This report describes an innovative experiment in grantmaking that began in New York City in 1991 called the Arts Forward Fund (The Fund). The initiative involved a consortium of thirty-six grantmakers responding to a severe funding crisis in the arts community. The Fund's primary purpose was to support a limited number of demonstration projects for arts organizations, which, in the face of the financial crisis, would help them explore new options for long-term viability.

Inherent in the Fund was the acceptance of a very high degree of risk-taking. For example, grantmakers decided early on to accept proposals from all sizes and types of organizations and to make decisions based on creativity of ideas rather than traditional assessments of institutional capability. Such qualities as financial stability, board strength, and program track record were not key funding criteria since the initiative was intended to be idea-driven. As a corollary, an assumption behind the program design was that good ideas would flow not from the grantmakers but from the field.

The Fund intended to send a positive and encouraging message to the arts community in New York City in a time of financial crisis, to change the nature of the dialogue between grantmakers and arts organizations, and to foster innovative collaborations. During the course of the project 36 planning grants totalling $681,500 and 17 implementation grants totalling $1,026,425 were awarded.

Highlights of the Evaluation:

Consultants from Strategic Grantmaker Services (SGS) conducted an evaluation of the Fund and have summarized their findings and observations in this report. They have also provided some hypotheses about organizational change in the arts field - understandings that have been enriched by a close study of the Fund and the organizations that participated in it.

What emerged in the course of the evaluation were interesting and sometimes unintended results. Because the Fund's designers were not going about the business of grantmaking in the usual fashion, they could not predict which of their assumptions and strategies would stand the test of time. In the course of the evaluation, it became clearer what the consequences of certain decisions were and how each contributed to or undermined the success of the initiative.

For example, during the summer of 1992, SGS surveyed 340 organizations that had applied to the Arts Forward Fund in the initial round and had been rejected for funding. From the responses, several themes began to surface. Chief among them from the point of view of the evaluation was that the Fund had left many applicants confused and disappointed because, in their view:

• The goals of the Fund were vague.
• The application procedures were unclear.
• There were no stated review criteria.

Assessment of the Arts Forward Fund:

Despite the absence of success criteria, the consultants provided their own assessment of the Arts Forward Fund using two time frames.

1. In the short-term, the Fund achieved some success in several ways:

• It boosted morale.
• It began a new dialogue between funders and arts organizations.
• It changed the behavior of certain grantmakers who came to appreciate the work of specific organizations for the first time.
• It fostered collaboration among grantmakers.
• It provided risk capital without strings. 
  

2. In the longer term, the Fund was less successful:

• It failed to produce bold, new ideas.
• It failed to produce any models that were broadly applicable to arts organizations seeking to strengthen themselves.
• For the most part, it failed to produce innovative collaborations.

Factors undermining success:

The factors undermining success included:

• A continuing and deepening funding crisis in New York.
• A lack of follow-through and continuity on the part of the grantmakers.
• An unrealistic reliance on volunteer administration.
• Failure to consider the difficulties of accomplishing change, especially in institutions which do not meet traditional institutional benchmarks for funder assistance.
• An inflexible and short planning period.
• Too little time and money for implementation.

CONTENTS
Acknowledgments.
Executive summary.

Part 1. Introduction.
Part 2. Preliminary findings.
Part 3. Additional findings on implementation projects.
Part 4. Funders' expectations and conclusions.
Part 5. Organizational change in the arts.
Part 6. Assessment of the Arts Forward Fund.
Part 7. Options and recommendations.

Appendices:
     Appendix A: Selected information categories and questions for the
                        evaluation.
     Appendix B: List of funders.
     Appendix C: Arts Forward Fund Planning Committee.
     Appendix D: Lists of Grantees.
     Appendix E: Planning grant summaries.
     Appendix F: Implementation projects.
     Appendix G: Comparative funding programs.