Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Arts Funding Cultural Equity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors probe Grants for the Arts over cultural equity; hearing tabled
Summary
Supervisors and the Budget & Legislative Analyst examined 25 years of Grants for the Arts allocations and found that funding to organizations representing people of color has lagged recent San Francisco demographics. Grants for the Arts staff defended current practice; the committee tabled the item for follow-up.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ Budget & Finance Committee on April 29 examined whether the city’s Grants for the Arts program is adequately meeting goals for equitable access for cultural organizations that serve communities of color.
The hearing followed a 25‑year analysis by the Budget and Legislative Analyst that found Grants for the Arts (GFTA) awarded about $11.8 million in FY2013–14 and that, on average from 1989 to 2013, 23 percent of GFTA funding went to racial minority groups while San Francisco’s population was about 58 percent people of color at the time. Analyst Julia Nagel said GFTA “does not have criteria specifically for funding underrepresented groups nor does it have a methodology for defining the term underrepresented,” and that analysts used organizational leadership and audience served to classify grantees.
Supervisor Jane Marr (speaking for the item sponsors) framed the discussion as long‑running: “it’s been more like a 25 year struggle for many of the smaller community based arts organizations,” she said, arguing the city must consider formulas and outreach that reach smaller and culturally specific organizations. Board President Lennon Breed said the city spends “over $80,000,000 of our city’s budget on supporting the arts” but questioned why a multimechanism distribution of more than $10 million can proceed without a public process.
Khan Wong, senior program manager for Grants for the Arts, described the agency’s review process—five program staff and a ten‑member advisory committee—and disputed parts of the analysts’ framing. Wong said the program funds a broad mix of organizations, that “94% of our grantees are small to midsize organizations,” and cautioned that state law (cited in the hearing as Proposition 209) limits the use of demographic criteria in awarding public contracts.
Public commenters and arts advocates pressed for faster, enforceable plans to achieve cultural equity. Vinay Patel of the Asian Pacific Islander Cultural Center told supervisors his community’s organizations have received “6% or less of the dollars” while representing a much larger share of the city’s population. Several speakers urged targeted new funding, an operating increase of $1.5 million for Grants for the Arts (proposed as $500,000 for small and mid‑sized organizations and $1 million to prioritize organizations rooted in underserved communities), and clearer public accountability.
Supervisors debated options including capping the largest awards, shifting grant decision processes under the Arts Commission, and redistributing existing funds versus adding new dollars. At the end of the session Supervisor Morris moved to table the item for follow‑up; Supervisor Tang seconded, and the motion was adopted without objection.
The Committee did not adopt immediate reforms at the hearing. Next steps identified during the discussion included additional data on dollar amounts awarded to large and small organizations, further analysis of outreach and eligibility practices, and coordination with the San Francisco Foundation and other stakeholders to develop concrete equity strategies.
