New cultural arts awards bring opportunities, disappointment for applicants

Staff in the city’s Cultural Arts Division prepared themselves to hear some frustration in response to the selection of the first recipients of a radically structured system for awarding arts contracts.

During last week’s Arts Commission meeting, staffers reviewed the steps involved in scoring and selecting the 35 recipients of $3.8 million in funding dedicated to the Thrive program, which awards two-year contracts to organizations that have been operating for more than five years. There were 146 eligible applicants and 59 semifinalists selected for Thrive, the first of three programs introduced by the city after a three-year restructuring process aimed at bringing more equity and diversity to funding local artists and arts groups.

The 35 recipients were expected to be informed of their status this week, with the city anticipating the first installment of contract money to be available in April or May. After recipients are notified, the slate of awards will go before City Council for funding approval on Feb. 23.

Some Arts Commission members said the new process for awarding contracts could potentially be as fraught as it was in 2018, when the city made its first substantial change in evaluation criteria for applicants to emphasize newer groups and underserved populations. The decision brought loud criticism from arts leaders whose groups had continually received city money and were suddenly shut out, leading to the lengthy and very public feedback-heavy restructuring.

Meghan Wells, manager of the Cultural Arts Division, said it is likely some well-established arts groups will have questions about why they were shut out of the Thrive contracts, which range from $85,000 to $150,000.

“Change is hard for the community who puts time and effort into speaking up and speaking out to shifting conditions and still doing the cultural work day after day. Change is also hard for the city and staff who seek to find balance to serve the most vulnerable practitioners and at the same time maintain support for all levels of institutions and artists in good faith.”

In reviewing the basic data provided by applicants, staff found the 59 semifinalists had a median of 19 years in operation and median annual revenue of $84,000, meaning the city money could have represented much of their yearly budgets.

There are two more programs for arts contracts to be distributed using money from the city’s Hotel Occupancy Tax revenues. The next is Elevate, which will provide 150 awards of $10,000 to $75,000. The final program, Nexus, will distribute 50 awards of $5,000 each.

Commissioner Michelle Polgar said she was pleased with the work to revamp the city’s funding for arts groups, even if the new structure creates some challenges for long-operating groups.

“Looking at where we were and where we’ve come, knowing that it’s a process we’re still developing, I’m so encouraged,” she said.

“We need to figure out how we as a commission can elevate recognition of the greater community, because so many people who go through the city funding process are taking things very personally because the work they do is their lives and their art. Because of the restrictions of the resources we have available through (the hotel tax), we can’t do everything for everyone.”

While staff and commissioners said the subsequent programs could provide funding for groups that lost out on Thrive contracts, Commissioner Brett Barnes cautioned that the applicant pools and criteria for those programs could make them ideal for a very different type of recipient.

“I just want to make sure everyone is grounded in reality. Everybody has said there is not enough money in (hotel tax) to fund adequately every deserving arts organization … we already know there were 105 that didn’t make it through Thrive that could go right into the next one.”

Photo caption: “A Lord of the Plains,” by Jeff Grauzer, Courtney Bee Peterson & Michael Mendoza.

The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.