery programs at the federal, state, and local levels. Artists and culture bearers actively contributed to these initiatives while benefiting from them. Participants emphasized the importance of dedicating early and patient capital and resources to support the health and well-being of BIPOC artists and culture bearers. This is especially necessary if funders and intermediaries are genuinely committed to addressing racial equity through the arts.

Participants in the study discussed how their creative process intersects with healing, well-being, ritual, and spirituality. This intersection has a long legacy of inventive, insurgent, and sometimes coded and covert creative practices that deal with personal and communal healing. Black, SWANA, Latinx, and Native American participants were candid about how personal and communal healing was integral

to their creative process and work. Our study included dance-makers and performers who engage in rigorous physical training in somatic and ecstatic practice, poets and storytellers who lead participatory performances and ritual workshops, and multi-disciplinary collectives that create large-scale site-specific installations and performances to heal and reckon with intergenerational trauma. In addition to these works, notable performances, installation-based works, and books such as Tricia Hersey’s Nap Ministry, Navild Acosta’s and Fannie Sosa’s Black Power Naps and adrienne maree brown’s Pleasure Activism (brown 2019), have helped to amplify and ground the practice of rest, healing, and selfcare as critical to the cause of justice and the struggle for more creative, liberatory, and abundant frameworks. During the COVID-19 pandemic and the ongoing uprisings and demonstrations for racial equity and justice—these artists offered radical, pragmatic, and joyful remedies to the exhaustion, burnout, sleep gap, and hustle-culture endemic within BIPOC communities.

As participants continued to share, they said they rarely reveal these aspects of their work in artists’ statements, and project descriptions. For some, they asserted that it was important that these connections were personal and only shared within circles of trust and care, not for broad consumption or interpretation. Others stated they felt constrained by not communicating this aspect of their work directly. They believed it would not be supported and instead would be trivialized by funders, intermediaries,

“I feel like a lot of the last year between police murdering Black people regularly on camera and this miserable virus, it’s just been a lot of limited emotional and mental capacity to plug in and take care of things.”

Memphis Artist + Culture Bearer

and panel members. These conversations led to a broader discussion about participants’ health and well-being experiences in the context of grants, awards, and programmatic efforts by funders and intermediaries.

In general, BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants spoke about the lack of support, clarity, or encouragement for health and well-being as a priority of the awards and grant programs that they had received or are familiar with. Workshop in a Box and Momentum participants expressed the need for application, reporting, and other expectations and requirements of grant programs to be reviewed and streamlined, indicating how overly complicated or unnecessary administrative aspects of funding programs contributed to stress, anxiety, and burnout. The Access + Opportunities section discusses the reconsideration of funding and programmatic processes in greater detail. However, it is noted here as it intersects with the health and well-being of applicants and recipients.

From the Artist Awards and Grants Field Scan, we noted that within fellowship programs and other similar no-strings-attached awards, uses of funds included living expenses, with a more detailed and longer list of uses for residencies, training, equipment, studio, travel, new work, etc. This list was typical for many of the programs reviewed and encouraged applicants and recipients to consider the awards as oriented toward professionalization and work — as opposed to rest, health, well-being, and other necessities. BIPOC artists and culture bearers contributed that, ideally, no-strings-attached awards help them buy time and space for reflection and allow them to take care of essentials for a good life — not just supercharge productivity. One studio visit participant stated, “Racist cultural tropes about BIPOC people make it harder to prioritize and commit time and resources to self-care and restorative practices without shame or guilt.” United States Artists is an example from the field scan of more positive messaging around using funds for health and well-being. The USA Fellows program explicitly indicates housing and medical expenses as ways that artists can use their funding and is part of the opening headline of the award. Their statement also includes uses like investing in studio equipment and doing new work but limits the list to these four examples. The statement emphasizes the freedom and agency of artists to determine the best use of funds. Prominent and succinct statements and commitments to health and well-being will likely encourage greater appreciation by BIPOC artists and culture bearers that award programs have been thoughtfully developed with care and agency for the creative practitioner at the core.

Participants did note an uptick in messaging and language around health and well-being from funders and intermediaries during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, they expressed concern that this would not continue beyond the initial relief and recovery grants. During the Momentum gathering, participants discussed research and development, guaranteed income, and artist employment models of funding as part of the Resonance activity. Overall, participants welcomed the idea of awards that centered on reflection, research, and experimentation as meaningful for their development. Participants noted that this contrasts with project grants that often come with the pressure to produce. They were likewise excited by the stability of income and healthcare benefits attached to guaranteed income and artist employment models. However, they did not think city agencies, funders, and intermediaries active in their cities would likely implement such programs. Participants from Memphis and New Orleans shared that they wished for more support and recognition from the local government, given how important economically and to tourism artists and musicians were to the cities.

Participants at Momentum focused on practical, near-term ways for health and well-being to be incorporated as an intrinsic component of awards, funding, and other supportive programs. The suggestion is to invest in existing mutual aid networks and spaces. As previously noted, BIPOC artists and culture bearer participants are already active in these spaces, and the resources and influence of funders and intermediaries could amplify these existing supports and help fill gaps. BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants suggested that funders and intermediaries could consult with local health and well-being professionals to co-design pro-bono and low-bono resources, programs, and events for creative practitioners. From the review of literature and media, Springboard for the Arts offers comprehensive toolkits and resources for funders and other intermediaries interested in developing health and well-being offerings for creative practitioners. The organization has been active in addressing health inequities for artists for over ten years, and their guides are accessible and robust entry points to healthcare access, policies, and systems (“Springboard for the Arts Health Toolkits” n.d.) While health equity and access are complex issues, participants have contributed valuable insights. They offer potential directions and support for consideration by funders and intermediaries as they develop and refine awards and programs.

HEALTH + WELL-BEING

QUANTITATIVE SNAPSHOT OVERVIEW

2020 marks the 10th anniversary of the signing of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Participants were frank about the vulnerabilities they experienced before and during the COVID-19 pandemic related to health and wellbeing. Specifically, the conversations documented that many still lack coverage, and those with coverage experience high premiums and other costs. According to the NEA, in 2012-2016, nearly 88 percent of artists reported having health coverage. For all workers, that share was 85 percent (National Endowment for the Arts 2019, p 19). This may represent significant gains in health insurance coverage linked to the creation and expansion of the ACA. However, additional research is necessary, which falls outside of this study’s parameters. For us, it is important to document whether Creative Workers in our three cities enjoy similar levels of health insurance coverage. Creative Workers were less likely to have health insurance coverage than All Workers in Detroit, with 86 percent compared to 88 percent. Memphis Creative Workers were more likely to have health insurance compared to All Workers, with 87 percent compared to 82 percent. For New Orleans, the percentages with health insurance were equivalent at 87 percent. Appendix 1 contains links to the full breakdown of health coverage for all worker classes by city. It is also important to understand whether BIPOC Creative Workers experience disparities compared to their White counterparts. This is expressed by focusing on those without health coverage in the snapshot.

HEALTH + WELL-BEING PERCENT WITHOUT HEALTH INSURANCE

In Detroit, BIPOC Creative Workers are more likely to be without health insurance coverage than any other group at 15 percent. In Memphis, All Workers (18 percent) and All Other BIPOC Workers (22 percent) have the highest percentages without coverage. For BIPOC Creative Workers in Memphis, it is 15 percent. In New Orleans, All Other BIPOC workers were the group most likely to be without health insurance coverage, with 16 percent. The other worker groups in New Orleans had equivalent percentages without health insurance coverage. This snapshot covers the period for 2019, pre-pandemic. Overall, the snapshot documents that, on average, 86 percent of Creative Workers and 85 percent of BIPOC

Creative Workers had health insurance. While significant, the data doesn’t reveal the quality, affordability, and reliability of health insurance and does not address medical debt and other costs.

Source: Authors’ calculations using the American Community Survey 2019 1-year estimates. This indicates whether persons had any health insurance coverage at the time of interview, as measured by employer-provided insurance, privately purchased insurance, Medicare, Medicaid or other governmental insurance, TRICARE or other military care, or Veterans Administration-provided insurance. The Census Bureau does not consider respondents to have coverage if their only coverage is from Indian Health Services, as IHS policies are not always comprehensive.

HEALTH + WELL-BEING RECOMMENDATIONS

Create opportunities and openings within award programs for artists and culture bearers to prioritize their health and well-being. Care, time off, reflection, and rest are necessities for creativity and advancing racial equity—normalizing and destigmatizing these practices can create more just and inclusive award programs for BIPOC artists and culture bearers. Most participants preferred award periods of at least 18 months to provide the ability to plan and better incorporate the opportunity into their lives. Participants were also sensitive to the need for flexible or reduced programming and requirements to support their stress, anxiety, and mental health management.

Create flexible programs that afford changes in scope to anticipate and cultivate healthy and intentional attitudes toward exploration, planning, rest, and productivity. BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants recommended co-designing and creating awards and programs that specifically address health and well-being, with dedicated funds and better language and messaging for using funds. Participants indicated that these programs should be flexible and center artists’ agency in determining what health, well-being, and care mean to them. Participants are interested in programs that help to stabilize their incomes, provide or support them to get benefits, fund research and development, and support extended care for partners and dependents. Participants called for increased flexibility in programs, especially considering the lasting impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, with an understanding that investing in the creative potential of people is sorely needed — more than the investment in projects and outputs. Investing and contributing to existing mutual aid and solidarity networks is another way for funders and intermediaries to take action to support health and wellbeing in communities of color.

frameworks for how funders and intermediaries can connect them to various health and human services, from holding specific informational events and programming to establishing partnerships with low-cost community health clinics. Participants also wanted to serve as ‘better messengers’ and advocates — developing creative interventions that raise awareness and argue for greater health equity and improved outcomes in BIPOC communities.

Seek the input of professionals to inform artists and culture bearers about access to healthcare insurance and community health hubs. Community health hubs provide access to a network of care coordination agencies such as hospitals, community-based organizations, and social service departments. Participants provided helpful insights and

HEALTH + WELL-BEING SUMMARY

• BIPOC artists and culture bearers face persistent health inequities in access and outcomes, cultivating greater awareness of these issues is critical.

• For creative practitioners to thrive, programs must incorporate health, well-being, rest, and care support.

• Artists’ agency and the freedom to determine and resource the practices and activities that support their mental, physical, and spiritual health is vital.

BIPOC artists and culture bearers are subject to structural inequities in health and well-being experienced through the intertwined social determinants of health. While funders and intermediaries may be inexperienced or unfamiliar with issues concerning arts and health, they must cultivate their awareness and willingness to act as brokers and connectors to health professionals. Health and well-being are justice issues critical to addressing racial equity and developing healthy communities and places. In the context of this study, recovery and resilience efforts for BIPOC artists and culture bearers must be sensitive to the complexity of health and well-being issues. Most participants indicated that hustle and grind culture is just not an option they are willing to return to. The disruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic mean that funders and intermediaries must contend with the work gap in artists’ resumes. It is an opportunity to reset expectations, replacing notions of super-charged productivity with spaciousness, exploration, and rest.

MONEY + LEGAL

Our team investigated the financial situations of BIPOC artists and culture bearers in their personal lives and as they relate to their creative practices. In addition, we explored their experiences with money and legal aspects of award programs, support services, and professional development opportunities.

Access to capital, relationships with money, and access to justice and legal support are deeply personal matters affected by privilege, power, and position. Throughout the research, participants expressed frustration with the limited access to suitable financial and legal structures to support their livelihoods.

Our research revealed that BIPOC artists and culture bearers in all three cities face significant challenges living sustainably from their creative work. Very few could work full-time as creative practitioners and instead had to rely on a patchwork of income sources both within and outside the arts and cultural sector. Even those with stable income and established practices still struggled with the constant need to fundraise, apply for grants, and pitch for funding and investment — contributing to exhaustion and insecurity. Participants also shared that receiving money, investment, and awards can bring issues, including strained relationships with peers, family, friends, and community members. BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants highlighted feelings of isolation and lack of support while navigating interpersonal and personal issues stemming from receiving unexpected and very public monetary awards. Throughout our conversations with participants, we heard a strong desire for greater self-sufficiency and resiliency, which they hoped could be achieved through equitable financial, legal, policy, and program support. Our discussions with participants centered on three key themes related to money and legal issues:

• Existing financial situations and systems

• Resiliency without the need to sacrifice values

• Relief and durable forms of funding

The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted individual artists, culture bearers, and creative practitioners. As venues closed and events, exhibitions, and performances were canceled, many lost their sources

of income overnight. Unfortunately, the lack of a safety net for creative practitioners and other gig workers in the US made it more difficult for them to weather the pandemic. Even before the pandemic, many creative practitioners could not access traditional employment benefits such as health insurance, retirement savings plans, and unemployment insurance. Self-employed creative practitioners also struggled to access more conventional financial resources and services, such as loans and savings, to help them withstand a crisis (Beeferman and Friend 2021).

Our interviews with BIPOC artists and culture bearers shed light on their financial situations before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many participants reported being financially vulnerable before the pandemic and believed the implemented public health measures, while necessary, disproportionately impacted them. They shared their experiences with economic hardship, work changes, and stimulus programs’ impact. Most interviewed participants received income as independent contractors (1099 payments) or a combination of contractor and employee income (W-2). One intermediary in New Orleans noted that their average culture bearer makes about $17,000 per year and faces significant challenges in making a sustainable living from their creative work. Participants pointed to weak public social safety nets and systemic inequities in existing financial systems as significant factors that left them less able to absorb the impact of the pandemic.

“And the pay hasn’t changed for musicians since the 1980s, they’re still getting paid the same rates. And it’s criminal.”

Memphis Intermediary

Historically, contingent workers have not been eligible for unemployment benefits. However, in March 2020, the federal CARES Act extended Pandemic Unemployment Assistance to independent contractors, providing a much-needed lifeline nationally (Beeferman and Friend 2021). Unfortunately, the delivery of these benefits was hampered by antiquated state labor systems, which resulted in many non-W-2 workers being denied benefits, accused of fraud, or receiving benefit amounts that were significantly too low (ibid). During our interviews with participants in the three cities, we found varied levels of awareness around the expansion of unemployment benefits and other relief programs provided by the CARES Act 1 and ARPA 2. While some participants noted that trusted intermediary organizations had provided information to raise awareness and support them to apply for state and federal benefits and relief programs, most indicated little awareness and expressed frustration with the lack of local support. The difficulties in accessing expanded benefits highlight just one aspect of the precarious ecosystem facing independent contractors — including artists, culture bearers, and creative practitioners.

In our Interviews with BIPOC artists and culture bearers, we heard consistent frustration and exhaustion with working within racist and colonial structures. Many participants resent constantly navigating, confronting, and moving beyond these systems. These sentiments were particularly prevalent when discussing the inequalities and disparities they faced in healthcare, housing, employment opportunities, and financial services and resources. Our Literature Review provided further context for these disparities by examining data and research on the racial wealth gap and the role of financial institutions and banking in communities of color, specifically focusing on majority-Black communities.

1 The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, known as the CARES Act, was a $2.2 trillion economic stimulus bill passed by the 116th US Congress and signed into law by the 45th President on March 27, 2020. The Consolidated Appropriations Act (2021) was passed by Congress on December 21, 2020, and signed into law on December 27, 2020. Together, they provided direct economic assistance to workers, families, small businesses, and industries – providing direct assistance checks, expanding unemployment insurance, and providing payroll protection programs.

2 The American Rescue Plan Act was passed by the 117th US Congress and signed into law by President Biden on March 11, 2021. It provides a considerable infusion of resources to states, cities, towns, and villages in the United States in an extensive program that supports communities to address the pandemic and its economic fallout and build a foundation for a robust and equitable recovery. The US Department of the Treasury is responsible for overseeing the ARPA program.

BIPOC communities face significant disparities in accessing banking services, which can limit their ability to build wealth and access financial resources. According to the FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households (FDIC 2021), unbanked rates are higher among Black, Latinx, and Native American households. Being unbanked means that no household member has a checking or savings account at a bank or credit union. The survey also found that many households were underbanked, meaning they had a bank account but used nonbank transactions or credit products to meet their financial needs. Being unbanked or underbanked can make it harder for individuals to build credit, save money, and access loans. It can increase reliance on highinterest and costly alternative financial services like check cashing and payday loans. Unfortunately, these services can trap individuals in cycles of debt. In the quantitative snapshot for Money + Legal, we delve deeper into the survey’s data and explore the implications for BIPOC artists and culture bearers.

The challenges facing Black individuals and communities in accessing banking services are deeply rooted in systemic racism and historical discrimination. Black depositors and borrowers face significant hurdles, including higher fees, limited access to credit, and fewer banking options in majority Black and Latinx/Hispanic neighborhoods. These barriers lead to limited access to capital and hinder investments in better homes, schools, infrastructure, and healthcare. The decline in the number of Black-owned banks and the overall decrease in banks in majority Black neighborhoods has further compounded the issue. Furthermore, racial inequality in access to home mortgage loans and limited access to capital have widened the racial wealth gap, constraining Black-owned businesses' establishment, expansion, and growth (Broady, McComas, and Ouazad 2021). These persistent and pervasive conditions affect BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants in our study. During Interviews, some participants shared that banks hesitated to lend to those with nonemployment income earned as independent contractors despite having three years of tax returns to provide evidence of income levels. Others spoke candidly about leveraging their White collaborator’s privilege to navigate spaces historically hostile to Black people. Despite these challenges, many BIPOC creative practitioners and organizations have shown resilience and creativity in adapting to the COVID-19 pandemic. Most participants found new ways to connect with audiences through virtual events and social media, generate income through online

platforms like Patreon, Etsy, and Twitch, and participate in mutual aid and support through partnerships with community organizations.

BIPOC artists and culture bearers are at the forefront of the solidarity economy movement. They use their creativity and cultural knowledge to build alternative economic systems prioritizing community selfdetermination, resiliency, and social justice. The solidarity economy concept is rooted in a long tradition of social activism and class-based political struggle. The term solidarity economy gained popularity in the early 1980s in both France and South America, specifically Colombia and Chile. By the mid-1990s, the economia solidária movement had grown significantly, seeking to connect and strengthen existing alternatives to the dominant economic system and build a coherent and powerful social movement for another economy (Laville 2023).

Participants emphasized the importance of secure and equitable values-aligned alternatives to banks, financial institutions, and financial products and services that uphold and participate in neoliberal and racial capitalism. BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants acknowledged the difficulty of fully divesting from these institutions and systems. However, they also saw the solidarity economy as offering opportunities for more just transitions. Building lasting community wealth requires work on two fronts — modifying existing systems while fundamentally reimagining and restructuring systems to work for BIPOC communities and others who have historically and presently experienced exclusion and exploitation (Sherman, Hand, and Bruck 2020). For creative practitioners, the solidarity economy promotes equitable and sustainable economic practices, prioritizing community self-determination, resiliency, and social justice.

BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants shared their ambitions for thriving and resilient creative practices. One Detroit-based participant aspired to earn enough from their creative practice to support themselves with a full-time salary (W-2 income) and hire a few other people as employees or independent contractors. A Memphis-based participant expressed skepticism about the longevity of existing funding streams and emphasized the need for self-sustainability. Another participant was focused on ensuring that the money earned through their creative work and projects was held in Black-owned banks and financial institutions. Each BIPOC artist and culture bearer participant expressed unique and nuanced visions, goals, and values. They require committed allies to

“I wanted my project grant funding deposited at a Black-owned bank…and so I had to have three or four different meetings about this one simple thing, and ultimately, they did not do it. And I was told in so many words, in so many White ways, that it was too much work to open a bank account. For an institution that has a seven-million-dollar operating budget, it was essentially too much work to open another bank account.”

Fiscally Sponsored Artist + Culture Bearer

partner holistically in realizing and supporting their long-term objectives, aspirations, and efforts. However, participants expressed that they were often under-partnered and under-resourced by funders, intermediaries, arts organizations, and legal and financial advisors who fail to appreciate or understand the specific preconditions of place and precarity that BIPOC artists and culture bearers face, distinct from the experiences of their White counterparts.

Participants consistently expressed the need for accessible and relevant financial and legal support resources and services. They highlighted the importance of tailored financial programs and advisors who can offer

personalized support beyond basic overviews, focusing on practical help with taxes, bookkeeping, and financial planning. Participants emphasized the need for connections to FDIC-backed Minority Depository Institutions such as community development financial institutions, credit unions, or organizations with a proven track record of positively supporting communities of color. They also called for financial coaching and economic empowerment programs that build community wealth. The need for legal support was a recurring theme among interviewees and Studio Visit participants, who expressed a desire for access to basic knowledge and opportunities to retain legal counsel and support. Specifically, participants are seeking advice on contracts, intellectual property issues, freedom of expression, and other legal challenges, especially those stemming from social justice projects and practices that include direct action. BIPOC artists and culture bearers were also interested in receiving personalized legal and professional support on entity formation, including developing resilient entities and understanding solidarity economy models such as co-ops and worker-directed nonprofits. Participants expressed a need for legal and business advisors who could work with them closely to navigate their creative, policy, operating, and funding environment— considering the risks and opportunities. Overall, participants underscored the importance of support structures designed to meet the unique needs of BIPOC artists and culture bearers.

Participants noted the need for a more holistic and equitable approach to grantmaking, one that considers the systemic barriers faced by BIPOC artists and culture bearers. This includes providing multi-year funding, support for capacity building and professional development, and recognizing the full scope of creative practitioners’ work beyond just creating art. Intermediaries and funders also acknowledged the need to move beyond a transactional relationship with grantees to build more meaningful relationships prioritizing trust, respect, and collaboration. Additionally, there was recognition of the need to address power imbalances within the funding ecosystem, with some intermediaries exploring the use of participatory grantmaking models that put decisionmaking power in the hands of the communities being served.

During the pandemic, national organizations and initiatives like the Artist Relief Fund, the Actors Fund, and the Freelancers Union provided financial assistance to artists. Similarly, several organizations and foundations in the three cities offered funding to support artists in need. This support included one-time grants, emergency stipends, and financial

assistance for medical bills and essential expenses. The funding provided varied widely, ranging from $500 to $15,000. National relief grants typically averaged around $5,000, while locally available relief grants in Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans averaged $1,000. However, the demand for these programs far exceeded the available resources, leaving many artists without support during the pandemic and its aftermath. The Artist Awards and Grants Field Scan and literature review underscored the need for more equitable funding systems and support for artists, particularly BIPOC artists, to address systemic and structural inequalities.

For artists that received them, COVID-19 artist relief grants provided a critical source of financial support that helped them cover necessities during great uncertainty and economic instability. However, many artists and culture bearers interviewed expressed frustration with these programs as they replicated exclusionary application processes with requirements to prove hardship, such as loss of income, and to answer questions detailing traumas they experienced. One intermediary discussed the failure of many COVID-19 relief grants to support artists equitably and inclusively, especially BIPOC artists and culture bearers, stating “…they cannot get these grants and other opportunities because they don’t have this kind of paperwork and this kind of job, and this kind of W-2 and instead they have 1099s, and all of those things.” Because the intermediary works closely with and understands the realities of how artists in their community are piecing together a living, they worked alongside other regranting organizations to develop flexible direct support that removed many of the barriers present in other relief and emergency grant programs.

Several participants voiced concern that funders and intermediaries may have more positive understandings of money, its systems, and supports than they do. For them, this creates an unconscious weak spot in many programs designed for artists as it bakes in assumptions and a lack of flexibility regarding money and contractual matters. As mentioned earlier, participants shared examples where the sudden influx of money from award programs presented real challenges. Participants identified that at the point of award, there is little formal and informal understanding and support available to address what, in effect, is a significant change to their circumstances. Many BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants were one of only a handful in their networks to receive substantial monetary support through a grant or fellowship. They stated that they had to learn how taxes, health insurance, personal relationships,

and other aspects of their daily lives were impacted by having more money and perceived proximity to wealth and power.

Participants recommended providing individual consultations with tax and accounting professionals and legal advisors early in the award process to help them navigate the impact on their taxes, health insurance, and personal relationships. They also suggested offering flexibility in payment methods and schedules, providing alternatives to checks and direct deposits, and allowing participants to determine when funds are released or timing payments early in the calendar year to provide better tax, health, and benefits planning opportunities. In addition, participants were interested in award programs that offer preparation and connections to other sources of income, such as speaking, consulting, artist-in-residence, and community engagement facilitation opportunities.

Participants in the study emphasized the need for durable funding to support BIPOC artists and culture bearers. This funding should remove barriers to economic empowerment and well-being and could take the form of artist employment and guaranteed income programs. Longerterm fellowship, multi-year operating, and project-based programs that provide funding above median incomes or living wages and allow awardees to use some of the funds for everyday expenses would also be valuable. Specifically, participants were interested in programs that address the variability of monthly and annual income and provide access to benefits such as health insurance, dependent care, paid time off, and retirement savings plans directly connected to their creative work. In Move Forward (part 2 of this report), we share some early-stage examples of programs and awards as Promising Practices. Organizations such as Yerba Buena Center for the Arts, Springboard for the Arts, and Creatives Rebuild NY and states like California are experimenting with artist employment and guaranteed income pilots, providing models at the organizational, community, state, and public policy levels (California Creative Workforce Act - SB 628 20211) and early evidence of their impact in reports such as The Art of Economic Justice (Flynn 2023).

BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants emphasize the importance of simple and flexible programs and processes that support their creative, social justice, and community development endeavors. While financial support is essential, it should be seen as a means to an end, not an end in itself. Funders and intermediaries can provide personalized support to address the unique challenges that BIPOC artists

and their communities face. By investing in creative practitioners, there is an opportunity to build awareness and understanding about the realities they confront and to support initiatives that foster long-term, durable funding and economic empowerment for BIPOC artists and culture bearers.

1 CA Creative Workforce Act 2021 will promote employment for currently unemployed arts workers, establishing 12–24 month learn-and-earn job training opportunities for new creative workers throughout the state. The programs will be implemented locally or regionally by program grantees, including, but not limited to, local government entities, cultural arts agencies, community nonprofit organizations, and other organizations. Employment funded by the project shall pay a living wage and be structured to promote a transition to unsubsidized employment with post-enrollment job placement in a living wage job serving as an important underlying objective of the program.

MONEY + LEGAL

QUANTITATIVE SNAPSHOT OVERVIEW

For many participants, the low level and instability of their income and earnings is an ongoing stressor with wide-ranging impacts. As previously discussed, income is only one part of an overall consideration of wealth and the racial wealth disparities likely experienced by BIPOC artists and culture bearers. The data presented in this snapshot looks at average income and income-to-poverty ratios. Average income includes earnings from all employment for the previous year. The income-to-poverty ratio shows how close a respondent’s income is to their poverty threshold.

The BIPOC Creative Workers and All Other BIPOC Workers categories represent aggregated average incomes and income-to-poverty ratios for race/ethnicity groups Black/African American, Native American, AANHPI, Latinx/Hispanic, Multiracial, or other race groups. The race/ethnicity disaggregated data profiles linked in Appendix 1, indicate that there are wide variances in average incomes and income-to-poverty ratios within the BIPOC Creative Workers and All Other BIPOC Workers categories, which because of aggregation may distort the picture for specific race/ ethnicity groups. For example, the average income in New Orleans for All Other Black/African American Workers is $33,498; for All Other Latinx/ Hispanic Workers, it is $37,092; for All Other AANHPI Workers, it is $46,274. For Black/African American Creative Workers, the average income in New Orleans is $21,420; for Latinx/Hispanic Creative Workers, it is $20,957; and for AANHPI Creative Workers, it is $49,869.

For national context, in 2012-2016, artists earned an estimated median annual income of $52,800 and an average income of $44,640. The average artist’s income is 4.4 times greater than their official poverty income threshold for this period. In contrast, income earned by the average US worker is 3.7 times greater (National Endowment for the Arts 2019, p 25).

This section also includes information from the FDIC about the unbanked and underbanked rates for each of our cities. Unlike the other data in the snapshots, this information is at the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) level, which is a larger geography compared to the three cities’ PUMAs. According to the FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked

Households, administered in partnership with the US Census Bureau, an estimated 4.5% of US households were unbanked in 2021 and 5.4% in 2019. Further, an estimated 14.1% of US households were underbanked. The 2021 survey, consistent with prior surveys, found that unbanked rates were higher among Black and Latinx/Hispanic households. The 2021 differences between Black and White households and between Latinx/Hispanic and White households in unbanked rates were present for every income level. For example, among households with income of $30,000-$50,000, 8.0% of Black households and 8.4% of Latinx/Hispanic households were unbanked, compared with 1.7% of White households. At the MSA level, there are not enough observations to provide estimates, or the sample sizes are too small to produce precise estimates for breakdowns by race and ethnicity.

MONEY + LEGAL AVERAGE INCOME

Source: Authors’ calculations using the American Community Survey 2019 1-year estimates. This reports each respondent's total pre-tax wage and salary income - that is, money received as an employee - for the previous year. For the ACS, the reference period was the past 12 months. Sources of income in this variable include wages, salaries, commissions, cash bonuses, tips, and other money income received from an employer. Payments-in-kind or reimbursements for business expenses are not included. All dollar amounts have been standardized to dollars as valued in 2019.

Detroit BIPOC Creative Workers have a higher average income ($28,195) than their White counterparts ($27,726) and slightly more than the overall average of All Creative Workers in Detroit ($28,050). Detroit BIPOC Creative Workers also have higher average incomes than their BIPOC counterparts in Memphis ($20,499) and New Orleans ($26,687). BIPOC Creative Workers in Memphis and New Orleans have lower average earnings than their White counterparts, with Memphis having the more significant level of disparity.

MONEY + LEGAL INCOME-TO-POVERTY RATIO

CREATIVE WORKERS

CREATIVE WORKERS

OTHER WORKERS

Source: Authors’ calculations using the American Community Survey 2019 1-year estimates. The income-to-poverty ratio shows how close a respondent’s income is to their poverty threshold. The iPUMs POVERTY variable treats respondents who live in families collectively. It expresses each family's total income for the preceding 12 months from the interview as a percentage of the poverty thresholds established by the Social Security Administration in 1964 and subsequently revised in 1980, adjusted for inflation.

In Detroit, the estimated median income-to-poverty ratio for All Workers in the labor force was 2.8. The aggregate estimates for BIPOC Creative Workers are also 2.8, meaning their incomes were, on average, 2.8 times greater than their poverty thresholds. Compared to their White counterparts (3.2x), BIPOC Creative Workers are closer to their poverty thresholds but fare slightly better than All Other BIPOC workers (2.7x) and slightly worse than All Creative Workers (2.9x). BIPOC Creative Workers in Memphis had the closest income-to-poverty ratio (2.5x) compared to all other worker groups in the city. BIPOC Creative Workers in Memphis also were closer to their poverty thresholds when compared to their counterpart BIPOC Creative Workers in Detroit and New Orleans, each with 2.8x. BIPOC Creative Workers in New Orleans were closest to their income-to-poverty ratio, compared with all other worker groups in the city, with All Workers at 3.2x, All Creative Workers at 2.9x, White Creative Workers at 3.4x, and All Other BIPOC Workers at 3.2x.

MONEY + LEGAL ACCESS TO BANKS

The 2021 survey added new questions to understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on transitions in bank account ownership. Nationally, they found that about one in three (34.9 percent) recently banked households reported that receiving a government benefit payment (for example, unemployment benefits or a pandemic stimulus payment) contributed to opening a bank account since March 2020. For the same period, one in five (21.1 percent) of the recently unbanked households indicated that job layoffs, furloughs, significant loss of income, etc., led to closing a bank account.

Between 2019 and 2021, the three MSAs all saw the percentage of unbanked households decrease, with Memphis seeing the greatest change from 17 percent to 9.4 percent. While an improvement, Memphis still had the highest rate of unbanked households compared to the Detroit and New Orleans MSAs. In 2021, Memphis also had the highest percentage of underbanked households, with 31.2 percent, compared to Detroit (12.9 percent) and New Orleans (19.8 percent). Between 2019 and 2021, there was a substantial increase in the percentage of Memphis households underbanked, with 31.2 percent in 2021 compared with 19.7 percent in 2019. Unfortunately, estimates related to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on transitions in bank account ownership are not available at the MSA level.

Source: FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households, administered in partnership with the U.S. Census Bureau.

MONEY + LEGAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Co-create dynamic and responsive investments towards the future sustainability of artists, culture bearers, and their communities. While there is a clear need to modify and fix the inadequacies of existing funding programs, recovery from the ongoing impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic presents an opportunity to reset and co-create durable forms of funding and investment. Grounded in solidarity economy and restorative economic practices (Agbo 2021), artist employment and guaranteed income programs can help address structural barriers BIPOC artists and culture bearers experience. These funding programs would also benefit from offering holistic wrap-around financial and legal services, education, mentorship, and coaching. Participants were optimistic that programs like this could be piloted and implemented with the engagement of BIPOC artists and culture bearers in Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans. Participants noted that they were interested in durable funding programs that simplified the application processes, provided flexibility for awardees, and focused on helping them become financially resilient. More so than one-off award programs like fellowships and project grants, these programs can help create the conditions for longterm relationships with and investments in BIPOC artists, culture bearers, and their communities.

Anticipate and take steps to mitigate the negative impacts of funding and investments.

Place affects a range of socially determined outcomes for BIPOC individuals and communities, explored through the core dimensions of this study. Funding and support for BIPOC artists and culture bearers do not exist in a vacuum independent of dominant inequitable financial, economic, legal, and justice systems. The study outlines the need for reimagining funding programs with greater awareness and understanding of the potential barriers and downstream consequences experienced by BIPOC artists, culture bearers, and their communities. It is necessary to fundamentally question and reevaluate the assumptions and theories of change that underpin funding programs for creative practitioners — how resources are transmitted and to what end. As one participant put it, there is a difference between giving away money as a

prize versus investing in individuals and communities. Reproducing the status quo formats and processes perpetuates exclusion and harm for BIPOC artists and culture bearers. This was true for participants, whether discussing fellowship and project grants or detailing their experiences of overly bureaucratic and technocratic stimulus, relief, emergency, and recovery programs. Crafting funding programs responsive to BIPOC artists and culture bearers requires embracing and piloting novel and developing concepts, methods, and approaches that actively create equity. Funders and intermediaries interviewed recognized the need for distilling and sharing promising practices — both the nitty gritty of developing and implementing some of these changes inside their organizations and overcoming objections from their leadership, board of directors, accounting, and legal counsel. One approach could be investing in communities of practice within, between, and beyond Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans. Funders and intermediaries working with BIPOC artists and culture bearers could review and shift exclusionary practices towards more flexible and beneficial processes.

Cultivate partnerships with values-aligned financial and legal organizations and professionals. Needing money, resources, and financial empowerment is not the same as accepting neoliberal capitalism. Most participants recognize that they must find ways to cope with and operate within the current economic structures while investing time, energy, and ideas toward more just approaches to resilience and community wealth building. The shifts needed to establish durable funding models and solidarity economy approaches and initiatives more firmly require the work of allied legal and financial professionals and public policymakers at all levels. The study also highlighted BIPOC artists and culture bearers’ needs for more equitable access to financial institutions and personalized financial, tax, and legal support. Identifying and building relationships with valuesaligned accountants, financial planners, lawyers, and business advisors takes considerable time and resources. However, their expertise and services are critically needed to build genuinely transformative funding and investments in BIPOC artists, culture bearers, and their communities.

MONEY + LEGAL SUMMARY

• BIPOC artists and culture bearers seek pathways, funding, and partnerships that lead to greater resiliency and opportunities to build community wealth.

• Programs for BIPOC artists and culture bearers need to understand, confront, and not perpetuate the inequities of existing financial systems and structures.

• The arts and culture sector must actively engage in the solidarity economy and restorative economics through partnerships, investments, and knowledge exchanges designed to shift individual, organizational, and field-wide approaches and practices.

Throughout this report, we have explored the experiences and perspectives of BIPOC artists and culture bearers in Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans. These individuals face significant barriers and challenges when accessing financial and legal support resources and services. They encounter systemic racism and historical discrimination in banking and financial services, which makes it difficult for them to build wealth and access capital. The COVID-19 pandemic has only compounded these issues, leaving many artists struggling to make ends meet.

Despite these challenges, BIPOC artists and culture bearers show resilience and creativity in adapting to the pandemic. They use their cultural knowledge to build alternative economic systems prioritizing community self-determination, resiliency, and social justice. They also call for accessible and relevant financial and legal support resources and services that move beyond exposure or overview sessions to personalized support around taxes, bookkeeping/accounting, bank access, financial coaching, economic empowerment, planning and investing, and entity formation.

To effectively support BIPOC artists and culture bearers in their creative, social justice, and community development endeavors, funders and intermediaries need to adopt a personalized and durable approach. They should acknowledge the specific challenges and conditions faced by BIPOC artists and culture bearers and develop financial and legal support

resources that are simple, flexible, and responsive to their long-term objectives, aspirations, and efforts. Collaborate with and actively listen to BIPOC artists and culture bearers to establish partnerships that foster an equitable and just creative sector.

DISCUSSION

Rooted in the sociocultural landscapes of Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans, Looking Back to Move Forward was an 18-month research project by rootoftwo to understand the creative practices, life situations, contexts, ecosystems, work realities, and networks of BIPOC artists and culture bearers engaged in social justice and community development activities. The project wasn't just a research endeavor but a mission to appreciate the needs, challenges, and aspirations of the BIPOC artists and culture bearers who infuse these cities with vibrancy and resilience. Looking Back to Move Forward was designed to inform and identify strategies and opportunities to build new and enhance existing support programs, infrastructure, and funding for BIPOC artists and culture bearers. Shared themes unfolded from the perspectives of the participating artists and culture bearers. These themes formed the contours of a vision: a vision of community-oriented, racially equitable, economically just, and deeply inclusive socio-cultural landscapes. The research underscored the opportunity for all stakeholders, notably funders and intermediaries, to participate actively in this vision.

BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants emphasized the need for robust support, including multi-year, flexible funding that offers pathways towards financial resilience and recognizes the emerging organizational and business models within which they operate. Holistic support for BIPOC artists and culture bearers requires uplifting the plurality of approaches to creative practice and expression, valued beyond their contributions to city building and community development. The research highlighted how funding programs for creative practitioners have a greater impact beyond recognizing and validating their creative labor. These programs can yield positive and often unanticipated adverse effects on artists’ and culture bearers’ livelihoods, relationships within their creative ecosystem, and interplay with their communities. Participants also advocated for their active and genuine engagement in designing, implementing, and evaluating new and evolved funding and support programs. If sought throughout the lifecycle of programs, the perspectives and insights of creative practitioners can help anticipate and mitigate potential harms while instigating and generating more equitable and innovative approaches.

The contributing artists work intensely within complex peer and community networks built on trust. They are interested in co-defining working structures with funders and intermediaries as partners based on mutual understanding, increased transparency, and sensitivity to their contexts and potential for network effects. The research stressed the need to collaborate with artists, culture bearers, and their communities to design programs that offer inclusive, adaptable, and relevant learning opportunities that leverage peer experiences and mentorship. Participants also emphasized the importance of creating platforms responsive to changing circumstances and presented a strong case for integrating care, rest, and well-being into award programs.

They expressed an urgency for re-imagined funding models that empower artists and culture bearers to invest in long-term assets and infrastructure, emphasizing the importance of economically and socially investing in the surrounding communities to disrupt cycles of displacement. Discussions with participants brought monetary and legal issues into increased focus, revealing a demand for financial resilience that does not require compromising values. Participants called for more diversified capital access, financial education, and models prioritizing community wealth-building.

Thus, the challenge is to co-create genuinely inclusive, responsive, and empowering ecosystems prioritizing the health, well-being, and financial resilience of BIPOC artists and culture bearers. This involves moving away from exclusionary practices and embracing flexible, tailored, and longterm supportive approaches. Moreover, it is about aligning intentions and actions with solidarity and restorative economics ideals. This moment of recovery after the COVID-19 pandemic presents a rare opportunity to reset and redefine our relationships with BIPOC artists and culture bearers and become accountable partners committed to their vision of a more just and equitable creative sector.

As the researchers, we have been humbled by the insights, patience, and thoughtfulness the participants brought to this work. Their stories, concerns, and visions for a more equitable future have shaped the outcomes of this study and enriched our appreciation of the resilience

and creativity of these communities. We extend our deepest gratitude to each participant, recognizing their generous contributions during this journey. When we began, we could not fully anticipate the extent of adaptation, endurance, and commitment to complete this work. Standing on the other side, we are hopeful that the insights gained from this study will inspire deeper thinking about and guide the creation and evolution of programs and initiatives to center BIPOC artists and culture bearers as vital contributors to our shared cultural narratives and equitable futures.

LOOKING BACK TO MOVE FORWARD PART 2

PROMISING PRACTICES

Drawn from our Artist Awards and Grants Field Scan and Literature Review, this section uplifts ten examples indicative of the practices, approaches, and topics consistently highlighted by the BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants. They prompted the research team to ask:

• How might we capture, critique, and apply lessons/models from experiments in real-time?

• How might we incorporate strategies, tactics, and processes—when it is not feasible to replicate whole programs or models?

• How might we reconsider the foundational approaches to grantmaking for artists?

• How might we embed systems-level policy change that benefits creative workers in solidarity with other contingent workers?

• How might we incorporate futures/foresight work to become more responsive and proactive?

Combined with information from the Studio Visit participants, the questions provoked by the Promising Practices guided the design of the Workshop in a Box activities and Momentum gathering.

It is an understatement to say that the study was conducted during a difficult period globally, within and beyond the creative sector. Despite the myriad challenges, traumas, and uncertainty, many people seized upon this time to renew and improve how the creative sector operates and for whom. Many of these examples got underway or were reimagined in response to the damaging impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and in the pursuit of social justice. This list is a small fraction of the collective efforts by artists, culture bearers, funders, researchers, and policymakers to trouble norms and establish pathways toward a more equitable, just, and abundant future.

CREATIVES REBUILD NEW YORK

New York isn’t New York without artists.

https://www.creativesrebuildny. org/

WHO

Creatives Rebuild New York (CRNY) is a three-year initiative formed to provide guaranteed income and employment opportunities to 2,700 New York artists and nonprofit organizations or municipalities that will employ them across New York State.

WHAT

CRNY’s Artist Employment Program will fund 300 artists to work with community-based, nonprofit organizations or municipalities across New York

State. Participating artists will receive a salary proportionate to the median household income in New York State of $65,000 per year, with benefits and time to focus on their artistic practice. In addition, the partnering organizations that apply jointly are eligible to receive funding to support the artists’ employment.

CRNY’s Guaranteed Income for Artists Program will make available $1,000 per month for 18 months to 2,400 New York artists who demonstrate financial need.

WHERE

New York State

WHEN

Artist Employment Program February 14, 2022 – June 2024 Guaranteed Income for Artists Program February 14, 2022 –18 months

WHY

CRNY hopes to inspire a national movement to put artists back to work and help communities understand how artists contribute – as culture

bearers, changemakers, and teachers. CRNY believes artists deserve equitable, sustainable support structures and seeks to address artist unemployment and under-employment. The initiative will support creative work in partnership with local arts and cultural organizations to allow artists to remain in New York State. The arts and culture sector generates $120 billion annually and provides half a million jobs for the state. Unfortunately, New York State lost 50% and New York City a staggering 72% of its performing arts jobs during the COVID-19 pandemic.

HOW

CRNY is supported by $115 million from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, $5 million from the Ford Foundation, and $5 million from the Stavros Niarchos Foundation, for a total commitment of $125 million. The initiative is a fiscally sponsored project of Tides Center.

WHY IT’S PROMISING

The initiative recognizes that race, class, ability, and other forms of privilege often dictate access to financial security. CRNY convened a diverse coalition of New York State artists, scholars, strategists, and activists as a Leadership Council and Think Tank to

determine the approach of both programs. CRNY is prioritizing communities across New York State that have historically been under-resourced by philanthropy. These efforts move beyond valuing the artistic product and begin to respect the artist’s humanity and acknowledge that artists need and deserve to be paid predictable and regular incomes. CRNY is an example of a program created wherein artists served as critical thought partners in conceptualization and implementation. CRNY has also sought advice from experts to ensure that people with disabilities, those without Internet access, and non-English speakers receive support throughout the application process.

HUEARTS NYC

Mapping a future for arts entities founded and led by Black, Indigenous, Latinx, Asian, Pacific Islander, Middle Eastern, and all People of Color in New York City. https://www.hueartsnyc.org/ brown-paper/

WHO

HueArts NYC is an initiative comprising Museum Hue, The Laundromat Project, and Hester Street - all organizations led by and in service of People of Color.

WHAT

The research project chronicles the experiences of arts entities founded and led by Black, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian, Pacific Islander, Middle Eastern, and all People of Color. HueArts NYC uses the term People of Color (POC) as a unifier and to bring attention to the collective solidarity efforts pushing against systemic racial injustices. The two primary deliverables for the project were an interactive digital map and

directory of POC arts entities in NYC and a Brown Paper containing findings, resources, and recommendations gathered from surveys and community conversations. Composed of more than 400 POC-led arts entities, the digital map was an extension of previous efforts to aggregate basic information and increase exposure.

WHERE

New York City and online

WHEN

Since February 2022

WHY

To better understand the specific experiences and needs of arts entities, HueArts NYC used a combination of methods to find answers to two questions:

• How can HueArts NYC support NYC-based arts and cultural entities founded and led by Black, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian, Pacific Islander, Middle Eastern, and all People of Color?

• How can HueArts NYC help arts entities founded and led by Black, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian, Pacific Islander, Middle Eastern, and all People of Color thrive long-term?

HOW

The project was made possible

with the support of the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs in partnership with the City Council, the Ford Foundation, and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. Quantitative data from 41 surveys were analyzed alongside qualitative data from community conversations and a listening tour. HueArts NYC organized findings into six recommendations, complete with actionable steps for funders and policymakers:

1. Create a designated $100M fund for POC arts and cultural entities.

2. Establish and dedicate a substantive baseline of the city’s annual budget to POC arts.

3. Invest in place as a long-term strategy for POC arts’ stability and opportunity to thrive.

4. Foster career and community building among professionals at POC arts entities.

5. Self-determine data needs and priorities for and about POC arts entities.

6. Invest in higher and sustained visibility of POC arts entities in NYC.

WHY IT’S PROMISING

HueArts NYC prioritized a research method, process, and output that addresses resource and funding inequities that POC-founded and led arts and cultural entities face. Their Brown

Paper initiative calls for and sets out steps toward redistributing resources to ensure that arts leaders, artists, and organizations of color reap the same benefits for their work as their predominantly White counterparts.

ART MATTERS FOUNDATION: ARTIST2ARTIST FELLOWSHIP

Assisting artists who make work intending to break ground aesthetically and socially. https://www. artmattersfoundation.org/ announcements/announcing2021-artist2artist-fellows

WHO

Art Matters Foundation has supported artists whose work breaks ground aesthetically and socially since 1985. Art Matters’ grants provide advisory services to grantees and engage in advocacy initiatives.

WHAT

A pilot of a new horizontal regranting program titled Artist2Artist, where grant

recipients – artists – act as grantmakers for peer fellows. In 2021, Art Matters Foundation awarded 36 Artist2Artist fellowships for a total of $195,000 to individual artists and teams working across contemporary art, performance, and cultural organizing.

WHERE

United States

WHEN

Since October 2021

WHY

Artist2Artist fellowships are designed to entrust and empower artists by affirming their specialized knowledge of their communities. Art Matters Director Abbey Williams hopes the new fellowship program aligns with other initiatives to undo disempowering systems of traditional philanthropy, boosting artists’ sovereignty.

HOW

In 2020, Art Matters Foundation changed its definition of the term artist to include culture workers who enhance the arts ecosystem through community engagement, mutual aid, and the creation and maintenance of alternative support structures for artists. In early 2021, Art Matters Foundation sought

feedback from alums granted awards and learned that they needed more support specifically for Justice + Anti-Oppressive Practices (Disability, Gender/ Sexuality, Race/Intersectionality); Geographies (Labor/Migration, Trans-regionality/ Transnationalism, Coalitions); Cultures of Care (Medical, Spiritual, and Ecological Health); Individual Interventions (Experimentation, Mutual Aid, Non-Productivity); and Reimagining Institutions (Alternative Support Structures). Subsequently, the Art Matters Foundation decided to move toward a process where 13 alum grantees were selected based on their work within the artistgenerated themes listed above. They were elected to receive a fellowship and designate additional artists or culture workers in their extended networks as peer recipients. There was no application or panel process.

WHY IT’S PROMISING

Art Matters Foundation designed Artist2Artist as an evolving horizontal granting model that affirms artists’ specialized knowledge of their communities. It is a prime example of a funder soliciting input from the artists they seek to support, genuinely listening, and taking direct action to support artists’ specific needs.

CREATIVE FUTURES

Forty provocations to reimagine the arts, documentary, and journalism.

https://www.fordfoundation. org/news-and-stories/big-ideas/ creative-futures/

WHO

The Ford Foundation is an American private foundation aiming to advance human welfare. Ford’s Creativity and Free Expression program has a $26 million budget to fund the arts, journalism, and documentary filmmaking. The program explores how cultural narratives influence contemporary reality and how these expressive forms can contribute to more balanced, inclusive representations of society.

WHAT

Ford Foundation’s Creativity and Free Expression team responded with an invitation for honest, action-oriented feedback from 44 “thinkers” across the foundation’s focus areas of arts and culture, documentary film,

and journalism. Creative Futures includes contributions from Aaron Dworkin, Alberto B. Mendoza, Alice Sheppard, Alissa Quart, Ana Serrano, Angie Kim, Aruna D’Souza, Brett Story, Carlton Turner, Carrie Lozano, Chris E. Vargas, Coco Fusco, Craig Santos Perez, Dark Study, Don Young, Emily Ladau, Grace Lee, Heather Chaplin, Imara Jones, Iyabo Boyd, Jenni Monet, Jess Devaney, Lam Thuy Vo, Las Imaginistas, Lewis Raven Wallace, Louis Massiah, Luisa Dantas, Marc Bamuthi Joseph, Maria Hinojosa, Maribel Alvarez, Matt Thompson, Mazin Sidahmed, Mutale Nkonde, Natalia Almada, New Negress Film Society, New Red Order, Patty Berne (interviewed by Bianca Laureano), Postcommodity, Shaun Leonardo, Sofía Gallisá Muriente, Sonya Childress, Taylor Aldridge, Teddy Dorsette III, and Thelma Golden. The project also commissioned original illustrations from DC-based designer Sawsan Chalabi, who is represented by the Marlena Agency. Internally the project was led by Tolu Onafowokan and Chi-hui Yang.

WHERE Online WHEN Fall 2020

WHY

2020 brought widespread crises, exposing the failure of society’s systems and structures, and calling for urgent change. Part of this change involved the arts, film, and journalism sectors taking accountability for their role in inflicting harm upon marginalized communities.

HOW

Each invitation included the same prompt asking for concrete and actionable suggestions for transforming a particular element, practice, contour, or context of the participants' field, whether aesthetic, ethical, procedural, infrastructural, business, innovative, communal, or otherwise. The result, Creative Futures, was launched as a collection of written provocations organized into the following six thematic categories or entry points into the conversation:

• Co-operation: resource-sharing and collective ownership

• Place: rootedness and local responsibility

• New Paradigms: reorganizing systems and power dynamics

• Artmaking: aesthetic interventions and reformulations

• Money: novel economies and financial practices

• New Infrastructures: alternative blueprints and DIY spaces.

WHY IT’S PROMISING

Creative Futures used an invitation-based model for collecting ideas and suggestions for transforming the way arts and culture programs are shaped, resourced, and platformed. Participating thinkers were asked to tailor their offerings for direct action based on their individual experiences in their respective fields, encouraging openness and specificity. Creative Futures offers space to assess entry points to reshape how various and diverse cultural narratives are cared for while revealing organic connections and themes between those entry points. Organizing learnings and feedback in thematic sections allow users to better identify with and deploy specific tactics to transform arts and cultural work.

SOLIDARITY NOT CHARITY

Arts and culture grantmaking in the solidarity economy.

https://art.coop/#report

WHO

Nati Linares and Caroline Woolard are the co-authors of the Solidarity not Charity report and co-organizers of Art.coop working alongside an interdisciplinary team of co-organizers including Marina Lopez, Sruti Suryanarayanan, Ebony Gustave, and Robin Bean Crane.

WHAT

A rapid report on how arts and culture funders can support and align with the approaches of BIPOC creatives for selfdetermination and community wealth. Commissioned by Grantmakers in the Arts and supported by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Kenneth Rainin Foundation, and the Barr Foundation.

WHEN

Since March 2021

WHERE Online WHY

Worker co-ops, community land trusts, concessional loans, and mutual aid networks are some of the systems artists and culture bearers have deployed for more democratic governance and community ownership. Funders that wish to create economic and racial justice in the sector can purposefully support these people and systems by changing their grantmaking practices.

HOW

Grantmakers can follow the principles of the Solidarity Economy and the practices of community governance that their grantees are innovating by:

• Embracing systems change and conducting power analysis

• Committing to long-term work with multiyear grants, loans, and equity investments for solidarity economy institutions and networks

• Supporting collaboration, leadership development, and study groups

• Advocating for policies supporting solidarity economy infrastructure

WHY IT’S PROMISING

Art.coop provides an intentional platform and approach that moves from the Solidarity not Charity research report into a study-in-action series, podcast, and more. Co-learning is embedded as a model to seed the findings and recommendations from the report, connecting popular arts educators, cultural organizers and creators, art academics, economists, and grantmakers to participate in the remaking of culture and society to repair the harms of neoliberal and racial capitalism.

WATERERS

Equitable philanthropy through radical gift making.

https://www.waterers.org/

WHO

The Waterers are Keila Anali Saucedo, Joua Lee Grande, Abdurrahman Mahmud, Holly Doll, Ka Oskar Ly, Michelle Fredericks DuBray, John Davis, Peter Strong, Rachel Asleson. Waterers grew out of the Local Control, Local Fields initiative of ArtPlace America to strengthen local decision-making and placetending through creative practice.

WHAT

This was a people-powered transformative process to disrupt conventional philanthropy to move money to un(der)funded artists, culture bearers, and organizations. A total of $2.76M was distributed. Significant

resources supported Native organizations with funds targeted toward reparations, restoration, and the Land Back Movement. Funds were also quickly disbursed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and global uprisings following the murder of George Floyd. Funds prioritized BIPOC artists and communities.

WHEN

Since 2020

WHERE

Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and the 23 Native Nations within this geographic region.

WHY

The Waterers exist to disrupt, challenge, and transform the traditional competitive and scarcity model of grantmaking and ‘giving’ towards one of cooperation, abundance, and selfdetermination. As an experiment in prioritizing local decisionmaking, they sought to develop processes and illustrate the value of redistributing funds to BIPOC culture bearers, artists, and their collective cultural power.

HOW

The program relies on people who know and are part of their respective localities and

geographies to make decisions. They fund unrestricted gifts through a nomination process with no applications required from the giftees. The Waterers also minimized traditional forms of grant reporting. Instead, giftees focused on narrativeshifting work, supported with time and mentorship to develop and tell their stories. There were also intentional gatherings where cross-mentorship and colearning took place to deepen relationships and nurture those engaged in place-tending as a community of practice.

WHY IT’S PROMISING

Increasingly co-creative, transparent, and unrestricted giving for artists and culture bearers is being tested and piloted in different forms. This provides a compelling model of a nomination-only process that deliberately challenges the norm of an “application.” By disrupting that convention, the Waterers were able to shift everything upstream and downstream of that intervention: how they find, nominate, and fund culture bearers and artists, as well as how they research and report, were all reimagined with an assembly in proper relationship with one another.

CAIR LAB

Cross-sector artists in residence lab.

https://cairlab.net/

WHO

CAIR Lab (Civic Artists in Residence) is an interdisciplinary team of professional artists, researchers, arts managers, and government administrators specializing in building artistin-residence in government programs, which can help address wicked problems and create civic systems of creativity and care.

WHAT

CAIR Lab collaborates with government staff, artists, and communities by creating artistically designed civic engagement tools based on research.

WHEN Since 2021

WHERE

United States

WHY

Art can explain and highlight

features of lived experiences otherwise overlooked or ignored. By valuing the subjective nature of the human experience and evoking emotional responses, artists offer alternative ways of communicating and constructing novel forms of representation, promoting dialogue and shared storytelling. Artists-in-residence in government may use these skills to influence how an agency operates, connect with stakeholders in nontraditional ways, and develop new programs. This engagement can aid in a culture shift in the institution, influence a change in priorities, or assist in enacting systems change.

HOW

CAIR Lab conducts research that provides a broad view of how artists are embedded in government. They articulate a model of practice where the exchange with agency staff is process-based and focuses on developing a cultural plan and shifting inter-agency communication. In this practice, program design, implementation, and sustainability are the artwork rather than a mural or festival.

WHY IT’S PROMISING

New modes of working can create local community engagement opportunities that are more culturally responsive to the

members of that community. In addition, better communication and more equitable practices between the government and citizens are more likely to address the community’s specific needs and build trust.

NATIVE ARTS AND CULTURES FOUNDATION: SHIFT

Transformative change and Indigenous arts.

https://www.

nativeartsandcultures.org/ programs/shift

WHO

The Native Arts and Cultures Foundation (NACF) is a Nativeled, 501 (c) 3 philanthropic organization dedicated exclusively to perpetuating American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian arts and cultures nationwide. NACF advances equity and cultural knowledge, focusing on the power of arts and collaboration to strengthen Native communities and promote positive social change with American Indians, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native peoples in the United States.

WHAT

SHIFT provides invaluable resources to artists and their collaborators for communitydriven projects responding

to social, environmental, or economic justice issues through a Native lens. The award program supports project development, production, and presentation and provides multi-year holistic services to artists, cultural practitioners, and community partners. This $100,000 two-year award dedicated $50,000 in unrestricted funds to the artist or art collective, with the remaining money supporting the project and project partners. After a public launch of the application process in 2021, NACF awarded 15 artists/ collectives through their SHIFT program.

WHEN

Since 2021

WHERE

United States

WHY

NACF developed SHIFT to bolster the voices of Native artists and stakeholders. The program aims to nurture and preserve the brilliance of Native artists and their practices by providing a comprehensive award. SHIFT increases the attention on Native artists as essential to broader contemporary art discourse. It supports awardees to develop new works built upon community cultural assets, resilience, and

strengths. SHIFT is designed to lift constraints and provide crucial time and space for realizing the artists’ work in partnership with other collaborators.

HOW

SHIFT has a multi-phase application process and provides award decisions within nine months. Artists/collectives apply with a partner organization by submitting a simple letter of interest (LOI). Finalists are invited to submit a complete application and receive support from NACF on project development, budgeting, and articulating deliverables. Between 10 and 15 projects are selected. Awardees benefit from a comprehensive program that includes financial resources, professional development, mentorship, convening, communications, exhibition and presenting opportunities, advocacy, and evaluation support.

WHY IT’S PROMISING

SHIFT has developed a holistic system of support based on mutuality and deep relationships with Native artists and communities. The award is for two years and allows more time and space to develop projects and partnerships. While the timeframe itself is a gift, the award includes

additional opportunities such as a platform with programmatic services that center the energy and agency of the awardees, their partners, collaborators, and communities.

Cultural Policy Action Lab

CULTURAL POLICY ACTION LAB

A community of practice program for public sector workers who seek to advance racial equity.

https://www.giarts.org/culturalpolicy-action-lab

WHO

The Cultural Policy Action Lab is a leadership and professional development community of practice program convened by Grantmakers in the Arts (GIA) for public sector workers who seek to advance racial equity through arts and culture and public policy.

WHAT

The action lab provided two integrated tracks:

1. Cultural Policy Public Learning Series: Open to GIA members and the public, this 8-part series focused on core elements of cultural policy and new approaches to advancing racial equity through policy structures. Each session consisted of 90 minutes of instruction and 30 minutes of conversation with

leaders in the field.

2. Cultural Policy Leadership Cohort: Ten public sector leaders were selected to form a learning community focused on applying equitable policy approaches in non-arts sectors. Cohort members attended the Cultural Policy Public Learning Series and met between the sessions for feedback, coaching, and skill development while workshopping policy solutions to real-world situations.

WHEN

May-September 2022

WHERE Online

WHY

Grantmakers in the Arts identified a need to address a skills gap in public policy, regulatory and legislative frameworks, public financing and budgeting, and critical race frameworks within the public sector for people working in arts administration. As a result, three necessary interventions were indicated for the sector. 1) Support arts and public sector leaders (particularly BIPOC workers) with skills, training, and advancement opportunities focusing on policy transformation. 2) Facilitate learning networks between arts and non-arts sector leaders

committed to culture-based racial equity practice and policy.

3) Commit to strengthening local/ regional collaborative system transformation.

HOW

Grantmakers in the Arts brought together leaders with deep experience leading equitable transformation in the public sector to co-design these activities to explicitly bridge the gap between knowledge and practice. As a result, the National Cultural Policy Learning Series and the Cultural Policy Leadership Cohort contributes to four primary knowledge and competency areas that are vital to public sector arts leaders focusing on equitable policy transformation, including:

• Core Frameworks of Cultural Policy

• Racial Justice Approaches to Policy

• Translational Leadership

• Applied Practice in Other Sectors

WHY IT’S PROMISING

GIA provides rigorous professional development necessary for cultural workers in the public sector to advance racial equity and effective cross-sector work through these new programs. The Cultural Policy Action Lab trains civic leaders to center artists, change-makers, and community

self-determination in the imagination and implementation of public policy. It builds adaptive leadership skills translating between the arts and other sectors.

SPRINGBOARD FOR THE ARTS GUARANTEED MINIMUM INCOME FOR ARTISTS

Exploring the impact of guaranteed income on artists, culture bearers, and creative workers at a neighborhood level. https://springboardforthearts. org/guaranteed-income/

WHO

In 2021, Springboard for the Arts launched its guaranteed minimum income pilot as a sidecar to the City of St. Paul’s People’s Prosperity Pilot. It was inspired by the Mayors for Guaranteed Income network. As one of the first pilots in the nation to focus on the creative workforce, providing 18 months of support to eligible artists adversely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic at the neighborhood level. Funding for this initiative came from private foundations.

WHAT

The original pilot provided monthly $500 unrestricted support for 18 months to 25 artists in the Frogtown and Rondo

neighborhoods of St. Paul. The program expanded in 2023-2024 to support 50 artists in the Frogtown and Rondo neighborhoods and 25 artists based in rural Otter Tail County, MN.

WHERE

St. Paul, MN and Otter Tail County, MN

WHEN

Since 2021

WHY

Guaranteed income increases economic stability. Knowing that income will regularly come in can smooth income volatility and help mitigate crises when faced with a financial emergency. Guaranteed income can help shift individuals out of survival mode and provide them with added capacity and resiliency. Springboard for the Arts’ Guaranteed Minimum Income pilot provides a national model for the inclusion of artists in policies that address economic inequity, promoting urban-rural solidarity.

HOW

Springboard for the Arts selected participants at random from an eligible pool of artists in the St. Paul neighborhoods of Frogtown, Rondo, and Otter Tail County.

They selected individuals who had been negatively impacted by COVID-19, received support from their Coronavirus Personal Emergency Relief Fund or other services, and lived in the identified communities.

For the inaugural cohort, over 85% of the 25 participants identified as Black, Native, and/ or People of Color. 30% are ages 20-29, 20% are ages 30-39, 30% are ages 40-59, and 20% are age 60+. Recipients identified as painters, sculptors, hip-hop artists, visual artists, singers, composers, teaching artists, culture bearers, performers, and writers.

WHY IT’S PROMISING

The inaugural pilot program focused on neighborhoods that were considered to have high poverty rates by the Economic Innovation Group. Frogtown is home to families from Southeast Asia, Africa, Central- and South America and is one of the most ethnically diverse areas in the Midwest. The Rondo neighborhood, historically St. Paul’s most prominent African American community, was centered around Rondo Avenue. Much of it was demolished between 1956 and 1968 to make way for the I-94 freeway, displacing many families,

businesses, and community gathering places. Both neighborhoods are culturally vibrant and resilient and continue to face the impacts of historic and present disinvestment disproportionately. This hyperlocal focus supports artists, culture bearers, and creative workers with guaranteed minimum income and also builds a cohort of artists to lead narrative change projects. These projects focus on the need for economic justice as a community priority and amplify the need for artists to participate and benefit from restorative economic systems. Alongside this work, Springboard for the Arts partnered with the University of Pennsylvania Center for Guaranteed Income Research to study and develop reporting that can help inform policy, recognizing the need for these models to proliferate and scale as appropriate to meet community needs. Emerging themes from the inaugural pilot found that the guaranteed minimum income positively contributed to participants’ financial stability, long-term planning, and increased resiliency. Participants also felt that the program helped shift exclusionary practices within the creative sector.

METHODS + ACTIVITIES

INTRODUCTION

This chapter shares two methods and their related activities developed for Looking Back to Move Forward, described in detail with examples of why and how they were implemented.

There are many ways to listen. The methods and activities served as opportunities to learn about the perspectives of BIPOC artists and culture bearers on their own terms, unencumbered by the expectation of conforming to what they think a funder or intermediary wants.

Our approach was to use methods and structure activities to trouble assumptions, build critical insights, and test programmatic and grantmaking models. The activities were devised as constructive prompts for BIPOC artists and culture bearers to develop their visioning and reflective work. Our goal was to provide a conduit to communicate the ways that artists and culture bearers are building resiliency for themselves and their communities and what support is needed for them to thrive.

The team aimed to prioritize considerations that would benefit BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants rather than provide convenience for the researchers. As fellow artists, designers, and researchers, we attempted to demonstrate care and sensitivity in the methods and activities developed. We hope they are helpful to other researchers, funders, facilitators, artists, culture bearers, and organizers.

METHOD 1 WORKSHOP IN A BOX: A CULTURAL PROBE

Workshop in a Box is a self-guided series of activities that creative practitioners complete on their own time. The intent was to take an inperson workshop’s typical activities (interaction, reflection, response, and hospitality) and reconfigure them for the constraints imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown.

The activities examine the ecology, connectedness, and issues facing BIPOC artists and culture bearers in Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans. The workshop was designed to generate individualized insights on how best to support and honor the variety of practices represented across the group of BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants.

Conceived as a form of cultural probe (Gaver, Dunne, and Pacenti 1999), BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants are given instructions and worksheets to share insights. Once completed, the BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants return the worksheets for analysis. The activities included original or adapted workshops, including:

• ACTIVITY 1: CIRCUIT DIAGRAM – Ecosystem Mapping

• ACTIVITY 2: THE GATHERING – Semantic Environment Canvas

• ACTIVITY 3: IN 2030… – Backcasting and Scaffolding

Thirty-two BIPOC artists and culture bearers were invited to participate. BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants were given three weeks to complete and return the activities in a pre-paid envelope or by emailing photos of the worksheets. The worksheets were double-sided, measured

34”x23” (the equivalent of eight letter-sized pages per side), and were printed in color. The scale and quality of the worksheets communicated our value for the time and input from the BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants. Worksheets in an in-person workshop are often at a size where multiple people can read what is written on them from a few feet away. We kept this format even though they were for use by individuals in their own spaces.

Given that we were, in a way, attempting to map the practices of the BIPOC artists and culture bearers in Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans, we felt that the experience of unfolding and laying out a map was an appropriate user experience. We also wanted the experience of engaging with the worksheets to feel as far from that of filling in a form as possible, both in physical and psychological terms.

When completely folded, each of the three worksheets formed an 8 ½”x11” sheet with the number (1, 2, or 3) and the title Looking Back to Move Forward on the front. When unfolded, one side had an introduction to the activity, including its purpose within the research; step-by step instructions; a place to write any feedback on the activity; and a description of the overarching research project identifying that it was led by rootoftwo and funded by The Kresge Foundation. Graphics included a map of the US with Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans indicated; and digitized hand-drawn arrows. On the other side was a condensed version of the step-by-step instructions, areas laid out within which BIPOC artist

and culture bearer participants could complete the activities by writing their responses with the pens (included) or by attaching pre-printed and color-coded stickers to the sheet (also included).

Just as in an in-person event, BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants were encouraged to prioritize breaks, self-care, and everyday life while working on the activities. To help with that, Workshop in a Box contained self-care goodies from small, BIPOC, LGBTQ+, womxn-owned, or social enterprise creators from Detroit, Memphis, New Orleans, and Baltimore (popcorn, tea, pralines, a scented candle, and coffee).

All BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants were compensated, regardless of whether they completed the activities or returned them, using an online platform offering a range of options for digital and physical means of compensation. With this system, the participant could choose whether they wanted a digital-only or a physical cash card that allowed them the flexibility of in-person and online payments without sharing sensitive information with the researcher or organization — only a name, email, and phone number were required.

WHY IT’S USED

Cultural probes take many forms and elicit information in various ways, including structured activities, journaling, voice memos, and photos. As a research method, cultural probes work best with smaller groups of participants. Tailored to the research, cultural probes help the participants process and document their personal experiences and reflections through structured prompts, tasks, and activities. Cultural probes offer an effective alternative to traditional surveys and focus groups. Participants work in their own time and context without the pressure and likely performativity of a workshop setting. They offer researchers access to more generative, considered, and intimate forms of individualized data.

In the timeline of Looking Back to Move Forward, the Workshop in a Box was the penultimate method of information-gathering, informed by the previous twenty-four sense-making, semi-structured Interviews with BIPOC artists and intermediary organizations and in-depth Studio Visits with nine artists over three months. The insights gained from Workshop in a Box informed the design of the Momentum virtual convening event and the activities used there (see page 103).

Download the complete Workshop in a Box activities

ACTIVITY 1

CIRCUIT DIAGRAMS: ECOSYSTEM MAPPING

WHAT IT IS

The Circuit Diagram is an ecosystem mapping (Hartman 1995) activity inspired by the relational knowledge held by BIPOC artists and culture bearers. This knowledge is rarely verbalized, visualized, and accessible in one place. Creative and artistic ecosystems are complex and everchanging. No individual or organization has a complete picture.

However, each has working mental models of their networks: whom to seek out, whom to avoid, and whom to rely upon for tangible and intangible support. Decisions are made within the frames of these working mental models. Better working models could lead to better decisions. Existing structures might be knowingly or unknowingly limited, flawed, or out-of-date. Creating a comprehensive map of the constantly evolving creative ecosystem is daunting, if not impossible. But a more achievable, repeatable, and helpful approach is feasible: ask several creative practitioners to map their relationships and aggregate these together as a composite, subjective, perceptual map of what may be going on at a given moment. The Circuit Diagram activity is a method to achieve this.

The activity side of the Circuit Diagram worksheet had a condensed version of the step-by-step instructions, two boxes titled ‘Statement’ and ‘Priorities + Needs,’ and a set of four concentric circles. The three outer circles were labeled ‘Booster,’ ‘Bystander,’ and ‘Blocker.’ They were subdivided into six wedge-shaped sections (labeled ‘Equity + Justice,’ ‘Access + Opportunities,’ ‘Assets + Infrastructure,’ ‘Education + Tools,’ ‘Money + Legal,’ and ‘Health + Wellness.’ These sections were all connected to the central circle labeled ‘Your Creative Practice/Work.’

The instructions prompted BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants to write a brief statement or keywords about their creative practice or work in the box marked ‘Statement’ and list some of their key priorities and needs for the next two years in the box marked ‘Priorities + Needs.’ BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants were provided with different-colored stickers printed with ‘Peer Artists/Culture Bearers’

(purple), ‘Artist Support Organizations’ (green), ‘Presenting Organizations’ (blue), ‘Grantmakers/Funders’ (orange), ‘Community Development/ Property Development’ (teal), ‘Government/City Agencies’ (red), and ‘You Tell Us’ (yellow). BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants were asked to write the names of people and organizations they had professional relationships with on the appropriate type of sticker and place the stickers into the sections and circles on the worksheet. The proximity of the concentric circles to the center indicated whether the relationship was beneficial (‘Booster’), neutral (‘Bystander’), or detrimental (‘Blocker’).

WHY IT’S USED

The Circuit Diagram surfaces an individual’s perspective on the networks that impact their creative practice, work, and life. The activity attempts to build a picture beyond conventional asset mapping, which mostly affirms that an individual or entity exists in an ecosystem. BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants are prompted to consider what circuits they engage with (individuals and entities). Participants then reflect on what role those individuals and entities play as positive, neutral, and negative agents in different respective arenas. Diagramming helps BIPOC artists and culture bearers recognize their positionality at the center of their asset ecosystem. This process allows researchers to challenge assumptions about how creative practitioners make things work and reveals a more specific view of a city’s networks and cultural infrastructure.

HOW TO DO IT

ACTIVITY 1 CIRCUIT DIAGRAM

There is often a gap between the top-down models of arts and culture ecosystems and the structures on the ground. For this activity, creative practitioners are asked to reflect and share their circuit – the collection of people and organizations that impact their creative practice and work. These relationships can be boosters (beneficial), bystanders (neutral), or blockers (detrimental) across a range of groups and dimensions.

To prompt ideas, there are seven groups, labeled on differently colored stickers (or sticky notes):

• Artists/Culture Bearers

• Artist Support Organizations

• Presenting Organizations

• Grantmakers/Funders

• Community Development/Property Development

• Government/City Agencies

• You Tell Us (YTU)

Also, there are six dimensions to consider:

• Access + Opportunities

• Assets + Infrastructure

• Education + Tools

• Money + Legal

• Health + Wellbeing

• Equity + Justice

The groups and dimensions were developed from ongoing conversations with artists and culture bearers in Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans.

PURPOSE

The activity is designed to help generate individual, and collective diagrams of existing arts and culture circuits understood by participants. It is ultimately about how these parts of the ecosystem work together within the entire arts and culture landscape.

INSTRUCTIONS

In addition to this worksheet, participants will need a sticker pack or sticky notes and pens/ markers.

1.In the box marked ‘Statement,’ participants write a summary or keywords about their creative practice/work. Why do they do what they do? What creative processes, motivations, inspirations, and methods do they apply?

2.Next, in the box marked ‘Priorities + Needs,’ participants list four to six key priorities and needs for their creative practice/work in the next 12–24 months. These can be goals, future opportunities or activities, or areas that need attention and support.

3.Using their statement, priorities, and needs, participants identify their circuit – the collection of people and organizations that impact their creative practice/work. These can be local people and organizations or national and international, so long as they are already connected to them. They can be boosters, bystanders, or blockers. Participants may want to jot some ideas

down on a separate piece of paper or in the blank spaces of the worksheet.

4.Participants then open the sticker pack and explore the different groups.

• Artists/Culture Bearers – Peers (regardless of discipline or experience)

• Artist Support Organizations – Service, advocacy, membership, training, residency, and other intermediary organizations

• Presenting Organizations – Producing, presenting, curating, exhibiting, commissioning, and publishing organizations, including artist-led organizations

• Grantmakers/Funders – Philanthropic, giving circles, mutual aid, arts councils/ agencies, governmental arts funders (state and local agencies), etc.

• Community Development/Property Development – Community development organizations, neighborhood block clubs, emergency aid pods, co-ops, developers, studios, live/work, and artist space organizations, etc.

• Government/City Agencies – Parks and recreation, planning and development, economic development, tourism, open government, sustainability, transportation/mobility, disaster/ emergency services, etc.

• You Tell Us (YTU) – Other relevant people and organizations that don’t fit these categories

5.Then, participants are encouraged to write the name of a single person or organization on the appropriate sticker in the color of the primary group they belong to. Many people and organizations occupy more than one of the groups listed here. For instance, the Parks + Recreation department of a City Government runs a public art and mural program for creative practitioners. They could be listed as a Presenting Organization . However, they would be more commonly understood as a Government/City Agency. Participants should choose the most widely understood group for the people and organizations they place in their circuit.

6.Participants continue to fill in the names of people and organizations on the remaining stickers and place them within the Circuit Diagram. It’s okay to list the same people or organizations more than once. This allows participants to place them across multiple dimensions and relationship circles. In this step, they use the originally chosen sticker color to keep the primary group affiliation consistent. Example:

• Mention 1 – An Artist Service Organization (grouping) has been a real Booster (relationship) by providing Education + Tools (dimension), which is a program, service, or funding they offer.

• Mention 2 – However, that same Artist Service Organization (grouping) has been a Bystander (relationship) when it comes to providing Assets + Infrastructure (dimension), which is a program, service, or funding they offer.

7.Once 2–3 people and organizations are distributed in most of the groupings, participants place the stickers into the different dimensions (wedge-shaped sections) and circles on the worksheet based on their relationship with them as a booster (beneficial), bystander (neutral), or blocker (detrimental).

8.Participants keep going until they have placed all the stickers representing their circuit. They review and reflect on what is on the worksheet. Has anyone been left out? Are there gaps or omissions?

APPROACHES TO

ANALYSIS

There are many approaches to analyzing the results of the Circuit Diagram. We considered specific and holistic insights and paid attention to surprises and perceived outliers. The exercise deepens and expands the researchers’ understanding of the current creative ecosystem. While the activity does not provide a complete or exhaustive knowledge base, it includes information for auxiliary pattern-finding. It reveals variations in perception among the BIPOC artists and culture bearers about the ecosystems they inhabit and those outside their circuit. Collected responses may address more significant questions and case-making within a particular research agenda.

For example, in the Circuit Diagram activity in Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans, peer artists/culture bearers were the most frequent type of entity, with 23.2% of responses, and comprised the most significant proportion of boosters, at 34%. Presenting Organizations were the second most frequently mentioned entity. These arts and cultural intermediaries provide opportunities for creative practitioners to perform, publish, exhibit, or showcase their work. However, this entity type had a higher percentage of blockers than would be expected. This prompted us to inquire further into this during the subsequent Momentum network gathering (see page 103). Participants indicated that they perceive many of these organizations to perpetuate harmful models of competition, scarcity, and extraction by failing to re-examine their practices and processes.

The benefit of this activity is that BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants are encouraged to build a values-forward picture of the ecology surrounding them. This activity demonstrates the interdependencies in the ecological model of cultural environments. The importance of individuals and networks is made tangible. It also grants greater insight into what is indicated by each use of the term community.

2

THE GATHERING: SEMANTIC ENVIRONMENT CANVAS

WHAT IT IS

The Gathering activity was developed from the semantic environment canvas (Arango 2018) to unpack the power dynamics, rules, and language at the core of the relationship between creative practitioners and funders. Looking Back to Move Forward focused on how developing intentional language and communications might open new pathways for constructive relationships between artists and funding organizations.

The first and sometimes only forms of communication that creative practitioners may experience with a funder or intermediary organization are announcements, guidelines, and application forms. These set out the purpose and intention of a program and establish for creative practitioners a sense of the organization through the tone, preferences, and language used. During that first contact, sometimes long before an actual person-to-person connection, a creative practitioner may decide whether a specific program and funder fit their particular needs.

Insights shared by some artists and culture bearers who participated in Looking Back to Move Forward indicated that they feel pressure to make their practice fit the expectations or desires of a funder. Others stated that they establish clear boundaries by rejecting programs and funders that do not align with their vision and work. The Gathering activity is designed to center and prioritize the creative practitioner’s perspective on these interactions and communications.

The activity side of The Gathering worksheet has a condensed version of the step-by-step instructions; three boxes titled ‘The Invitation,’ ‘The Guest,’ and ‘The Host’ with questions and prompts. A table labeled ‘The Relationship’ – two columns and four rows – takes up most of the central space on the sheet. The left-hand column is headed ‘You,’ and the right-hand ‘The Funder.’ A series of circles between the columns overlap on either side. Each row lists several questions with space to write answers to them below.

The instructions prompted BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants to imagine a moment they would have liked to gather to celebrate their creative practice. This served as a proxy to explore a specific relationship between them as the host and a funder as a guest invited to the subsequent Gathering. They were asked to write an invitation to The Gathering, identify a funder to invite, and consider the language, tone, activities, and roles of those involved. In the table, they answered the questions in the left-hand column labeled ‘You’ using short phrases or descriptive words.

Once done, BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants were asked to review what they had written and indicate with an asterisk ‘*’ what was most important to them. The instructions prompted them to use their knowledge of the funder they had chosen and their existing programs to answer the questions in the right-hand column as if they were ‘The Funder.’ Then, participants were asked to review what they had written and indicate with an asterisk ‘*’ what they thought was most important to this funder. Participants were invited to take a moment to reflect on the answers in both columns and write an evaluation of the degree of alignment (a number between 1–5, with the highest number indicating the highest degree of alignment) between them in each of the overlapping circles in the middle of the table.

WHY IT’S USED

Awards for creative practitioners are intended to celebrate and recognize their work and value. However, artists and culture bearers consistently perceived grantmaking processes and relationships with funders negatively during sense-making Interviews and Studio Visits. Issues centered around power, agency, and communications, regardless of whether practitioners had been awarded funding.

This led us to The Gathering. What would a creative practitioner conceive as an ideal celebration of their work and life? The Gathering asks them to articulate a vision for how they want to be acknowledged, how they would like to be awarded, and whom they would like to invite. They were then asked to consider a funder they would want to be at this Gathering and how they would like them to show up. The activity prompted them to explore and respond to a series of questions from their perspective while challenging them to consider how a funder might react to the same questions – noticing points of alignment and misalignment.

Asymmetries of work cultures, power imbalances, and other sociocultural and economic factors mean that creative practitioners, funders, and intermediary organizations frequently operate in distinct semantic environments. A common frustration expressed during the Interviews and Studio Visits with culture bearers and artists was the perception that they needed to master and internalize grantspeak to be successful. Communication tended toward terms, ideas, and formats favored by funders and intermediaries.

The central question of The Gathering became: How might we better understand the perspectives and communications preferences of artists and culture bearers to create a foundation for more fruitful and long-term relationships?

HOW TO DO IT

ACTIVITY 2 THE GATHERING

We live in language. It defines what we do,

Prompt: Participants begin the activity by considering a moment in their creative practice within the last two years when gathering people together in recognition, or celebration would have been impactful. This could have been a clear inflection point, milestone,

3.Participants are asked to consider their creative practice and answer the questions in the box marked ‘Host.’

• What type of host are you?

• Why does the guest funder want to come to this Gathering?

• What should the guest funder expect from you as host?

Reflect on the elements of the ‘Invitation.’ What language, tone, activities, and purposes were essential to the spirit of the event and celebration? What expectations did the host and the guest The Gathering?

Funders often use language, tone, and activities in the context of funding programs that artists and culture bearers perceive as alienating and disconnected from their lived experiences. Therefore, the next part of the activity explores the nuances between participant preferences and those of a funder.

First, work down the column marked ‘You,’ in the ‘Relationship’ table. Taking inspiration from The Invitation, use short phrases or descriptive words to answer the questions. Participants should use ‘I’ statements to reflect on their preferences for the relationship they wished to have with this funder in the context of a funding program.

Next, look at each set of short phrases or descriptive words written under ‘You.’ In each section, mark the most important quality of the relationship with an asterisk ‘*.’

Prompt: Participants compare both sets of short phrases or descriptive words about the grant or award program. What kind of relationship does this suggest? Are there points of alignment reflected? What are the key differences?

8.Between each of the sets of boxes is a circle, indicating how much alignment there is between both perspectives. Participants, write a number between 1–5 in each circle. Five if participants and the funder are on the same page regarding preferences, one if parties are talking past each other.

APPROACHES TO ANALYSIS

A pair of researchers read the sheets multiple times. For the first part of the analysis, we performed affinity mapping (Doria 2019) to discern patterns in the types of celebrations and gatherings articulated by the artists and culture bearers. Subsequently, the researchers stated, using a think-aloud protocol (Lewis 1982), what each participant was looking for and what they thought funders were looking for. These characterizations were recorded and transcribed. The key phrases and words from the worksheets and the articulations from the characterizations were opencoded (describing, naming, or classifying text into meaningful expressions in single words or phrases) and sorted into the following categories: ‘Types of Funders;’ ‘What Artists Want;’ ‘What Artists Think Funders Want;’ ‘Types of Communication;’ ‘Tensions;’ ‘What’s Important;’ ‘Behavior;’ ‘Power;’ ‘Thank the Funder;’ and ‘Other.’

The Gathering was designed to illuminate artist-centered perceptions of these issues. The findings generate clear distinctions that can be mapped using ‘I’ and ‘They’ statements related to the questions. We clustered the key preferences, issues, and concerns BIPOC artists and culture bearer participants raised. For example, participants indicated a preference for communication via text, email, and in-person or phone conversation with patience and understanding. More frequent and informal conversations made them feel like they could be honest and have a closer relationship with a funder overall. Alternatively, they believed funders preferred formal written reports distributed via mass emails, newsletters, or grant system notifications. Participants indicated that while this might be efficient for the funder, it often feels impersonal and off-putting for the applicants. In some cases, even when artists and culture bearers felt aligned with funders regarding vision and goals, the relationship could still become negative because of the unexpressed and unresolved tensions between communications differences.

Researchers listed texts that exemplified or were extreme deviations within each category. These were rewritten as short paragraphs that communicated what was most important from the lists until all the points on the list had been captured.

Some assessments of the category

• Funders are interested in community-centered processes as a means to an end for developing public spaces

• Funders are driven by ‘social washing’ by reframing past profits as respectable

• Funders are vested in collecting information to achieve community buy-in, rather than investing in listening to their needs

Another step of this iterative process was coding and sorting the category What Artists Want. This indicated three distinct models of support:

• Fellowship model

• Project or thematic model

• Guaranteed income and employment model

Once sorted, each worksheet was reviewed for any outlier ideas for program features of note. This information was used to generate prototype funding and programmatic models of interest to artists and culture bearers in Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans. These models were developed and used at the Activity 5: Resonance (see page 108).

The value of this activity for researchers, funders, and intermediary organizations lies in its ability to illuminate, clarify, and understand artists’ and culture bearers’ goals and preferences. Ideally, the funder or intermediary organization would have the opportunity to complete a version of this activity tailored to them, possibly reconfigured as a group activity with participating funders, intermediaries, artists, and culture bearers. Mapping the semantic environment is essential in fostering constructive communication between creative practitioners and funders. Hopefully, greater alignment will lead to long-term relationships throughout the career and life of an artist and culture bearer, together with the communities they are part of.

ACTIVITY 3 IN 2030... BACKCASTING + SCAFFOLDING

WHAT IT IS

The In 2030... activity was designed for creative practitioners to dream and ideate openly about their future without the risk of penalty or judgment. In 2030… is a backcasting (Robinson 1990) activity where aspirations are captured concerning a specific period in the future. In the first part of the activity, using time as a scaffold, BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants were invited to articulate ambitious visions for 2030 and reflect on the people, programs, activities, and resources needed to connect that desired future to the present.

The second part of the activity asked creative practitioners, equipped with their visions, to develop conceptual frameworks for future funding and support programs.

Support and award systems are often designed to recognize creative practitioners based on past and recent achievements and activities. Even project grants, which are future-oriented, commonly rely on statements, CVs, references, letters of support, and work samples to establish a track record for the creative practitioner. Many Looking Back to Move Forward BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants indicated that those conventions don’t sufficiently account for the totality of how and why they got where they are, let alone articulate their visions and aspirations for the future. In fact, they raised the point that the monetary support from these programs, while recognized as hugely beneficial, also created problems in itself. BIPOC artists and culture bearers shared that they encountered both tangible and intangible issues – e.g., loss of benefits and tax implications but also the need for professional and emotional support to understand how to manage their finances and their relationship to money.

No matter the profoundly positive intentions of these programs, it became clear that positive intent does not necessarily result in the desired

impact. The question then is how to design grantmaking and support programs based on the transformative visions artists and culture bearers have for themselves, their creative practices, and their communities.

The activity side of the In 2030... worksheet had a condensed version of the step-by-step instructions; a starburst graphic marked ‘2030;’ three boxes labeled ‘In 2030…,’ ‘2027,’ and ‘2024’ containing questions with space to write answers to them below; and a set of four expanding boxes labeled ‘Existing,’ ‘Baseline,’ ‘Beyond,’ and ‘Transformative.’

The instructions prompted participants to imagine and shape a bold and transformative vision for their creative practice and what role a new funding program could play in achieving that vision. Next, they were asked to write in the starburst a brief statement of what they want for their creative practice in the year 2030. Once done, they were asked to answer seven questions about how their practice might have changed in the box labeled ‘In 2030….’ Finally, the instructions prompted them to reflect on their statement for 2030, note what they would want for their creative practice in 2027, and answer four questions in the box marked ‘2027.’ Similarly, they were asked to think back from then, write down the goals for their creative practice in 2024, and answer four questions in the box marked ‘2024.’

The next part of the activity asked BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants to imagine the qualities and components of a funding program for creative practitioners focused on racial equity and social justice. First, they were prompted to identify an existing funding program they had received or would be eligible to receive and write the title and keywords or short phrases that describe this program in the box labeled ‘Existing.’ Participants were asked to repeat this step three more times identifying keywords or short phrases that describe a ‘Baseline’ program (the absolute minimum worth time and effort to apply for), a ‘Beyond’

program (that goes beyond what they would expect from the current status quo of funding programs); and a ‘Transformative’ program (that would have a profound and lasting impact on their creative practice) in the appropriate boxes.

WHY IT’S USED

This backcasting activity intentionally prioritizes preferable and just creative futures as articulated by the BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants as a starting point for the conceptual design of possible funding and support programs. The goal was to understand what novel frameworks might emerge if the starting point was firmly about what they hope to achieve, focusing on creative potential. The activity is designed to help BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants, funders, and intermediaries to take a more holistic and anticipatory approach. In 2030... invites individual and collective expressions about the gaps and opportunities within a creative ecosystem. The activity can help to shape more culturally and situationally sensitive interventions.

During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic-related lockdowns, when relief for artists and culture bearers was prioritized, many existing and newly launched grant programs streamlined their application processes. They did away with the parts of the application that focused on establishing a record of past performance as an indicator of likely future performance (National Assembly of State Arts Agencies 2021).

These are only some of the reliable predictors of future potential. CVs, statements, letters of support, references, etc., often omit the labor, context, setbacks, challenges, and failures that inform the trajectory of the creative practitioner. These application materials are bound up in dominant arts and culture structures that have proven exclusionary for many BIPOC creative practitioners. Looking Back to Move Forward participants agreed that streamlined application processes were a welcome feature they hope are retained beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

HOW TO DO IT

ACTIVITY 3 IN 2030…

Our current systems aren’t working for all artists and culture bearers equally. They are rooted in practices that replicate extraction, supremacism, and, in some cases, violence. This is as true in the art worlds and ecosystems we engage through our creative practice as it is in other aspects of life. The activity In 2030… uses narrative techniques to help artists and culture bearers imagine, shape, and communicate bold and transformative visions for their futures. What defines and characterizes participants’ creative practice at the end of the current decade? What would it take to get there, working backward to the present?

The activity also asks artists and culture bearers to outline and shape potential funding programs that center racial equity and social justice. Participants are encouraged to envision something different from anything they know currently exists.

PURPOSE

The activity is designed to cultivate visions that invite abundance, thriving, and resilience into creative practices and challenge the status quo of incremental change. It also seeks to understand what vital role a funding program can play in supporting artists and culture bearers to achieve their vision of a creative, equitable, and just future.

INSTRUCTIONS

In addition to the worksheet, participants will need pens/markers and sticky notes (optional).

1.In the starburst marked ‘2030,’ participants should write a brief overarching statement describing what they wish for their creative practice in 2030. They are encouraged to be bold and ambitious. What would happen if there were appropriate and abundant resources?

2.In the box marked ‘In 2030…,’ participants should answer the series of questions about how their practice would change over

3.On the worksheet, below the arc from the present to the desired future are two boxes marked ‘2024’ and ‘2027.’ Working back from the vision of an ideal creative practice in 2030, participants are encouraged to describe where they would be five years from now by answering the questions in the box marked ‘2027.’

4.Working back from the statements outlined in ‘2027,’ participants are next asked to describe visions for their creative practice two years from now and write the answer to the questions in the box marked ‘2024.’

5.In the final exercise, participants imagine the qualities and components of a funding program for artists and culture bearers through the lens of racial equity and social justice. They are encouraged to take this opportunity to envision a program that meets needs that have yet to be thought of. Participants begin by identifying an existing funding program. This could be an award or fellowship they have received in the past five years or would be appropriate for them to receive in the next two years. Participants should write the title of this existing funding program in the space

• Support for research and development

• Professional development

• Mentorship

• Access to a learning community

• Access to professionals (lawyers, accountants, healthcare advocates, technicians, etc.)

• Reporting requirements

• Relationship with funder

7.Participants should describe the qualities and components of a baseline funding program. By baseline, we mean the absolute minimum worth the time and effort to apply. This could be based on the participants’ knowledge of an existing program or general perceptions of what is commonly offered. Again, describe in keywords or short phrases those minimum qualities and components of a funding program in the space labeled ‘Baseline.’

descriptions of such a funding program in the space labeled ‘Transformative.’

APPROACHES TO ANALYSIS

Backcasting can create an opportunity to translate desirable futures and ideas into a framework for infrastructural, asset, and care-based support programs for creative practitioners to take root in the present. Framework analysis (Ritchie and Spencer 1994) was used as an overarching technique for Looking Back to Move Forward, given the applied and participatory nature of the study. Inputs for the analysis process consisted of written information (from worksheets) or spoken (produced by transcribing statements from BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants) or field notes taken by the researchers.

Researchers read all texts multiple times to become familiar with their content. First, any analytical notes, thoughts, or impressions were recorded. Next, the researchers carefully read these texts applying codes (single words or phrases used as descriptive or conceptual labels such as ‘Space,’ ‘Financial Advice,’ or ‘Mentorship’) to anything relevant. This process aims to classify all text-related statements so they can be compared systematically with other texts. Where possible, multiple researchers generated and responded to codes in interactive sessions using a collaborative online whiteboard, ensuring that one perspective did not dominate. The codes were grouped into categories, clustering codes around similar and interrelated ideas or concepts to form themes. The set of themes forms an analytical framework. This framework was used by applying and recording every instance of the codes appearing in all the textual information captured from BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants.

All the coded statements were entered into a spreadsheet to create a matrix of all statements, summarizing them, and highlighting the most important. Similarities and differences between the expressions and statements were identified as interpretive concepts or propositions through comparison between and within cases. The insights generated through this process are more astute than mere descriptions of cases because they explain, for example, attitudes that underpin behavior and perceptions.

Framework analysis for In 2030… ensured we didn’t lose the critical observations of individual BIPOC artists and culture bearer participants. Their observations and statements can be confirmatory and contradictory within and across participants. For instance, BIPOC artist

and culture bearer participants indicated strong preferences for and against public acknowledgment of the support or awards they received.

As we continued to dialogue with both the data and the participants, what became clear was that they are seeking greater agency, consent, and co-creative opportunities with the funder and intermediary in terms of promotion and publicity. In another example, a participant indicated a strong preference for funding with no strings attached and minimal requirements from funders and intermediaries but was also hoping that the program would help them to tour and promote their work beyond their city. Again, these statements might appear contradictory, but our analysis interpreted them as the participants articulating a need for networking and professional development activities to be tailored and consider individual aspirations with the ability for them to opt-in to those

Contradictions and tensions that surface through the In 2030… activity can prove fertile for adapting and evolving program designs. The analysis also revealed a clear unifying sentiment among the majority of the BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants – they sought resources and assets that would improve how they support themselves and their

The information derived from the Literature Review, Artist Awards and Promising Practices, Interviews, and Studio Visits were used to generate outline concepts for potential funding programs for BIPOC artists and culture bearers in Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans. We produced a basic narrative description of key features and characteristics for each program model and gave them generic titles.

The LADDER fund was an unrestricted one-time cash fellowship. We identified it as a ladder because it could elevate a practice; the downside was that a ladder does not come with a guaranteed destination at its top.

The RAMP fund was a flexible project-based grant award designed to provide financial support over two years. We identified it as a ramp because it could elevate a practice and had an in-built trajectory; the downside was that a ramp needs a lot of energy to overcome initial inertia. Grantees can roll back down to the bottom if it is not sustained.

The FLOOR fund was for BIPOC artists and culture bearers collaborating with community-based organizations to receive an annual

salary tied at or above the median income of their locale, plus benefits, with dedicated time to focus on their practice for three years. We identified it as a floor because its purpose was to reward them for what they were already doing and allow them to continue with added stability and security without placing any additional burden on them.

The information returned to us through the revealed information from each BIPOC artist and culture bearer participant’s worksheet to understand:

• What they want to do or be in the future

• What model of funding they are looking for, and why

• Points of confirmation, distinction, and divergence from the generic program model

For example, a participant from New Orleans wanted to work full-time as an artist with global recognition and media coverage, a high quality of life, with their home base in New Orleans but spending a significant amount of time traveling. Therefore, they are looking for a version of the LADDER fund that would be in an amount and scope to focus on their artistic practice full-time and afford them a new live/work space. In terms of something distinct from the generic program model, they also seek access to international opportunities and recognition.

This information allowed us to develop outline concepts for potential funding programs further. However, as we continued to work with this internal coding system, we recognized that the metaphors LADDER , RAMP, and FLOOR had a baked-in cognitive bias. We renamed them to the more neutral ONEFUND, TWOFUND, and THREEFUND. These were used at the Momentum virtual convening event for Activity 5: Resonance (see page 108).

METHOD 2 MOMENTUM: A NETWORK GATHERING

WHAT IT IS

Momentum was a virtual convening and interactive session for BIPOC artists, culture bearers, and aligned peers in Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans. Held on Saturday, February 26, 2022, from 2:00 – 5:00 pm and hosted on Zoom, this was a gathering for all contributors to Looking Back to Move Forward, including the 24 interviewees, nine Studio Visit artists, and the 32 Workshop in a Box invited BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants. Taking place over three hours, Momentum was designed as a circle of respect and space to acknowledge and celebrate the individual and collective movements that have carried BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants to the present moment while taking an honest look at what will sustain and propel them forward. We practiced peer-driven facilitation throughout the event, with BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants and facilitators leading conversations and reflections. The convening of the network sessions was not recorded. Instead, we used notetakers who were there to witness the conversation and write down only what was expressed.

Conceived as a network Gathering (Allied Media Projects 2022) and a kind of participatory assembly (Project South 2016), the first two hours were closed to artists and culture bearers only, with the final hour open to intermediaries, funders, and other project partners and researchers. The first part was designed for artists and culture bearers to connect and share across two activities facilitated by rootoftwo.

• ACTIVITY 4: AND ANOTHER THING… — Community Dialogue

• ACTIVITY 5: RESONANCE — Funding Models Pre-Mortem

The final hour was a moderated panel discussion featuring James Dukes IMAKEMADBEATS (Memphis); Bree Gant (Detroit); Yancy Villa (Memphis); Nic Brierre Aziz (New Orleans) — Studio Visit BIPOC artist and culture bearer contributors. In addition to sharing about their creative practice, the panelists discussed what transformative forms of support would look like and what it would mean for them and the communities and identities they inhabit.

WHY IT’S USED

Participatory Action Research (PAR) is an approach to research in communities that emphasizes participation and action. PAR offers a democratic model of who can produce, own, and use knowledge (McIntyre 2008). In PAR, researchers typically undertake cycles of planning, action, reflection, and evaluation. PAR anchored our approach to Looking Back to Move Forward. Therefore, our final activity was to assemble a network gathering of BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants from across the three cities to share and reflect on the work undertaken, to evaluate both the action and reflection processes, and to collectively identify recommendations for future programs, investments, and opportunities to support BIPOC artists and culture bearers.

Momentum resulted from a year-long process of working alongside artists and culture bearers to understand their day-to-day experiences better. Each opportunity to connect was developed as a space to learn, share, and then collaborate on the structure and needs for future engagements. The artists and culture bearers were co-directors of conversations (Interviews and Studio Visits). BIPOC artist and culture

bearer participants were compensated for the time and energy spent with rootoftwo team members. As part of this final Gathering, participants were encouraged to extend their invitation to other artists and culture bearers in their networks – redistributing agency and opening the project

Momentum emphasized dialogue, mutuality, and space-holding. At a time when there was general fatigue at virtual convenings, the artists and culture bearers trusted that they could openly share and be heard in a non-extractive space. Network gatherings and participatory assemblies offer researchers, funders, and intermediaries models for collective decision-making and actions that can serve as platforms to redistribute agency and resources to community-

ACTIVITY 4 AND ANOTHER THING ... COMMUNITY DIALOGUE

WHAT IT IS

And Another Thing… was conceived as an assembly for everyone contributing to Looking Back to Move Forward. An assembly is a participatory action research (PAR) mechanism where information is presented to provide a standard set of facts, available options are considered, and recommendations are made. The assembly was an invitation for people to have the opportunity to offer honest critical feedback on the research findings and to check that those recommendations to organizations or institutions that provide funding, services, and general support were accurate and represented participants’ views.

Typical feedback mechanisms like surveys, final reports, and funder-organized meetings may limit and fail to capture more profound insights into a creative ecosystem or an individual’s perspective. Creative practitioners may also feel pressure to provide positive feedback performatively. Equally, they may self-censor in other ways out of concern that highlighting harms, barriers, and failures in programmatic and grantmaking efforts will directly impact their ability to apply and receive support in the future.

Despite the care and diligence that funders and intermediaries undertake to ensure that feedback mechanisms have no bearing on award decisions – often engaging outside consultants and researchers, like rootoftwo, to conduct, analyze, and present feedback in aggregate – creative practitioners may still be wary. The lack of transparency in the design and decision-making process of awards and asymmetries in power and influence between the artist and the funder or intermediary significantly impact creative practitioners’ willingness to share honestly about what helps and hurts, what is needed, and next for them.

At each stage of Looking Back to Move Forward, we navigated and confronted issues of transparency, trust, power building, and sharing. Our final network Gathering was the first opportunity to bring BIPOC artists and culture bearers from all three cities together in a community dialogue. And Another Thing… provided an opportunity for them to connect and speak about what is taken for granted, misses the mark, or is generally left out in the programs and conversations surrounding support for creative practitioners.

Instead of a directed or heavily facilitated discussion, rootoftwo began the activity with an open-ended prompt to express what was unsaid and on their minds. BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants gathered in two huddles (small groups) to introduce themselves and hold space and conversation with one another. Each huddle selected one participant to report to the whole group, with rootoftwo team members providing live notes and lightly facilitating if needed with follow-up prompts. The conversational nature of this session surfaced new prospects, framing, concerns, and critiques. It also confirmed those uncovered through previous activities and engagements with BIPOC artists and culture bearer participants.

WHY IT’S USED

This community dialogue activity was shaped by those who participated in the Studio Visits and were informed by insights from the Workshop in a Box activities. Each of the nine BIPOC Studio Visit participants indicated a desire to connect with an extended group of BIPOC artists and culture bearers. And Another Thing… draws on the principles of dialogical action (Freire 2018), where the topics, themes, and conversations flow from the meaningful interactions of the assembled artists and culture bearers.

While convenings and focus groups are commonly employed in participatory research, learning, and dissemination contexts – we were particularly sensitive to the power differentials embedded within these activities (Montoya and Kent 2011). Throughout Looking Back to Move Forward, we were deeply aware of our positionality as researchers and intermediaries.

rootoftwo’s role during And Another Thing… was to catalyze and assist BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants as they shared and built upon conversations that exist and persist within their networks –from daily stressors and barriers to sources of joy and achievement. And Another Thing… provided a generative space to reflect and act on the

information and priorities that emerged from the dialogue and prior engagement activities. The goal was to share a thick description of the perspectives of BIPOC artists and culture bearers in Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans. A thick description seeks to describe thoughts, emotions, and the significance of actions and not just superficial descriptions of situations. Gilbert Ryle introduced the term in 1949. However, the current sense of the term as it is used in the Social Sciences and other related fields was developed by anthropologist Clifford Geertz (Geertz 1973) for his approach to ethnography. A thick description adds subjective explanations and meanings from the people providing the insight, making the information richer and of greater value to others from outside the community.

HOW TO DO IT

ACTIVITY 4 AND ANOTHER THING…

We all get stuck in dominant or conventional ways of working and thinking. The tyranny of precedents, best practices, and ideas about what worked in the past is hard to counter. This activity asks participants to share thoughts and ideas about what gets taken for granted, left out, or misses the point from current conversations and approaches to supporting BIPOC artists, culture bearers, and creative practitioners.

PURPOSE

The purpose is to discuss and develop insights into what may be missing and overlooked but critical to shaping support systems for artists and culture bearers — in this current moment and the future. Participants are invited to share what they envision would make a significant difference, express the unsaid, and speak about what the field routinely misses that would help them thrive.

INSTRUCTIONS

1.Participants are divided into smaller groups, called huddles, and sent to breakout rooms or spaces with a facilitator and a notetaker. Each huddle has one participant who agrees to report on the discussion to the entire group. The huddle selects a volunteer for this at the start.

2.The facilitator prompts discussion, ideas, and sharing with And Another Thing… asking the following questions:

• What is taken for granted when developing artist support programs?

• What gets left out when developing artist support programs?

• What misses the point or misses the mark when developing artist support programs?

3.This should be a lively discussion. However, to ensure the notetakers can capture and accurately reflect the conversation, participants are asked to observe turntaking.

4.Once the discussion in the huddle is complete, there will be a moment to reflect before returning to the entire group of participants to report on the activity.

FACILITATOR NOTES/PROMPTS

Ideally, additional prompts should not be necessary. If they are, they should be openended. The goal is to establish peer-to-peer dialogue with the facilitator and notetakers playing a supporting role, with participants driving the activity. If the conversation doesn’t flow following the primary prompts, participants should be provided with thought starters and asked to reflect on the following considerations:

• Non-monetary supports, healthcare, wellbeing, benefits, advocacy, etc.

• Equity, access, time, ability, access to technology or platforms, language or other barriers, deadlines, etc.

• Aesthetic and cultural issues and limitations

• Monetary, payment, or legal (alternative payment structures and systems; contractual relationships, etc.)

• Messaging, communications, and media

APPROACHES TO ANALYSIS

Trust has been an important topic and facet of Looking Back to Move Forward. Questions we returned to often include – What are the shifts that funders and intermediaries can make to earn the trust of BIPOC artists and culture bearers, and how might we understand trust as contingent on consistent and accountable engagement (Dawkins et al. 2021)?

And Another Thing… presented another opportunity for contributing artists and culture bearers to surface and challenge issues, ideas, and practices in how funding, support, and resources touch their lives. For us, it was another opportunity to listen and earn their trust. We opted to intentionally not record the session in the hopes that it would help participants to speak freely. Notes were collected from each huddle, and the group reported out. The notes were reviewed, and BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants’ priorities, ideas, and concerns were grouped into themes. As a team, we debriefed, asking:

• What was new and emerging from the activity?

• What added nuance and context to something that had previously surfaced?

• What should be uplifted or discounted?

For instance, during And Another Thing… participants discussed the pressure to compromise their values to fit into current funding, voicing concerns that social justice and social practice were treated like trends. They held space and tension for the way that BIPOC artists and culture bearers are particularly expected to work in community-engaged and directed ways or that their creative work should narrowly focus on issues of identity.

For other BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants, award programs that specifically called out community engagement and social justice made them feel seen, heard, and understood. At the core of both positions is the idea that creative practitioners often feel they must take what they can get – in terms of funding, resources, and support – that something is better than nothing.

As we reflected on the notes, artist agency emerged as a key theme. This suggests new directions for crafting language and revising programs in collaboration with creative practitioners should be developed early in the application and award design process. Community dialogues provide clear opportunities for complex and nuanced descriptions and

observations to be shared. And Another Thing… holistic picture of the changes BIPOC artists and culture bearers want to make themselves, and with trusted funders and intermediaries.

5 RESONANCE FUNDING MODELS PRE-MORTEM

WHAT IT IS

During Momentum, we presented concept outlines for three possible funding and programmatic opportunities (titled ONEFUND, TWOFUND, and THREEFUND). Each represented different approaches to supporting BIPOC artists, culture bearers, and creative practitioners in Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans. We asked BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants to indicate how the various ideas resonated with them and how they thought their creative community and city would perceive the programs. In addition, we were interested in understanding the potential range of impacts produced. This activity aimed to develop and anticipate some of each concept's intended and unintended benefits and consequences.

Throughout Looking Back to Move Forward, BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants wanted to know that these consequences have been considered and accounted for before a new program launches. Program evaluation is “the systematic collection of information about the activities, characteristics, and outcomes of programs, for people to reduce uncertainties, improve effectiveness, and make decisions” (Patton 2008). This evaluation can determine if a program produces the intended effects and if its goals are appropriate and worthwhile.

Unfortunately, it is less clear what the most appropriate methods for evaluating and addressing potential positive and negative impacts on creative people and ecosystems are before a program is rolled out. Rather than relying on our interpretation of what Looking Back to Move Forward BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants told us they needed, rootoftwo developed a workshop activity called Resonance that offered an approach to this conundrum.

WHY IT’S USED

Each outline concept is a fictional version of a type of support at a different order of magnitude regarding the administrative burden of running the program and the resources required to support it. None of the outline concepts is best or right. Each has its advantages and disadvantages for individuals and sets of circumstances. ONEFUND is an unrestricted one-time cash fellowship. TWOFUND is a flexible projectbased grant award. THREEFUND funds employment tied at or above the median income for each city in collaboration with community-based organizations.

Each concept is presented as a short text description (~150 words), like what might appear in a program launch announcement. In each case, the concepts indicate the nature and number of each award, the administrative processes to be used throughout its duration, what additional opportunities would supplement the core experience of each program, and what promotional media opportunities might result from the program.

We viewed each of these outline concepts as a straw person program, not in the sense that they were intentionally created to be easy to dismiss or argue against. Instead, these outline concepts were there to invite both positive and negative criticism in a manner that would be relatively free from cognitive and organizational biases. Getting early feedback on outline programs can be a way to improve decisionmaking and transparency about planned programs before funders and intermediaries have committed significant time and human resources to develop a full program.

To ensure that each outline concept got the scrutiny required, we asked the Looking Back to Move Forward BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants to conduct a pre-mortem of sorts (Klein 2007). This prospective hindsight activity (Mitchell, Russo, and Pennington 1989) invites participants to review the concepts and anticipate potential benefits and threats at the scale of an individual, a creative community, and a municipality. The rationale behind this approach is that it equally values foresight and anticipation of harms and benefits. It also provides an opportunity to voice concerns and identify risks that might otherwise go unaddressed.

SELF

CREATIVE COMMUNITY

CITY/PLACE

HOW TO DO IT

ACTIVITY 5 RESONANCE

This activity presents outline concepts for potential funding and programmatic opportunities. Each concept represents different approaches to supporting BIPOC artists, culture bearers, and creative practitioners.

For this activity, participants are asked to focus on how these different concepts might resonate with them, their creative community, and their city. Resonance attempts to understand the potential range of impacts produced by these concepts. Impacts can be positive and beneficial, as well as negative and harmful. They can create pathways as well as barriers.

PURPOSE

Resonance asks participants to develop and anticipate some of the intended and unintended benefits and consequences of each concept of artists’ support. The concepts outlined reflect the desire to produce open, flexible, adaptable, and failure-tolerant support and funding models. Let’s introduce the concepts.

ONEFUND

Award: ONEFUND is an unrestricted onetime cash fellowship to recognize outstanding BIPOC artists, culture bearers, and creative practitioners living and working in Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans, in all disciplines, at every stage of their careers. Awardees have the freedom to determine how to use the funding. This significant financial award specifically recognizes artists for whom working within and

for a community is essential to their process. There are ten awards annually.

Process: Open call and anonymous nomination by a rotating group of artists, scholars, critics, producers, curators, and other arts professionals. Discipline-specific panels review applicants and select the finalists. Time from application to announcement: 9–12 months. Length of award: 12 months. Program occurs annually as funding permits.

Experiences:

• Annual network gathering/retreat of awardees and alumni

• Optional financial planning, legal assistance, and health and well-being consultations

Media:

• Short film/video portrait

• Website promotion

• Local/national announcements

• Podcast opportunities

• Social media features

TWOFUND

Award: TWOFUND is a flexible research and development/project-based grant award designed to support BIPOC artists, culture bearers, and creative practitioners to advance equitable and sustainable approaches to social justice through their creative practice. The fund welcomes artists of all disciplines and at every career stage. TWOFUND is designed to provide enough financial support over a two-year period for artists to manifest and deepen their work

within and for communities while sustaining themselves. Each cycle offers six awards in thematic/issue cohorts.

Process: Open call. Applications are reviewed, and finalists are selected by a Community Advisory Panel, including artists, arts professionals, community development advocates, community organizers, and other thematic issue specialists. Time from application to announcement: 4–6 months. Length of Award: 2 years. Program occurs biennially, as funding permits.

Experiences:

• Annual network gathering/retreat of awardees and alumni

• Three cross-city cohort meetings

• Optional financial planning, legal assistance, and health and well-being consultations

• One-on-one check-ins with peers and program organizers

Media:

• Short film/video portrait

• Website promotion

• Local/national announcements

• Podcast opportunities

• Social media features

THREEFUND

Award: THREEFUND funds employment for BIPOC artists, culture bearers, and creative practitioners collaborating with communitybased organizations for three years. Participating artists receive an annual salary

tied at or above the median income of their locale, plus benefits, with dedicated time to focus on their practice. There are ten awards.

Participating organizations receive a flexible range of funds annually to support artists’ employment. An artist may work as an artist-in-residence, teaching artist, artist organizer, documentarian, creative consultant, etc. Organizational partners may be arts and cultural organizations, government entities, or non-arts community-based organizations.

Process: Open call. Applications are reviewed, and finalists are selected by program staff and a Community Advisory Panel, including artists, arts professionals, community organizers, workforce specialists, worker advocates, and other thematic issue specialists. Finalists and program staff complete a mutual interview. Following the interview, awardees are selected. Time from application to announcement: 8–9 months. Length of Award: 3 years. Program occurs biennially, as funding permits.

Experiences:

• Annual network gathering/retreat of awardees and alumni

• Three cross-city cohort meetings

• Optional financial planning, legal assistance, and health and well-being consultations

• One-on-one check-ins with peers and program organizers

Media:

• Short film/video portrait

• Website promotion

• Local/national announcements

• Podcast opportunities

• Social media features

INSTRUCTIONS

1.Participants are divided into small groups and sent to breakout rooms or spaces with a facilitator and a notetaker. Each breakout group has one participant who shares their group's discussion with the rest of the participants. The facilitator requests a volunteer for this.

2.For each concept, participants are guided by a facilitator and notetaker to respond to the concepts based on Pathways (what positive benefits/impacts can be imagined) and Barriers (what negative benefits/impacts can be imagined). They are asked to consider this at the level of Self, Creative Community, and City/Place.

3.Each group receives a poster-size worksheet for this activity. For virtual gatherings, the worksheet is embedded in a collaborative online whiteboard –MURAL, Miro, Jamboard, etc. This should be a lively discussion. However, to ensure the notetakers can capture and accurately reflect the conversation, participants are asked to observe turn-taking.

4.Facilitator begins by leading the discussion of ONEFUND, then TWOFUND, and finally THREEFUND.

5.Once the discussion is complete, participants take a moment to review and reflect before returning to the whole group to report on the activity.

FACILITATOR NOTES/PROMPTS

These concepts were built from insights and conversations with artists and culture bearers in Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans, plus participants’ submissions from Workshop in a Box. These can be used as starting points, or facilitators can craft their own concepts.

The outline concepts intentionally have generic names to avoid biasing participants or triggering any preconceptions on their part. Facilitators may also want to randomize or rotate these labels to avoid the perception that one is better than three, for instance.

If participants struggle to answer, facilitators should intervene with the following strategies:

• Prompt them to reflect on the concepts across Self first (pathway/barrier), Creative Community second (pathway/barrier), and Place/City third (pathway/barrier). Complete this for the ONEFUND before moving on to TWOFUND. Repeat with TWOFUND before moving on to THREEFUND.

• Offer clarifying answers to questions about the concepts.

• Display the worksheets on the virtual whiteboard.

• Remind participants to think about potential impacts, not program features.

• Use examples to illustrate the purpose of the activity, such as it’s not enough to invent the car; one must anticipate the traffic jam (paraphrasing Isaac Asimov).

• Or use an analogy like throwing a stone into a pond and trying to model and understand the ripples, edges, and impacts before tossing it.

APPROACHES TO ANALYSIS

BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants discussed the outline concepts for three possible funding and programmatic opportunities before being subdivided into two breakout rooms, each with a facilitator and a notetaker. It was clear that the notetaker was there to witness the richness of the conversation and record what was expressed. We used the collaborative platform MURAL as a virtual whiteboard upon which the notetaker would write. This presented the descriptions of each outline concept and had a labeled grid on which to write the responses and perceptions of BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants. This way, everyone could see what was being recorded in real-time and indicate if specificity or an intention had been missed. created space for collaborative reflection on specific, detailed scenarios. The speculative nature of the outline concepts reduced BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants’ hesitation to speak negatively about a real funding opportunity they had already received or hoped to receive in the future. Our goal was to have an energetic discussion about the potential benefits and harms of each of the outline concepts. The facilitator prompted and asked for clarification as BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants conversed about their perceptions and thoughts regarding the concepts. While BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants were given space to be dynamic and meandering in their discussion, the notetaker translated feedback into either pathways (positive) or barriers (negative). Participants generally spoke more fluidly and passionately about barriers than pathways. Given the group setting, one person’s offering could be supported or complicated by another’s

Once the discussion was complete, there was a moment to review and reflect before returning to the whole group to discuss the activity. Each breakout group had one participant volunteer to lead the conversation and elevate what was most important for the entire group. We were careful to underscore that this was to value and make sense of BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants’ emotional connections rather than regurgitate a list of information. The notetakers also wrote

The use of several complementary methods to gather, corroborate or refute information has been described as ‘triangulation’ (Jick, 1979). The rationale for using this approach is that one can be more confident of the

findings when different methods yield the same responses. ‘Triangulation’ can enhance the validity and reliability of observations if results converge and, in this case, contribute to a significantly broader insight into the study’s underlying issues. The breakout sessions and subsequent whole group conversations served to ‘triangulate’ what we had previously learned about what types of artist support programs would resonate most with BIPOC artists, culture bearers, and creative practitioners in Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans.

Much of what we heard was confirmatory of what we learned from the Literature Review ; Interviews with artists, culture bearers, and intermediaries; our one-on-one Studio Visits; and the information from the Workshop in a Box activities. For example, BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants elevated the following questions:

• Are there ways to reward not individuals but communities or communities of artists?

• How can we fund the process over the product?

• How could programs center the artist, demonstrating the practice and ethics of care?

• How do we co-own the assets we have invested in?

All of these questions highlight recurring themes throughout the research. Still, there was additional value in witnessing alignment or divergence between BIPOC artist and culture bearer participants from specific places commenting on the perceptions of their peers from other cities. For example, the metaphor of the table and who had a seat at it was invoked repeatedly throughout the discussion. One participant in talking about their role as a board member in organizations has allowed them to “listen to the conversation at the table.” Another participant later exclaimed, “What table? I don’t care about your table.” A third said, “Table? We built the door and the building.”

This spectrum of opinion reinforces that artist-support organizations should never assume they are dealing with homogeneity and will always make mistakes that transgress someone’s lived experience. What is essential is that funders and intermediaries work with BIPOC artists and culture bearers to build relationships to address and overcome these issues.

APPENDICES PART 3

APPENDIX 1 QUANTITATIVE DATA APPROACHES + REPORTING

OVERVIEW

The quantitative snapshots use federal statistics from the American Community Survey (ACS) and select data from additional sources such as the National Endowment for the Arts and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Conducted by the US Census Bureau, the Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS) of the American Community Survey provide key household and family-unit labor force and demographic statistics. Analyzing the information presented in the snapshots required calculations from the 2019 1-year ACS PUMS estimates. Estimates based on these data are subject to sampling and non-sampling errors.

The selection of occupational codes relies on research from the report Artists and Other Cultural Workers: A Statistical Portrait (National Endowment for the Arts 2019). Below is the complete list of occupational codes used in this study with comparisons to the NEA’s classifications. Our Core Creative Workersʼ codes map closely to the NEA’s Artist Occupations, and our Related Creative Workers are aligned with their Cultural Occupations.

GUIDE TO OCCUPATIONS

OCCUPATION TITLE

Architects

Landscape Architects

Forest and Conservation Technicians

Archivists, Curators, and Museum Technicians

Librarians and Media Collections Specialists

Library Technicians

Artists and related workers

Designers

Actors

Producers and Directors

Dancers and Choreographers

Music Directors and Composers

Musicians and Singers

Disk Jockeys, except radio

Entertainers and Performers, Athletes, and related workers

Broadcast Announcers and Radio Disk Jockeys

News Analysts, Reporters, and Journalists

Editors

Writers and Authors

Media and Communication Workers, all other Broadcast and Sound Engineering Technicians

Photographers

Television, Video, and Motion Picture Camera Operators and Editors

Motion Picture Projectionists

Ushers, Lobby Attendants, and Ticket-Takers

Tour and Travel Guides

Models, Demonstrators, and Product Promoters

Printing Press Operators

Print Binding and Finishing Workers

Jewelers and Precious Stone and Metal Workers

Photographic Process Workers and Processing Machine Operators

Etchers and Engravers

Molders, Shapers, and Casters

STANDARD OCCUPATION CLASSIFICATION (SOC), 2018

17-1011

17-1012

19-4093

25-4010

25-4022

25-4031

27-1010

27-1020

27-2011

27-2012

27-2030

27-2041

27-2042

27-2091

27-2099

27-3011

27-3023

27-3041

27-3043

27-3099

27-4010

27-4021

27-4030

39-3021

39-3031

39-7010

41-9010 51-5112

51-5113

51-9071

51-9151

51-9194 51-9195

Note: At the start of the quantitative data collection process, we accessed the National Endowment for the Arts Key to Occupations (September 2018) file that contains listings of their Artist Occupations and Other Cultural Occupations. The Key to Occupations file was updated in July 2022. This table compares the revised July 2022 SOC codes for NEA Artist Occupations using the September 2018 codes for the NEA Other Cultural Occupations. Updated codes for this category aren’t yet available.

LIMITATIONS OF THE ACS DATA

We recognize that the ACS may not sufficiently account for the number of people working as creative workers. For example, the ACS does not provide information on multiple job holding as previously discussed and relies on occupational codes updated roughly every ten years.1 The last revision to the occupational codes was in 2018. New creative occupations, particularly those related to computing, digital, and information services, are likely to be contained within occupational codes such as the summary and detailed ones for Software and Web Developers, Programmers, and Testers (15-1250) and Computer Occupations, All Other (15-1299).

According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, those codes have low employment concentrations within the creative sector. As a result, if those codes were included in our study, they would significantly distort the picture for Creative Workers. At the PUMA level, the ACS does not contain enough data to produce disaggregated estimates by individual occupational codes and race/ethnicity. Despite these limitations, it is still a significant and reliable data source for vital descriptive statistics related to employment, demographics, and other characteristics of Creative Workers in the US.

1 The US Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has yet to officially state when the next SOC revision will occur, although some indications are that the next SOC will be in 2028. If they follow past practices, the OMB will likely publish an initial Federal Register notice soliciting public comment around 2024.

ADDITIONAL REPORTING

The Key Characteristics table provides additional summary and comparative data for Creative Workers in Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans not included elsewhere in the study (Age, Sex, and Disability Status) and others that have (Labor Force, Race/Ethnicity, Educational Attainment, Weekly Hours, and Worker Classification).

• LABOR FORCE includes all employed and unemployed persons. Labor force data excludes retired persons and others who are neither working nor seeking work.

• RACE AND ETHNICITY includes Black or African American, Latinx/ Hispanic (any race), AANHPI (Asian or Asian American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander)1 , Native American (American Indian or Alaskan Native), Multiracial or other, race and ethnicity groups as classified by the US Census Bureau.

• AGE values are grouped into four ranges. These groupings correspond to our study participants’ ages.

• SEX indicates whether the person is male or female. The American Community Survey includes a question that intends to capture current sex; there are no questions about gender, sexual orientation, or sex at birth. Respondents answer ‘male’ or ‘female’ based on their current identification.

• DISABILITY STATUS reports at least one disability if any disability fields are selected. Those fields include cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, independent living difficulty, self-care difficulty, and vision or hearing difficulty.

• EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT is measured by the highest year of school or degree completed. Note that completion differs from the highest year of school attendance; for example, respondents who attended 10th grade but did not finish were classified as having completed 9th grade.

• WEEKLY HOURS reports the number of hours the respondent usually worked per week if the person worked during the previous 12 months. This consolidates data into five groups: 0-9, 10-19, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, and 50+ hours a week. The 50+ hours per week reflects the percentage of overwork for Creative Workers and All Workers. Across the three cities, Creative Workers are more likely to overwork than All Workers.

• WORKER CLASSIFICATION specifies whether respondents worked for their own enterprise(s) (Self-employed) or someone else as employees (Works for Wages). Workers with multiple sources of employment were classified according to the work relationship in which they spent the most time during the reference day or week.

1 AANHPI is an aggregate of Asian or Asian American (which includes Asian Indian, Bangladeshi, Bhutanese, Burmese, Cambodian, Chinese (except Taiwanese), Filipino, Hmong, Indonesian, Japanese, Korean, Laotian, Malaysian, Mongolian, Nepalese, Okinawan, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, Taiwanese, Thai, Vietnamese; Other Asian, specified; Other Asian, not specified; Two or more Asian) and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (which contains the detailed groups Native Hawaiian, Samoan, Chamorro, Tongan, and Fijian). Our aggregation of AANHPI attempts to reflect how participants in the study organize and identify in community with the understanding that the Asian and Asian American and the Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander groups have distinct social/cultural, demographic, and economic characteristics according to the American Community Survey. We note that the Asian category itself, given the sizeable Asian Indian and Chinese (except Taiwanese) populations, often distorts the picture for other Asian and Asian American subgroups and communities, as noted in the article The Case for Requiring Disaggregation of Asian American and Pacific Islander Data (Lao 2021).

KEY CHARACTERISTICS

DETROIT MEMPHIS NEW ORLEANS

TOTAL LABOR FORCE

Total in the labor force (thousands)

Total in the labor force (percent)

RACE + ETHNICITY

White

Black/African-American

Latinx/Hispanic (any race)

AANHPI

American Indian and Alaskan Native

Multiracial or other race

AGE

Younger than 25

25 to 44

45 to 64

65 or older

SEX

Female

Male

DISABILITY

At Least One Disability

No Disability

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

Completed less than 12th grade

Completed 12th grade

Completed 1–3 years of college

Completed 4+ years of college

HOURS WORKED

0 to 9 hours a week

10 to 19 hours a week

20 to 29 hours a week

30 to 39 hours a week

40 to 49 hours a week

50+ hours a week

WORKER CLASSIFICATION

Source: Authors’ calculations using the American Community Survey 2019 1-year estimates.

CITY PROFILES

We have also produced detailed quantitative snapshots for each city that provide fully disaggregated data by Race/Ethnicity and Worker Groups. These snapshots are available as companion publications for download.

DETROIT MEMPHIS NEW ORLEANS

APPENDIX 2 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

2M Research Services, and Metris Arts Consulting. Our Town: A Framework for Understanding and Measuring the National Endowment for the Arts' Creative Placemaking Grants Program. 2021. Accessed May 3, 2022. http://bit.ly/3GDmWBe

Agbo, Nwamaka. Restorative Economics: A Values-Based Roadmap to a Just Economy. Nonprofit Quarterly. November 3, 2021. Accessed May 11, 2023. https://bit.ly/42LNMOL

Allied Media Projects. Track or Network Gathering FAQ! Accessed October 31, 2022. http://bit.ly/3gtwIek

American Alliance of Museums and Wilkening Consulting. Measuring the Impact of COVID-19 on People in the Museum Field 2021. Accessed May 11, 2023. https://bit.ly/3PmoEeu

Americans for the Arts. COVID-19 Pandemic Impact on The Arts. Research Update: May 12, 2022. Accessed May 11, 2023. https://bit.ly/3JgYQww

Arango, Jorge. An Example of a Semantic Environment Map Accessed May 10, 2022. http://bit.ly/3XpZa1C Art Matters Foundation. Announcing 2021 Artist2Artist Fellows 19, 2021. Accessed May 10, 2022. http://bit.ly/3ESJmgj Bach, Claudia. The Funder and the Intermediary, in Support of the Artist: A Look at Rationales, Roles, and Relationships Reader. Vol. 25 No. 1. 2014. Accessed May 10, 2022. Baumgartner, Jesse C., Gabriella N. Aboulafia, Yaphet Getachew, David C. Radley, Sara R. Collins, and Laurie Zephyrin.

Health Care in Black and Latinx/Hispanic Communities: 23 Charts 2021. Accessed May 11, 2023. https://bit.ly/3JmxB3H Beeferman, Gordon and David Friend. COVID, Arts Funding, and the Gig Economy. Brooklyn Rail, November 2021. Accessed May 11, 2023. https://bit.ly/3PjDvWZ

Bhutta, Neil, Jesse Bricker, Andrew C. Chang, Lisa J. Dettling, Sarena Goodman, Joanne W. Hsu, Kevin B. Moore, Sarah Reber, Alice Henriques Volz, and Richard A. Windle. Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2016 to 2019: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances Changes. Federal Reserve, September 2020, Vol. 106, No. 5. Accessed May 11, 2023. https://bit.ly/43X2bZE

Billiald, Sarah, and La Toya McAllister-Jones. Behaving Like a System? The preconditions for place-based systems change. 2015. Accessed May 3, 2022. https://bit.ly/3r1HOMS

Borstel, John, Pam Korza, Andrea Assaf, Chris Dwyer, Mark Valdez, and

Buyukozer Dawkins, Melody, Ciara K. Knight, Tanya Treptow, and Camila Guerrero. Black Perspectives on Creativity, Trustworthiness, Welcome and Well-Being - Findings from a Qualitative Study. Slover Linett Audience Research Inc. 2021. Accessed October 31, 2022. http://bit.ly/3TZ7Tog

Camner McKay, Lisa. How the racial wealth gap has evolved—and why it persists. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. October 3, 2022. Accessed May 11, 2023. https://bit.ly/42LImmT

Center for Cultural Innovation. Creativity Connects: Trends and Conditions Affecting U.S. Artists. 2016. Accessed May 3, 2022. http://bit.ly/3UXgoBR Charles, Cézanne. Cultural Community Benefits Principles Toolkit. 2018. Accessed May 3, 2022. http://bit.ly/3tRhral

Choi, Laura, Ian Galloway, Lyz Crane, Jeremy Liu, and Victor Rubin. Transforming Community Development Through Arts and Culture. Community Development Innovation Review, Volume 14, Issue 2, 2019. Accessed May 3, 2022. http://bit.ly/3GE1PyK Civic Artists in Residence Lab. CAIR Lab. n.d. Accessed May 10, 2022. http://bit.ly/3Evr83b

Cole, Jennifer, and Rebecca Kinslow. Opportunities at the Intersection: Advancing Racial Equity via Arts and Culture in the Public Sector. 2020.

New York isn’t New York without artists. n.d.

Financing Creative

Placemaking: Analyzing Data and Trends for a Field in Transition. 2020.

Disaggregating the Monolithic Model Minority. 2012. The https://urbn.is/3u5Pvzx . Briarpatch. July 5, 2021.

Sense-Making Methodology Reader: Selected Writings of

. October 24, 2019. Accessed May 10, 2022.

2021 FDIC National Survey of . October 2022. Accessed May

Florida, Richard, and Michael Seman. Lost Art: Measuring COVID-19's devastating impact on America's creative economy. 2020. Accessed May 3, 2022. https://brook.gs/3VhtnxH

Flynn, Kalen. The Art of Economic Justice: An Impact Report on Guaranteed Income Pilots for Artists and Creative Workers in Minnesota. Springboard for the Arts. 2023. Accessed May 11, 2023.

https://bit.ly/3PjK3F7

Ford Foundation. Creative Futures. n.d. Accessed May 10, 2022.

http://bit.ly/3tSi03W

Frasz, Alexis, and Holly Sidford. Mapping the Landscape of Socially Engaged Artistic Practice. 2017. Accessed May 3, 2022.

https://bit.ly/3XdFDS6

Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed 50th-Anniversary Edition. 2020. New York, NY. Bloomsbury Academic.

Gadwa Nicodemus, Anne. Creative Placemaking 2.0. 2012. Grantmakers in the Arts Reader. Vol 23. No 2. Accessed May 10, 2022.

http://bit.ly/3goUV5N

Garcia, Rubén Solís, Seth Markle, Foluke Nunn, Emery Wright, and Stephanie Guilloud. Peoples Movement Assembly Organizing Handbook. Atlanta GA: Project South. 2016. Accessed October 31, 2022.

http://bit.ly/3XtmcES

Gaver, Bill, Tony Dunne, and Elena Pacenti. Cultural Probes. Interactions, Volume 6, Issue 1, 1999. pp 21–29. Accessed May 3, 2022.

http://bit.ly/3Xoxha5

Gaydos, Benjamin, and Julia Yezbick. The Artists Resonating Detroit. 2015. Accessed May 3, 2022. http://bit.ly/3gzmZDg

Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures. 1973. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Geiling, Ethan. The Most Unbanked Places in America. Prosperity Now, December 14, 2011. Accessed May 11, 2023. https://bit.ly/3JjNlof Glasmeier, Amy K. Living Wage Calculator. 2024. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. https://livingwage.mit.edu. Accessed January 7, 2024.

https://bit.ly/3TV4gDx

Goldbard, Arlene. Art & Well-Being: Toward A Culture of Health. U.S. Department of Arts and Culture. 2018. Accessed May 11, 2023.

https://bit.ly/3p45Ypl

Grantmakers in the Arts. Why GIA Uses the Acronym ALAANA . 2020. Accessed May 10, 2022. http://bit.ly/3GEVYcw

Grantmakers in the Arts. Cultural Policy Action Lab. 2022. Accessed May 10, 2022. http://bit.ly/3EV6n28

Guibert, Greg, and Iain Hyde. Analysis: COVID-19’s Impacts on Arts and Culture. Argonne National Laboratory. January 4, 2021. Accessed May 11, 2023. https://bit.ly/464jB8B

Harris, Benjamin, and Sydney Schreiner Wertz. Racial Differences in Economic Security: The Racial Wealth Gap. U.S. Department of the Treasury. September 15, 2022. Accessed May 11, 2023.

https://bit.ly/3JkoFvJ

Hartman, Ann. Diagrammatic Assessment of Family Relationships. 1995. Families in Society, 76, 111-122.

HueArts NYC, Hester Street, The Laundromat Project, Museum Hue, and n.d. HueArts NYC Brown Paper. Accessed May 10, 2022.

http://bit.ly/3gyBqrf

Ignaczak, Nina, Jenny Lee, Muna Danish, Mike Medow, Linda Campbell, and Puck Lo. Changing the Conversation: Philanthropic Funding and Community Organizing in Detroit. Detroit: Allied Media Projects and Detroit People’s Platform. 2017. Accessed November 17, 2022.

http://bit.ly/3GEtpMf

Indigenous Roots Cultural Arts Center. McKnight Culture Bearers Fellowship. n.d. Accessed May 10, 2022. http://bit.ly/3VkNdIq

Interaction Design Foundation. Ecosystem Maps. n.d. Accessed November 28, 2022. http://bit.ly/3GSZ0tz

Jackson, Maria Rosario. Developing Artist-driven Spaces in Marginalized Communities: Reflections and Implications for the Field. 2012. Accessed May 3, 2022. http://bit.ly/3i2lfmv

Jackson, Maria Rosario, and Florence Kabwasa-Green. Artist Space Development: Making the Case; Leveraging Investments in Creativity (LINC). 2007. Accessed May 3, 2022. https://urbn.is/3TV7rrb

Jick, Todd D., Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action. 1979. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, p.602-611. Jules, Bergis. Architecting Sustainable Futures: Exploring Funding Models in Community-Based Archives. 2019. Accessed May 3, 2022. https://bit.ly/3R1yZ0h

Jules, Bergis. Symposium: Architecting Sustainable Futures: Designing prosperity for community-based archives. 2018. Accessed May 3, 2022. http://bit.ly/3GBqVy4

Kan, Lyle Matthew. American and Pacific Islander Communities 10, 2022. http://bit.ly/3TSvirC Kawakita, Jiro. Institute.

Klein, Gary. Performing a Project Premortem Review. 85 (9): 18–19. Accessed October 31, 2022.

Koch, Max. Structure, action and change: A Bourdieusian perspective on the preconditions for a degrowth transition

http://bit.ly/3i3JqBd Koh, Annette.

3, 2022. http://bit.ly/3VnnLSR

Lao, Molly. The Case for Requiring Disaggregation of Asian American and Pacific Islander Data

https://bit.ly/3KuNd5L

Laville, Jean-Louis. economy. In Yi, Ilcheong, Peter Utting, Jean-Louis Laville, Barbara Sak, Caroline Hossein, Sifa Chiyoge, Cecilia Navarra, Denison Jayasooria, Fernanda Wanderley, Jacques Defourny, and Rocio Nogales-Muriel (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Social and Solidarity Economy 2023. Cheltenham and Northampton, MA. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited in partnership with United Nations Inter-Agency Task Force on Social and Solidarity Economy (UNTFSSE). Accessed May 11, 2023.

https://bit.ly/446NjrK

Leveraging Investments in Creativity (LINC). Leveraging Investments in Creativity: Web Archive. 2013. Accessed May 3, 2022.

http://bit.ly/3TX3H8M

Lewis, C. H. Using the “Thinking Aloud” Method in Cognitive Interface Design (Technical Report). 1982. IBM. RC-9265.

Linares, Nati, and Caroline Woolard. Solidarity Not Charity – Arts & Culture Grantmaking in the Solidarity Economy. 2021. Accessed May 3, 2022. http://bit.ly/3ADCNvM

Lincoln, Yvonna S., and Egon G. Guba. Naturalistic Inquiry. 1985. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Lutman, Sarah, Janis Lane-Ewart, Jocelyn Hale, and Jessica Fiala.

Elevating the Artists: Assessing Impacts of The Kresge Foundation’s Support for Individual Artists in Detroit on Lives, Careers and the Detroit Community 2008–2016. 2016. Accessed May 3, 2022.

http://bit.ly/3UX4rvK

Mack, Kristen and John Palfrey. Capitalizing Black and White: Grammatical Justice and Equity. MacArthur Foundation. August 26, 2020. Accessed January 7, 2024 https://bit.ly/41S3Fok

McIntyre, Alice. Participatory Action Research Sage.

Milner, Justin. Addressing the Racial Wealth Gap for an Inclusive Recovery The Urban Institute. December 10, 2021. Accessed May 11, 2023. https://urbn.is/3XgDEwE

Mitchell, Deborah J., J. Edward Russo, and Nancy Pennington. future: Temporal perspective in the explanation of events of Behavioral Decision Making. Volume 2, Issue 1. January/March. pp. 2538. http://bit.ly/3Vc0OlC

Montoya, Michael J., and Erin E. Kent. Dialogical Action: Moving from Community-Based to Community-Driven Participatory Research Qualitative Health Research. Volume 21, Issue 7. Accessed October 31, 2022. http://bit.ly/3V0TmK9

Music Workers Alliance. How Are We Surviving: Survey Summary Report December 17, 2020. Accessed May 11, 2023.

National Assembly of State Arts Agencies. Paradigms for Artist Support. 2021. Accessed October 31, 2022. http://bit.ly/3XmsLZJ

National Assembly of State Arts Agencies. Creative Placemaking. August 2020. Accessed May 11, 2023.

https://bit.ly/3AAv95q

National Assembly of State Arts Agencies. Creative Placemaking Public Resources Guide. November 2020. Accessed May 3, 2022.

http://bit.ly/3VlXAM8

National Assembly of State Arts Agencies. State Arts Agency Roles in Creative Placemaking. August 2020. Accessed May 3, 2022. http://bit.ly/3AAv95q

National Endowment for the Arts. Artists and Other Cultural Workers: A Statistical Portrait. 2019. Accessed May 3, 2022. http://bit.ly/3XmAfvH

National Endowment for the Arts. How to do Creative Placemaking: An Action-Oriented Guide to Arts in Community Development. 2016. Accessed May 3, 2022. http://bit.ly/3TY0jdJ

New Economy Coalition. The Solidarity Economy. n.d. Accessed May 10, 2022. http://bit.ly/3U0PqYq

Ritchie, Jane, and Liz Spencer. Qualitative Data Analysis for Applied Policy Research. In Bryman, A. and R. Burgess (eds.), Analyzing Qualitative Data. 1994. London: Routledge.

Robinson, John B. Futures Under Glass: A Recipe for People Who Hate to Predict Futures. 1990. Volume 22, Issue 8. pp. 820–842.

Rose, Kalima, Milly Hawk Daniel, and Jeremy Liu. Creating Change through Arts, Culture, and Equitable Development: A Policy and Practice Primer. 2017. Accessed May 3, 2022. http://bit.ly/3Ow0ZWp

Rosenblat, Alex. Gig Workers Are Here to Stay. It’s Time to Give Them Benefits. Harvard Business Review, July 03, 2020. Accessed May 11, 2023. https://bit.ly/3qMw5S2

Savage, Eleanor. RE-Tool: Racial Equity in the Panel Process. Jerome Foundation. 2018. Accessed May 11, 2023. https://bit.ly/3NwSfk5

Sherman, Danya, Jamie Hand, and Chelsea Bruck. Building Community Wealth: The Role of Arts and Culture in Equitable Economic Development, A Creative Placemaking Field Scan. 2020. Accessed May 3, 2022. http://bit.ly/3i7GjIs

Sonke, Jill, Tasha Golden, Samantha Francois, Jamie Hand, Anita Chandra, Lydia Clemmons, David Fakunle, Maria Rosario Jackson, Susan Magsamen, Victor Rubin, and Kelley Sams. Creating Healthy Communities through Cross-Sector Collaboration. University of Florida Center for Arts in Medicine / ArtPlace America. 2019. Accessed May 11, 2023. https://bit.ly/43MBebh

Springboard for the Arts and Helicon Collaborative. Creative People Power. 2018. Accessed May 3, 2022. http://bit.ly/3Vf1WEO

Springboard for the Arts. A Handbook for Artists Working in Community. 2020. Accessed May 3, 2022. http://bit.ly/3Xu0NuX

Springboard for the Arts. Health Toolkits. n.d. Accessed May 11, 2023. https://bit.ly/3CBliNi

Stone, Chad, and William Chen. Introduction to Unemployment Insurance. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, July 30, 2014. Accessed May 11, 2023. https://bit.ly/3CBzC8q

SWANA Alliance. SWANA Alliance. n.d. Accessed May 10, 2022. http://bit.ly/3Xr7IF9

Taylor, Johanna K. Art Practice as Policy Practice: Framing the Work of Artists Embedded in Government. 2021. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society. Washington: Routledge. Accessed May 4, 2022. http://bit.ly/3Vlx1qE

The Aspen Institute. Glossary for Understanding the Dismantling Structural Racism/Promoting Racial Equity Analysis. n.d. Accessed May 10, 2022. http://bit.ly/3gtr7Vv

The BIPOC Project. The BIPOC Project. n.d. Accessed May 10, 2022. http://bit.ly/3gvCXhU

The Design Studio for Social Intervention. Ideas Arrangements Effects:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Healthy People 2030. n.d. Accessed May 11, 2023. https://bit.ly/3pegiuI

Weiss, Roseann, Pacia Elaine Anderson, and Con Christeson. Artists at the Community Development Table: A Program of Americans for the Arts. 2019. Accessed May 3, 2022. http://bit.ly/3grvikz

White, Katie. Are You an Artist in Need of Aid? Here Are Dozens of Emergency Grants, Medical Funds, and Other Resources to Help. Artnet. April 14, 2020. Accessed May 11, 2023. https://bit.ly/3CBh1ta

Williamson, Vanessa. Closing the racial wealth gap requires heavy, progressive taxation of wealth. The Brookings Institution, December 9, 2020. Accessed May 11, 2023. https://bit.ly/42LLzD2

Wong, Rebecca. Guidelines to Incorporate Trauma-Informed Care Strategies in Qualitative Research. Urban Institute. August 30, 2021. Accessed May 11, 2023. https://urbn.is/43NdwvJ

Working Artists and the Greater Economy. W.A.G.E. Working Artists and the Greater Economy. n.d. Accessed May 11, 2023. https://bit.ly/3Cz31Qv

Yang, Jenny R., Amanda Briggs, Jessica Shakesprere, Natalie Spievack, Shayne Spaulding, and K. Steven Brown. Arts Workers in California: Creating a More Inclusive Social Contract to Meet Arts Workers’ and Other Independent Contractors’ Needs. 2021. Accessed May 3, 2022. https://urbn.is/3U0vODK

Yerba Buena Center for the Arts. San Francisco Guaranteed Income Pilot for Artists. n.d. Accessed May 10, 2022. http://bit.ly/3UWau3I

Zeuli, Kim, and Seth Beattie. A New Standard for Arts and Culture

Organizations Advancing Community Revitalization. GIA Reader, Vol 31, No 2 (Summer 2020). Accessed May 3, 2022. http://bit.ly/3Owuis1

APPENDIX 3 DEFINITION OF TERMS

N.B. Contextually sorted – not in alphabetical order.

ARTIST

Someone who regularly and actively engages in artistic or cultural practice and production to express themselves. In communities, artists often contribute to illuminating and communicating our shared human experience. They offer cultural resources or organize and co-create toward positive social impacts (Creatives Rebuild New York n.d.).

CREATIVE PRACTITIONER

Many people who create culture do not identify with the term artist or refer to their work as art. For this reason, we have used the term creative practitioner as an umbrella term for artists, culture bearers, and those

programming, commissioning opportunities, providing space to work, regranting funds, or offering other resources (Bach 2014).

AANHPI

The acronym stands for Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander. The AANHPI population consists of over 50 distinct ethnicities in the US Historically, Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders have historically been lumped into an umbrella racial category in the US Since the 2000 US Census Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (NHPI) and Asian American (AA) have been separated into distinct categories (De Leon 2012).

ALAANA

life tradition and includes the intergenerational transmission of learning (Indigenous Roots Cultural Arts Center n.d.).

INTERMEDIARY

An organization that supports artists through professional practice

The acronym – adopted by Grantmakers in the Arts – stands for African, Latinx, Asian, Arab, and Native American. They use the acronym because they believe the term people of color groups people together in ways that center on whiteness as the norm (Grantmakers in the Arts n.d.).

The acronym stands for Black, Indigenous, and all people of color. This is a term intended to center the experiences of Black and Indigenous groups and demonstrate solidarity between communities of color. While this term has been criticized for erasing differences between people, it is used here, in a country founded on enslavement and genocide, to undo Native invisibility, anti-Blackness, dismantle White supremacy, and advance racial justice (The BIPOC Project n.d.).

SWANA

SWANA is a decolonial term for the Southwest Asian and North African region and its people, including but not limited to Kurds, Nubians,

Sudanese, Armenians, Circassians, Arabs, Iranians, Druze, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Turks, Yazidis, Azeris, Turkmen, Afghans, Copts, Imazighen, and other identities and their intersections (SWANA Alliance n.d.).

RACIAL EQUITY

A reality in which a person is no more or less likely to experience society’s benefits or burdens just because of the color of their skin (The Aspen Institute n.d.).

RACIAL INEQUITY

In the United States, the prevalent worldview centers on White-dominant culture as normal, standard, and good. This worldview is so pervasive that it permeates our history and political, economic, and social strategies, and it is in the DNA of how our institutions are built and operate (Cole and Kinslow 2020).

INSTITUTIONAL RACISM

The policies and practices within and across institutions that, intentionally or not, produce outcomes that chronically favor or put a racial group at a disadvantage. Poignant examples of institutional racism can be found in school disciplinary policies in which students of color are punished at much higher rates than their White counterparts, in the criminal justice system, and within many employment sectors in which day-to-day operations, as well as hiring and firing practices, can significantly disadvantage workers of color (The Aspen Institute n.d.).

STRUCTURAL RACISM

A system in which public policies, institutional practices, cultural representations, and other norms work in various, often reinforcing ways to perpetuate racial group inequity. It identifies dimensions of our history and culture that have allowed privileges associated with whiteness and disadvantages associated with color to endure and adapt over time. Structural racism is not something that a few people or institutions choose to practice. Instead, it has been a feature of the social, economic, and political systems in which we all exist (The Aspen Institute n.d.).

CREATIVE PLACEKEEPING

The active care and maintenance of a place and its social fabric by the people who live and work there. It is not just preserving buildings

but keeping the cultural memories associated with a locale alive while supporting the ability of local people to maintain their way of life as they choose (US Department of Arts and Culture 2016).

CREATIVE PLACEMAKING

Creative placemaking is an evolving practice that intentionally leverages the power of the arts, culture, and creativity to serve a community’s interest while driving a broader agenda for change, growth, and transformation in ways that build and invigorate the character and quality of a place (Gadwa Nicodemus 2012).

SOLIDARITY ECONOMY

The solidarity economy is a global movement to build a just and sustainable economy that prioritizes people and the planet over endless profit and growth. Growing out of social movements in Latin America and the Global South, the solidarity economy provides real alternatives to capitalism, where communities govern themselves through participatory democracy, cooperative and public ownership, and a culture of solidarity and respect for the earth. (New Economy Coalition n.d.).

AFFINITY MAPPING

Affinity Mapping is a method for sorting large amounts of related information, usually produced from brainstorming exercises into clusters based on relationships, for review and analysis (Doria 2019).

BACKCASTING

Counter to forecasting, which projects from the present forward, backcasting is a planning method that establishes a description of a specific, desirable future situation first. This is followed by articulating a step-by-step backward process to the present to reveal and identify measures that will achieve that specified future (The Natural Step n.d.).

CULTURAL PROBE

Cultural Probes were developed as a research method in the late 1990s to gather an empathic understanding of participants. Researchers sent probe kits containing materials and exercises to participants to work on. After completing the assigned tasks, participants returned the kits. Exercises tend to be explicitly ambiguous and open to encourage discussion about possible futures (Gaver, Dunne, and Pacenti 1999).

ECOSYSTEM MAPPING

Ecosystem maps help people locate and understand how their needs, priorities, and challenges fit into a specific environment. It is an essential method that reveals the relationships, dynamics, and interdependencies that contribute to the perceptions and experiences of those operating within a given ecosystem or ecology. The ecosystems surrounding artists and culture bearers are dynamic structures of interconnected people and organizations that rely on each other (Interaction Design Foundation n.d.).

SEMANTIC ENVIRONMENT CANVAS

A Semantic Environment Canvas is a tool (worksheet) developed by an information architect, author, and educator Jorge Arango to unpack the language, rules, and power dynamics that make it possible for people to achieve their purposes in particular situations – or pose a barrier to doing this (Arango 2018).

SENSE-MAKING

Sense-making is an interview methodology in which interviewees describe and interpret their individual experiences of specific events, free from the researcher’s assumptions. Interviewees are encouraged to deliberate how their actions, thoughts, and feelings influenced their perceptions of reality. Sense-making focuses on how perceptions of experiences change over time (Dervin 2003).

PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH (PAR)

PAR is an approach to research in communities that seeks to understand and improve the world by changing it collaboratively. PAR provides a set of principles and practices for originating, designing, conducting, analyzing, and acting on research. It is collaborative at every stage, involving discussion, pooling skills, and working together (McIntyre 2008).

AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY (ACS)

The ACS is a demographics survey program conducted by the US Census Bureau; it is the largest household survey that the Census Bureau administers. Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) files enable data users to create custom estimates and tables. The ACS PUMS files are records from individual people or housing units, with disclosure protection enabled so that individuals or housing units cannot be identified. The Census Bureau produces ACS 1-year and 5-year PUMS files. Looking Back

to Move Forward uses the 2019 1-year estimate. (United States Census Bureau n.d.)

CORE CREATIVE WORKERS

Within the quantitative data presented, Core Creative Workers broadly encompasses people employed in 11 occupations and within 20 individual Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes, with skill sets essential to producing creative work (e.g., architects, designers, artists, dancers, writers, musicians, etc.) Core Creative Workers may earn income by selling their artistic and creative products and services, regardless of their for-profit and nonprofit sector participation. The included occupations are based on categorizations used by the NEA and Urban Institute (See Appendix 1).

RELATED CREATIVE WORKERS

Within the quantitative data presented, Related Creative Workers refers to people employed in 15 occupations and within 18 individual SOC codes. Related Creative Workers are primarily workers in service, management, and associated technical occupations that are less closely related to direct cultural production; but are integral to the promotion,

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS PART 4

THANKS + CREDITS

We are eternally grateful to each of the individuals who joined us and shared their insights, experiences, and feedback throughout Looking Back to Move Forward. Their contributions have helped us design, conduct, and present fair and equitable research at every step of the process. This project has been inspired by each of them and wouldn’t be possible without their vital work and the numerous ways they show up in their communities. Their perspective has been invaluable to what we have learned about the creative ecosystems in Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans.

Owólabi Aboyade (Detroit)

Amber Ahmad (Memphis)

Jes Allie (Detroit)

Katrina Andry (New Orleans)

Sherrine Azab (Detroit)

Nour Ballout (Detroit)

Ekundayo Bandele (Memphis)

Nic Brierre Aziz (New Orleans)

Ron Bechet (New Orleans)

Dominique Campbell (Detroit)

Edgar Cardenas (Detroit)

María Cherry Rangel (New Orleans)

Nandi Comer (Detroit)

José Cotto (New Orleans)

Kiña del Mar (Memphis)

Asali DeVan Ecclesiastes (New Orleans)

James Dukes (Memphis)

Tonya Dyson (Memphis)

Taraneh Fazeli (Detroit)

Reshounn “Sun” Foster (Detroit)

bree gant (Detroit)

Wendy Gaudin (New Orleans)

Julién Godman (Detroit)

Shana M. griffin (New Orleans)

Jarrell Hamilton (New Orleans)

Whitney Hardy (Memphis)

Ana Hernandez (New Orleans)

Kimberly Diana Jacobs (Memphis)

Jeanelle “TBj” Jones (Memphis)

Victoria Jones (Memphis)

Levon Kafafian (Detroit)

Lauren Kennedy (Memphis)

Osman Khan (Detroit)

Rachel Knox (Memphis)

Jova Lynne (Detroit)

Billy Mark (Detroit)

Delaney Martin (New Orleans)

Felicita “Felli” Maynard (New Orleans)

Justin Merrick (Memphis)

indee mitchell (New Orleans)

Chace Morris (Detroit)

Ryan Myers-Johnson (Detroit)

Brandan “BMike” Odums (New Orleans)

Maceo Paisley (Detroit)

Cat Peña (Memphis)

Nick Peña (Memphis)

Rontherin Ratliff (New Orleans)

Michael Reyes (Detroit)

Eric Robertson (Memphis)

Ama Rogan (New Orleans)

Omari Rush (Detroit)

Sherina Sharpe (Detroit)

Reuben Telushkin (Detroit)

Monique Verdin (New Orleans)

Yancy Villa (Memphis)

ChE Ware (New Orleans)

Thanks to the enduring work of the foundation to expand equity and opportunities in America’s cities, with special thanks to Michelle D. Johnson, Senior Program Officer Detroit; Regina R. Smith, Managing Director Arts & Culture; Wendy Lewis Jackson, Managing Director Detroit; Inés Familiar Miller, Program Officer Arts & Culture; and Chantel Rush, Managing Director American Cities.

Data Driven Detroit, a worker-owned cooperative

Noah Urban, Co-Executive Director

Jacob Yesh-Brochstein, Data Analyst

Jordan Graves, Data Analyst

DESIGN + PUBLICATION PARTNERS

Branding + Book Design: Middlecott Design

Judith Banham and Brook Banham

Copy Editor: Eva Munz

PEER REVIEWERS

David Holland, Deputy Director WESTAF

Judilee Reed, CEO United States Artists

Omari Rush, Executive Director CultureSource

Caitlin Strokosch, President and CEO National Performance Network

Nathaniel Wallace, Head of Civic Partnerships

Michigan Central

ABOUT

rootoftwo is Cézanne Charles’ and John Marshall’s research- and practice-driven art, design, and technology studio. Using participatory methods, rootoftwo facilitates, imagines, and shapes collective actions for just and equitable transformations. rootoftwo creates innovative and tangible experiences, events, artifacts, spaces, methods, research, and strategies. https://rootoftwo.com

TEAM

CÉZANNE CHARLES is a creative practitioner and researcher with 20 years of experience working at the executive and senior management level within the creative industries (nonprofit and for-profit) in both the United States and the United Kingdom. Her work focuses on the intersection of art, design, technology, culture, economy, social justice, and public policy for future-making. Cézanne is an active presenter at forums on creative industries research, place-based creative work, design, and new technology. She serves on the boards of Allied Media Projects and the Museum of Contemporary Art Detroit, is a council member and Vice-Chair of the Michigan Arts and Culture Council, and a member of Design Core Detroit’s Design Economy Council. Cezanne is also a member of the technical working group (TWG) for the National Arts Statistics and EvidenceBased Reporting Center (NASERC), operated by the American Institutes for Research (AIR) and funded by the National Endowment for the Arts. She has an MPA from the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan and a BA in Theatre Studies from The Ohio State University.

Role: Partner + Research co-lead

“The approach we took was both participatory and patient. It was enlightening and humbling to receive and reciprocate trust within the research process. I am grateful for the connections made and for the unflinching insights that folx shared.”

“It was a privilege to listen, learn, and build within our team and with the artists, culture bearers, and intermediaries in these cities. We challenged our thinking and assumptions at every stage and resisted the need to react to both the sense of opportunity and profound challenges of the moment. As we move forward, I am excited by the collective work to seek more creative and just transformations.”

JOHN MARSHALL is a creative practitioner and researcher with over 20 years of experience working on tangible interactions for objects, products, and responsive environments. His work focuses on a recursive process where multiple stakeholders work together to realize shared goals. He is a tenured associate professor of art + design at the University of Michigan. He was the founding director of the Master of Design (MDes) in Integrative Design program at Penny W. Stamps School of Art and Design, 2014–20. John has been a reviewer and juror for various journals, conferences, and academic programs in design, technology, engineering, and architecture. Marshall holds a PhD in digital design and fabrication technology from Robert Gordon University, a Master of Arts in Art as Environment from Manchester Metropolitan University, a Master of Fine Arts in Sculpture from The Ohio State University, and a Bachelor of Arts in Fine Art with Honors from Glasgow School of Art.

Role: Partner + Research co-lead

ASH ARDER is an artist, organizer, and educator who has spent the last decade transforming DIY, hacker, and experimental approaches to problem-solving into formalized programs, projects, and collaborations. Her work and research use storytelling and speculative collaboration as frameworks to explore climate and social justice themes. Ash has participated in numerous residency programs, including Bemis in Omaha, Recess in Brooklyn, and A Studio In The Woods in New Orleans. Additional work and roles in the creative industries include Owner of Good Lab, a Detroit-based art studio and gallery; Co-curator of Detroit Pavilion at St. Etienne International Design Biennial; Cultural Strategist + Producer for Creative Many Michigan; Public Art Manager for Midtown Detroit Inc.; Public Art Commissioner for the City of Ann Arbor. She has a Master of Fine Arts in Fiber from Cranbrook Academy of Art and a Bachelor of Arts in Communications Studies from the University of Michigan.

Role: Research Associate

“It has been incredible to reconnect with artists I already know and love and build new relationships with others I’ve met through LBTMF. I’m grateful for this opportunity to provide a platform for their insights to be shared that will impact how artists are supported in the future.”

“I have learned so much about how a city’s musical legacy and history impact the structures and support systems for all creative people. The innovation around Black music, in particular, has created many successful models for collective perseverance, but it also leaves behind exploitative practices that need updating.”

LAUREN ROSSI is a cultural producer and consultant working to fortify artists, artistrun projects, and arts organizations and is dedicated to supporting LGBTQI+, BIPOC, and womxn artists. She has 15+ years of experience as an arts organizer and administrator in Detroit, including over five years providing direct support to individual artists full-time. She has organized and led over 50 workshops to empower the practices of creative practitioners throughout Southeast Michigan and beyond. Lauren has also worked for the Detroit Design Festival, the University of Michigan Museum of Art (UMMA), and the Museum of Contemporary Art Detroit (MOCAD). She is the founder of Seraphine Collective, a network of women/femme/nonbinary musicians and DJs cultivating creative liberation and camaraderie within Detroit’s music scene. Lauren holds a Bachelor of Arts in Fine Art and Art History from Eastern Michigan University and is a 2017 Fellow of the Salzburg Global Forum for (Young) Cultural Innovators.

Role: Research Associate

ELIZABETH VANDER VEEN is a collaborator, researcher, designer, and strategist who works integratively with teams to build the connective schema for ambitious, collaborative projects from their beginnings in abstract problem spaces to later co-created concrete realities. She combines people skills with technical aptitude, coheres research with instinct, connects qualitative analysis with original synthesis, and creates visual and verbal narrative arcs alongside quantitative and theoretical inquiries. She has designed and facilitated bespoke workshops, virtual sessions, interview protocols, and desk research databases. A communication specialist and design generalist with robust master’s degrees in each, Elizabeth’s work has taken her across sectors, including education, healthcare, arts + culture, technology, and public health. Her throughline is a long-held value of the contribution of a community’s members and a desire to involve individual voices in the decisions that design the future. She holds degrees from Calvin University, Purdue University, and The University of Michigan.

Role: Design Strategist + Researcher

“I end this project heartened. The logistical and economic considerations for making a creative living are many and critical. Still, I was reminded that the everyday work involves something else essential too: gifts we make for each other and our communities, of time, art, vision, and care.”