Boulder Arts Blueprint Grant Review, Analysis and Recommendations

Introduction

The following set of analyses and recommendations addresses a key element of the Office of Arts and Culture ongoing work – its longstanding and well-regarded grants portfolio. Grantmaking is among the most powerful tools in the municipal toolkit. As a trust-based, community-focused funder, the city supports multiple organizations across all layers of the cultural sector, incentivizes the production of new creative work, ensures the operational sustainability of nonprofit organizations, and more. As important, this body of work expresses the city’s larger priorities – such as its focus on sustainability, equity, resilience, and overall quality of life.

These recommendations are intended as a high-level realignment of the grantmaking program to better harness the city’s funding approach to the shifting needs of the sector, as well as to respond to the emerging framework of the Boulder Arts Blueprint.

As part of the Boulder Arts Blueprint Phase 1 planning process, this document integrates the city’s Sustainability, Equity and Resilience (SER) Framework with the priorities voiced by Boulder stakeholders, residents, creative economy, and community through listening sessions, public workshops and surveys. This approach encourages the creative sector to actively contribute toward achieving Boulder’s long-term objectives such as climate resilience, social equity, and community well-being. It also aligns goals and support needed within the arts and culture community, helping creatives to thrive economically, remain healthy, and feel safe. In this framework, arts and culture both reflect community values and serve as a strategic driver toward envisioned outcomes.

Findings from the Boulder Arts Blueprint Phase 1 planning process, in regards to the municipal grants portfolio, reveal strong support for (alignment to SER goals noted in bold):

• Impact-driven funding tiers that recognize anchor institutions of all sizes—large nonprofits and catalytic small/mid-sized groups alike, boosting social mobility and community resilience (Economically Vital; Healthy & Socially Thriving).
• Trust-based capital (unrestricted, multi-year grants) that stabilize cultural organizations and deepen long-term impact (Economically Vital; Healthy & Socially Thriving, Responsibly Governed).
• An award pool with larger grant sizes to incentivize innovation, collaboration, and measurable outcomes (Economically Vital; Healthy & Socially Thriving, Livable).
  
• Continued support for multi-year General Operating Support (GOS) awards, providing reliable, accessible, and sustainable funding that enables organizations to carry out their work effectively (Economically Vital; Healthy & Socially Thriving, Responsibly Governed).

• Low-barrier grants for experimental, emerging, underrepresented projects that allow easier access for artists and creative practitioners, enliven public spaces, and broaden cultural participation (Environmentally Sustainable; Healthy & Socially Thriving).

• A streamlined portfolio that consolidates multiple programs, reduces application complexity, and enhances digital equity in access to funding (Responsibly Governed; Accessible & Connected).

• Expand support for individual artists to foster creative growth, strengthen careers, and broaden creative contributions to the community (Economically Vital; Healthy & Socially Thriving, Accessible & Connected).

• Notably, the creative sector has consistently advocated for increased grant funding across the board. The proposed grants budget addresses this overriding concern.

Together, these early recommendations lay the groundwork for a grantmaking approach that accelerates Boulder’s SER ambitions while reflecting the community’s desire for a more inclusive, creative, and resilient cultural sector.

Analysis

Continue shifting toward unrestricted, multi-year grants

Best practices in cultural grantmaking increasingly focus on trust-based, unrestricted general operating support (GOS), multiyear funding for organizations. Rather than supporting specific programs or initiatives – as private donors might – municipal agencies have a unique opportunity to provide a more sustained and predictable stream of operating funding. According to numerous sources (such as Grantmakers in the Arts, the National Endowment for the Arts, and Grantmakers for Effective Organizations) and cultural community insights, trust-based, unrestricted, multiyear support allows for organizational stability, deeper social impact work, strategic planning, stronger and innovative partnerships. Dependable funding allows organizations to advance the SER framework’s goals of an Economically Vital; Healthy & Socially Thriving, and Responsibly Governed community. Boulder has been successful in its work to shift to GOS funding, as demonstrated in the comparative analysis below with its peer markets.

The Office of Arts and Culture’s GOS grantmaking remains the primary, and most effective, way to provide stable, flexible funding for the full spectrum of cultural organizations. By maintaining a broad GOS portfolio across the creative ecosystem, Boulder sustains the diversity, resilience, and collaborative potential of its creative sector.

Data point: comparative analysis of GOS allocation in municipal grantmaking
Washington, D.C., DC Commission on the Arts and Humanities: GOS Allocation: 54%
Salt Lake City, Utah, Salt Lake City Arts Council: GOS Allocation: 64%
Boulder, CO, Office of Arts and Culture: GOS Allocation: 76%
Portland, Oregon, Portland Office of Arts & Culture: GOS Allocation: 100%

Redefine funding tiers to include a category that accounts not only for organizational budget size but organizational impact

The current GOS grant structure is based primarily on organizational budget size: S, M, L, XL. While apparently neutral, however, this structure can have unintended consequences, such as: incentivizing legacy or entrenched organizations, implicitly rewarding growth as a primary indicator of efficacy, and neglecting considerations such as equity and community impact. Instead of this nominal neutrality, municipalities can instead prioritize “anchor institutions” that are key partners in the creative ecosystem – impactful institutions of various budget sizes. A funding category built around anchor institutions should evaluate their impact on specific metrics to assess reach and impact. (An expanded discussion of anchor institutions is below.) Creating an “anchor” category specifically intended to address these considerations will ensure, among other ways, that the grant program emphasizes not only scale but outcomes – and that it meets Boulder’s SER goals.

Data point: defining anchor institutions
According to extensive research conducted by the Initiative for a Competitive Inner City (ICIC), in partnership with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Kresge Foundation, anchor institutions are defined as “large or otherwise influential organizations that participate in community engagement activities and have relatively deep roots in (are unlikely to move from) their communities.” For the purposes of its study, ICIC considers both size and rootedness as prerequisites to being considered an anchor:

• Size, which reflects the potential for significant economic impact. The study used $10M total expenses and 50 employees as the lower limit for this study.
• Strong roots in the local community due to the organization’s history, institutional mission, significant capital investments or land holdings, or reliance on local markets or relationships. They will not be able to move easily to another city or location.

Data point: Kresge Foundation on small and mid-sized arts and culture organizations as anchors
“Our research finds that small and mid-sized arts and culture organizations are also playing important roles in anchor ecosystems, with some serving as “anchor catalysts.” Their influence and community partnerships help remove barriers to anchor engagement, and their participation in anchor collaboratives demonstrates a path forward for the arts and culture sector.”

Institute a more competitive grant process for anchor institutions with a higher award amount and greater expectations

Cultural leaders across Boulder report that current award amounts are relatively low; this is also borne out by the relative percentage of municipal funding to overall budget. At the same time, the sector has expressed a desire for greater collaboration across institutions, as well as greater incentive for innovation and creativity. By increasing award amounts – and consequently reducing the number of grants overall – municipal agencies can simultaneously incentivize high-performing, innovative institutions while providing more meaningful grant amounts.

Data point: Nonprofit arts leaders and local philanthropy
Input was gathered from a series of focus groups with the following: leaders of Boulder’s cultural venues; leaders of large nonprofit arts organizations; representatives from private philanthropy and high-net worth individuals. Two related themes recurred. The first was that the amounts of municipal funding were low, and therefore insufficient, relative to overall budget size of larger organizations. The second was that there was a desire shared by both arts and philanthropy leaders that innovative and collaborative practices be incentivized. Together, these insights lead to the conclusion that arts institutions are prepared to enter into a more competitive grantmaking pool that rewards effective practices, as well as partnerships.

Ease access for emerging, imaginative, or underrepresented projects and artists

Feedback from a community-wide questionnaire strongly suggests a desire for new forms of expression, cutting edge and experimental work, non-traditional venues, and a broader spectrum of cultural activities overall. This desire is also reflected in the philanthropic community, which is interested in identifying emerging artists and culture-makers. Municipalities can include low-barrier grant practices that encourage innovation and novel creative practices – regardless of the grantee’s medium, status, size, or institutional affiliation.

Across the municipal grant portfolio, consolidate multiple grant programs and reduce barriers to entry

The current grant portfolio has evolved over the years to include multiple initiatives – and complex application processes. To make the application process more efficient for staff and less onerous for grantees, municipalities may consider consolidating various grant opportunities into a more streamlined, legible application process.

Recommended Grant Tiers

Tier 1: Bedrock grants

Grants to “bedrock” institutions – elsewhere referenced as “anchor” institutions (see above) – are designed to provide larger, multi-year general operating support ($75K-$90K) to arts organizations that serve Boulder historically through sustained public programming, education, employment, and/or cultural infrastructure. These bedrock institutions, defined by long-term impact, community-centered missions, and alignment with the City’s priorities as expressed in the upcoming Boulder Arts Blueprint, act as multipliers in the arts ecosystem. This approach encourages collaboration and multi-agency projects. Importantly, it deprioritizes the size of operating budgets as a primary determination of grant amounts; rather, the bedrock approach transparently encourages organizations essential to Boulder’s creative identity, equity goals, and civic engagement.

Data point: Measuring community impact
The City of San Francisco evaluates effective organizations through a transparent rubric that accounts for the civic and community impact of grantees. The rubric incorporates questions regarding partnerships, job creation, neighborhood activation, and equity goals. To advance, applications must score at least 75 points.

Tier 2: GOS grants

In Boulder, operating grants are designed to provide arts and culture organizations with flexible, reliable funding that supports their core mission and long-term sustainability. This approach allows grantees to direct resources towards their most pressing needs, maintain continuity of service, and pursue innovative opportunities. By emphasizing autonomy, accountability, and management, operating grants help support organizational stability, and strengthen Boulder’s nonprofit arts infrastructure through lasting partnerships between the city and its cultural community.

Data point: Competitive grants in Houston encourage more equitable distribution
The City of Houston redesigned its grant process to reduce “entrenched funding patterns” and make room for newer, emerging, and historically underrepresented groups. This model affirms the need for competitive, equity-centered GOS funding that encourages fiscal resilience, opens the field to new voices, and is responsive to a dynamic cultural ecosystem.

Tier 3: Innovation grants

Lowering barriers to municipal funding can ensure that new forms of expression, non-traditional venues and organizations, creative entrepreneurs, and individual artists can have a point of entry in Boulder. Consistent with community feedback and reflecting philanthropic priorities, this orientation in the grant program is intended to reach grantees that do not traditionally have access to municipal funding. This approach also helps to surface the diverse, emerging, and imaginative practices across Boulder, ultimately lending new energy to the creative sector overall.

Tier 4: Strategic Funds (access and audience development grants)

This limited pool of funds is intended to support educators, school groups, organizations and individuals with resources to access arts institutions. It also supports artist access to professional development. These funds lower barriers for audience participation in the arts as well as provide small subsidies for venue access and rentals.