HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAO-15-030 - Arts Sustainability Funding Review Staff Report
K jTC'H -Ni-, CA0 Office www.kitchener ca
REPORT TO: Finance and Corporate Services
DATE OF MEETING: October 19, 2015
SUBMITTED BY: Rod Regier, Executive Director, Economic Development,
519-741-2200 x 7506
PREPARED BY: Silvia DiDonato, Manager, Arts & Culture, Economic Development,
519-741-2200 x 7392
WARD (S) INVOLVED: All
DATE OF REPORT: September 18, 2015
REPORT NO.: CAO-15-030
SUBJECT: Arts Sustainability Funding Review
RECOMMENDATION:
That based on the five recommendations of the "Review of Per Capita / Arts
Sustainability Funding and Municipal Funding Models for Key Cultural Institutions",
executive summary attached as Appendix 1 to Chief Administrator's Office report CAO-
15-030, staff be directed to implement the following:
1. a) That the "Per Capita" and "Arts Sustainability" funding nomenclature be
retired; and,
b) That the former "Arts Sustainability" funding to the City of Kitchener's key
cultural institutions, being: Kitchener-Waterloo Symphony, Kitchener-
Waterloo Art Gallery and THEMUSEUM be maintained at its current level and
allocated in combination with the funding already provided to those
organizations through the Tier 1 Grant process; and,
2. That the remaining (projected) $44,000 of the former "Arts Sustainability" funding
for emerging, small or mid-sized organizations be allocated through the Tier 2
Grant process, or otherwise held in reserve for arts and cultural investment, until
the Creative Enterprise Initiative (CEI) completes its refreshed mandate in late fall
2015; and,
3. That staff be directed to work with municipal partner organizations to review
future funding for CEI based on its refreshed mandate; and,
4. That, together with municipal partner organizations, a collaborative funding and
assessment process be established for the four Regionally identified key cultural
institutions, being: Kitchener-Waterloo Symphony, Kitchener-Waterloo Art
***This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
3 - 1
Gallery, Canadian Clay and Glass Gallery and THEMUSEUM, in the form of a pilot
program based on the model recommended in Appendix 1; and further,
5. That a regular communication mechanism be formalized between all municipal
funders regarding arts and cultural investment in the Region of Waterloo.
SUMMARY:
This report presents the recommendations from the "Review of Per Capita/Arts Sustainability
Funding and Municipal Funding Models for Key Cultural Institutions" jointly undertaken by
Kitchener, Waterloo and the Region. Similar reports are being considered by all three
Councils this month.
As described in Appendix 1, Review of Per Capita / Arts Sustainability Funding and Municipal
Funding Models for Key Cultural Institutions, Executive Summary (The Review,) the impact of
this sustainability funding is assessed on the five organizations which consistently received it
from the cities of Kitchener, Waterloo and the Region of Waterloo (the Kitchener-Waterloo
Symphony, Kitchener-Waterloo Art Gallery, Canadian Clay and Glass Gallery, THEMUSEUM,
and the Grand Philharmonic Choir.) Though difficult to measure, the review indicates that all
five are more stable and have used it to support operating budgets. One key recommendation
is that overall municipal arts and culture funding for these organizations should be maintained
at current levels and included in their respective operating grants.
The second specific area of review is also described in Appendix 1, providing an assessment
of appropriate levels of municipal funding for key cultural institutions, and an evaluation of
potential future collaborative funding models for the municipalities. Based on comparisons
with similar cultural organizations, the report concludes that current combined municipal
funding is at appropriate levels, but recommends that the municipal funders establish a
collaborative funding and assessment process and formalize a regular communication
mechanism on arts and cultural funding in the region.
REPORT:
The Arts and Culture Sustainability Funding was introduced in 2010 as a result of a call to
action from the Creative Enterprise Task Force for the municipalities (local and regional) to
help fund, in part, an estimated $2.5 to $5.0 million budget shortfall among the larger
community arts organizations. The Cities of Kitchener and Waterloo and the Region of
Waterloo responded by increasing their annual arts and culture funding by $1 per capita. While
the Region incorporated the additional funding into existing grants, the two Cities have, to date,
treated the increase as a separate fund. The City of Kitchener allocations were based on
annual population projections to ensure the `per capita' funding was maintained, as follows-
3 - 2
TABLE 1: ARTS SUSTAINABILITY FUND ALLOCATIONS
Organization 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
(projected)
THEMUSEUM 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000
Kitchener-
Waterloo Art 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000
Gallery
Kitchener
Waterloo 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000
Symphony
New, emerging,
mid-career orgs 0 20,000 31,000 27,357 36,000 39,400 44,000
(CEI 2010-2015)
MTSpace (one- 7,143
time allocation)
Lost & Found
Theatre (one-time 1,500
allocation)
Held by City of 20,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kitchener
Total $220,000 $220,000 $231,000 $236,000 $236,000 $239,400 $244,000
Five years after implementing the additional funding, the Region of Waterloo and Cities of
Kitchener and Waterloo have jointly contracted with Angela Birdsell Inc.-Cultural Management
and Policy Consulting, to undertake a review of the effectiveness of the Per Capita/Arts
Sustainability (PC/AS) funding; and to provide recommendations for a future funding model for
key cultural institutions.
Impact of the PC/AS Funding
The first section of the Review examined impacts of the PC/AS funding in terms of: the
financial and organizational stability of the key cultural institutions which regularly received
funding; improvement of the funding environment; the ability to leverage additional funds; the
advancement of related municipal priorities; and support for small and emerging arts
organizations. Key conclusions for the region are:
• The PC/AS funding was never designated for a specific purpose by the municipal
funders, except to stabilize organizations;
• It has been used by the organizations to supplement their operating budget;
• Allocating PC/AS funds separately from operating grants has added complexity for the
organizations;
• Some of the funding has been used to support new and emerging organizations through
the grants to Creative Enterprise Initiative and the Region's increased funding to the
Waterloo Region Arts Fund;
3 - 3
• Cultural organizations have had some success in raising additional investment from
senior levels of government, which may not have been possible without the PC/AS
investment.
The Review recommendations relating to impact of the PC/AS Funding are:
#1 Maintain overall municipal funding at current levels for Kitchener-Waterloo
Symphony, Kitchener-Waterloo Art Gallery, Canadian Clay and Glass Gallery,
THEMUSEUM and Grand Philharmonic Choir by including Per Capita /Arts Sustainability
funding in the operating grants for these organizations. Retire the `Per Capita' and `Arts
Sustainability' funding nomenclature.
#2 Incorporate remaining Per Capita/Arts Sustainability funding for emerging, small or
mid-sized organizations into the existing funding mechanisms in each area municipality
and the Region.
#3 Each area municipality and the Region should review future funding for Creative
Enterprise Initiative based on its refreshed mandate.
Consistent with the recommendations of the Review, for the 2016 budget, Kitchener's Arts
Sustainability Fund would be allocated to the Tier 1 grant where all four of the key cultural
institutions already receive funding: Kitchener-Waterloo Symphony ($40,000), Kitchener
Waterloo Art Gallery ($40,000) and THEMUSEUM ($120,000) streamlining the annual funding
decisions.
With the transfer of funds to Tier 1 Community Grants, the "Arts Sustainability Fund"
nomenclature would be retired.
Recommendation #2 and #3 provide an opportunity for Creative Enterprise Initiative to
complete their strategic review. However, conditional on a new mandate or direction for
Creative Enterprise Initiative, the remaining funds projected at $44,000 (as indicated in Table 1
and related to `per capita' Kitchener population projections to 244,000 from 239,400) could be
allocated through Tier 2 grant process for small, emerging and mid-career arts organizations,
or otherwise held in reserve for arts and cultural investment. This portion of Kitchener's Arts
Sustainability Fund was initially intended for leveraging small, emerging and mid-career arts
organizations. At the time of writing this report, no outcomes of the CEI strategic review have
been finalized.
Municipal Funding Models for "Key Cultural Institutions"
The second section of the Review evaluates potential future funding and assessment models
for key cultural institutions across municipalities in the region. Comparative funding data was
compiled for similar types of cultural organizations and review of funding models from
municipalities across Canada. The related key conclusions for the region are-
3 - 4
• Public funding (combined federal, provincial and municipal) as a percentage of total
revenue for the five local cultural organizations is consistent with peer organizations
across the country;
• The municipal funding component may be slightly higher for some organizations, but
this serves to fill gaps in provincial or federal funding;
• Using this type of peer comparison and historical precedence to establish funding levels
for key cultural institutions is a better approach than establishing a formula or fixed
funding model (such as percentage of total budget);
• Any reductions in municipal funding risk de-stabilizing these organizations at this time;
• With a combined funding level of almost $2 million to the five key cultural institutions,
plus Creative Enterprise Initiative, the municipalities should put in place a more robust
communication and accountability framework;
• The Grand Philharmonic Choir was not found to be a key cultural institution in terms of
scale or mandate, but should receive continued municipal funding as a mid-sized
organization.
The Review recommendations relating to future municipal funding models are:
#4 That the municipal funders establish a collaborative funding and assessment
process for the four key cultural institutions of Kitchener-Waterloo Symphony,
Kitchener-Waterloo Art Gallery, Canadian Clay and Glass Gallery and THEMUSEUM in
the form of a pilot program based on the recommended model in this report.
#5 That the Region of Waterloo, the City of Waterloo and the City of Kitchener formalize
a regular communication mechanism on arts and cultural funding in the region. This
mechanism could include all municipal funders.
The expected outcomes of an improved collaborative funding process include:
• a strengthened arts and culture sector;
• a clearer and simpler funding process for key cultural institutions;
• efficient administration process;
• an opportunity for funding additional key cultural institutions in the future; and,
• good value for municipal investment in the sector.
Using the recommended process, the four institutions would provide information similar to their
Canada Council or Ontario Arts Council submissions and would meet with a panel of municipal
representatives to discuss funding needs, new initiatives, deficit reduction plans, areas of
efficiency and collaboration, and support of municipal objectives. The municipal funders would
establish a total funding amount for the organization, drawn from individual municipal budgets
and allocated through their own existing grant processes.
3 - 5
The new funding and assessment model could be introduced as a pilot program, with the intent
that no funding amounts would change in the first year. It was also recommended that a
regular communication mechanism on municipal arts and cultural funding in the region be
formalized.
The Cities of Kitchener and Waterloo and the Region of Waterloo are working collaboratively
on this project. The City of Cambridge was invited to participate, has been consulted
throughout, and has indicated their interest in future collaboration whenever the undertakings
may provide opportunities for mutual benefit. The Townships of North Dumfries, Wellesley,
Wilmot and Woolwich will be included in future funding discussions as they relate to their
individual municipal priorities.
City of Kitchener staff can begin implementing the recommendations in the fall of 2015.
Each municipality would maintain their funding process which, in Kitchener, is represented by
the Community Investment Tier 1 and Tier 2 process.
Recommendation #4 and #5 will provide opportunity for collaboration between the
municipalities and the four key cultural institutions. Staff will continue to work with regional
partners and key cultural institutions to begin the pilot for a regional evaluation process, while
still maintaining the Tier 1 and Tier 2 grant process at the City of Kitchener.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
Investment in arts and culture is fundamentally aligned with Kitchener's Strategic Plan 2015-
2018, stating that Kitchener "inspires and cultivates a vibrant social, economic and cultural
city," and further that Kitchener: "2.4 Develop and nurture a high quality of life and a powerful
identity for the City of Kitchener to attract investment and a talented creative workforce."
The Kitchener Economic Development Strategy (KEDs) recognizes arts, cultural workers and
content creators (including music, media, film and design) as a vibrant economic cluster in and
of itself, comprising a significant segment of the labour force. Arts and culture industries
leverage innovation throughout businesses as diverse as digital media and advanced
manufacturing design. A critical component to talent attraction, retention and development,
support for arts and culture activities helps to develop Kitchener's distinct identity as a
desirable place to live and visit.
3 - 6
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no financial implications as a result of this report, but rather it recommends a
streamlined process for allocation.
To reflect expected population increases for 2016, the arts sustainability fund is projected at
$244,000 which will be considered as part of the 2016 budget process.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
This project included stakeholder consultation across leadership of key cultural institutions
throughout the review. This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in
advance of the committee meeting.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Jeff Willmer, CAO
APPENDIX 1 Review of Per Capita / Arts Sustainability Funding and Municipal Funding
Models for Key Cultural Institutions (Executive Summary)
3 - 7
E'V I EW
f O
U IIi d IIi g a IIi d
for Key Cultural Institutions
City of Kitchener
City of Waterloo
Region of Waterloo
Angela Birdsell Inc.
Cultural Management and Policy
Angela Bi rdsel Lcom
September 2015
3 - 8
Illllllllllll�;���i� ���� IIIIIIIIIIIII�� �� �IIII IIII ���� °"°9i1�°
In 2010,the cultural sector in Canada was worth $47.8 billion or 3.1% Canada's GDP in direct
output—greater than the forestry and the automotive sectors combined. In addition to its
direct economic impacts,growth in the cultural sector is linked to the development of the
knowledge economy in terms of attracting talent and fostering a creative workforce and
citizenry.
Waterloo Region has a vibrant arts and culture sector,which has been strengthened and
sustained in large part by ongoing public support from all levels of government. Municipal
financial support is spread across the sector through direct service delivery,various granting
programs and regular contributions to operating budgets.
This review covers two specific areas within the municipal funding envelope.
Per Capita/Arts Sustainability(PC/AS) Funding
In 2009,the Regional Council and the Councils of Kitchener and Waterloo approved a P per
capita increase to arts and cultural funding to start in 2010. After five years this source of
funding,referred to as Per Capita/Arts Sustainability(PC/AS) funding,is being reviewed in
terms of its effectiveness.
Municipal Funding Models for`Key Cultural Institutions'
As a substantial portion of PC/AS funding was dispersed as increased operating support to
large and mid-sized organizations in the region,this review also explores potential
collaborative municipal funding models for`key cultural institutions.'
Angela Birdsell Inc.,Cultural Management and Policy Consulting was engaged to undertake
the review on behalf of the Cities of Kitchener and Waterloo,and the Region of Waterloo.
The following conclusions and recommendations are based on a review of financial
information,interviews with key stakeholders, analysis of comparative data from other cultural
organizations and municipalities, and input from Regional and municipal staff.
Fub 111 lrIdh,,,iUg
The initial intent of PC/AS funding was to: reduce debt and increase organizational stability;
improve the funding environment;leverage additional funds; strengthen the arts sector;
support other municipal priorities; and provide support for strategic/tran sformative projects.
The following findings were made with respect to impacts of PC/AS funding.
3 - 9
Debt Reduction and Increased r iz ti I Stability
The impact of PC/AS funding on the five organizations which consistently received PC/AS
funds (the Kitchener-Waterloo Symphony(KWS),Kitchener-Waterloo Art Gallery
(KW I AG),Canadian Clay and Glass Gallery(CCGG),THEMUSEUM,and the Grand
Philharmonic Choir (GPC))is difficult to measure. Positive developments in the sector
overall may be due in part to stability provided by PC/AS funding. All five organizations
were in periods of either severe financial crisis,management turmoil,or both in 2008. As of
early 2015, all five organizations have relatively stable management structures and new
strategic plans,three have deficit reduction strategies,two are embarking on capital campaigns
and one is exploring expansion options. No organization is entirely deficit-free and all
organizations would be de-stabilized if operating support were decreased.
Improved Funding Environment
PC/AS funding was never designated for a specific purpose except to stabilize organizations, and was
considered by the organizations to be a supplement to operational funding. Going forward,regular
communication among funders and potentially, a collaborative granting model for large organizations
would provide greater efficiencies,transparency and consistent accountability for municipal and
Regional investments.
t°k°tltiiiisiitnasll Illt'txiinds IIII e e,ii ge
The new PC/AS funding from the municipalities did not attract additional
funding from the private sector and senior levels of government to the extent envisioned by
the Creative Enterprise Taskforce in 2009. However KWS,KW I AG and GPC each raise
private sector funding at levels higher than average for their sectors. CCGG has had increases
from provincial funders,while THEMUSEUM has gained stronger earned and private sector
revenues from large exhibitions and innovative partnerships. Over four years,CEI has
leveraged a total of$1.2 in in provincial and private sector funding for strategic initiatives for
small and mid-sized organizations.
Advancement of Related Municipal Priorities
The economic impact,talent attraction and benefits of culture to communities has been widely
documented and was a central premise of the CE Taskforce. Similarly,there are expectations
that cultural organizations operate efficiently and collaborate appropriately. It is within the
rights and responsibility of public funders to request that organizations demonstrate how their
activities tangibly support the public's goals.This information could be collectively gathered
and tracked through a coordinated assessment model at the municipal level.
Support for Small, Mid-sized and Emerging Arts Organizations
PC/AS funding support for small,mid-sized and emerging organizations in the region has
primarily flowed through the Creative Enterprise Initiative (CEI),but was kept separate from
CEI operating grants. Initially these leveraging funds were to be redistributed as cash grants,
3 - 10
but eventually CEI used the funding to provide resources and services to the arts sector;in
this way it became part of their operating funds. Various other forms of municipal support
for small and mid-sized organizations also saw increases over the past five years. The Region
of Waterloo Arts Fund(RWAF) received an increase concurrent with PC/AS increases, and
project funding and Tier 2 funding from the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo,have also been
increased.
Based on the findings above,the following recommendations have been made.
Recommendations
#1 Maintain overall municipal funding at current levels for Kitchener-
Waterloo Symphony, Kitchener-Waterloo Art Gallery, Canadian
Clay and Glass Gallery,THEMUSEUM and Grand Philharmonic
Choir by including Per Capita/Arts Sustainability funding in the
operating grants for these organizations. Retire the `Per Capita'
and`Arts Sustainability' funding nomenclature.'
#2 Incorporate remaining Per Capita/Arts Sustainability funding for
emerging, small or mid-sized organizations into the existing
funding mechanisms in each area municipality and the Region.
#3 Each area municipality and the Region should review future
funding for Creative Enterprise Initiative based on its refreshed
mandate.
IFluirld�h,lg I�W(W6�s lVr
Many granting agencies make distinctions in funding models between large or major cultural
organizations,and other types of arts organizations. The Region and municipal governments
share a role in supporting key cultural institutions and have expressed a desire to develop a
more collaborative funding approach.
The second part of the study is an evaluation of potential municipal funding models for key
cultural institutions. Considerations for determining an appropriate level of funding and an
effective framework for municipal contributions included: support comparisons from all levels
1 In Appendix 4,an analysis of PC/AS funding history argues that confusion around the'per capita'and
'sustainability'terms have hindered understandings of municipal levels of investment and cultural sector
realities.
3 - 11
of government; differences in type of organization; other revenue streams;public value
expectation in return for municipal contributions; eligibility and granting criteria;performance
measures;and best practises in terms of processes and tools.
The following findings and related recommendations are the first step to refine a collaborative
funding model for key cultural institutions.
Importance of Content
Understanding context is important for both determining the appropriate levels of funding for
key cultural institutions,and for developing a collaborative assessment model. The report
documents industry norms for different types of organizations through the benchmarking of
public, earned and private revenues in each sector. The influence of historical precedence,
regional differences and funding policies were also noted.
An environmental scan of funding models for the province of Ontario and for nine other
municipalities documents various funding approaches for large organizations, such as staff
review,peer review and a negotiated service agreement model. Each option was analyzed for
its suitability to the KW region and the latter is recommended for the region through a
collaborative review process among the three funders.
Appropriate Levels of Funding
Arts organizations typically receive from 16%-50%of revenues from public (government)
sources,with municipal norms between 7%and 24%, and with variances in those norms by
sector. Federal funding levels (Canada Council) are relatively consistent with sector averages
for the key cultural institutions in the Region. Provincial funding is overall,lower than
average for KW organizations relative to their counterparts across the country. THE
MUSEUM does not qualify for operating funding from these federal or provincial agencies.
With some exceptions,earned revenue for KW organizations is slightly below the averages of
peer organizations. The report extrapolates reasons for this where it occurs. Donated
revenue is consistent with,or greater than averages of comparison organizations. This is an
indicator of community support—individuals,foundations and corporations are more likely to
be engaged in meaningful projects and when high community impact is demonstrated.
Strong Municipal Support
For the organizations reviewed,combined municipal funding is higher than the averages of
comparative organizations. However,each organization's total public funding levels (federal,
provincial and municipal) are consistent with comparative organizations. Municipal funding
plugs a gap in provincial, and in some cases federal funding-a finding that supports the
research of the Resources Task Force of the Creative Enterprise Initiative in 2009.
l d I,i PC/1'A5 R I ' I of 9
3 - 12
The report suggests that any reductions in municipal funding risk de-stabilizing organizations
at this time. The report also suggests that,in order to demonstrate efficient use of resources
to the municipal funders,organizations be asked to provide examples of partnerships and
other cost-saving measures.This could best be achieved through a collaborative municipal
assessment process and service agreement model.
Case by Case, not Formula Funding
Creating a funding formula that would effectively calculate an appropriate level of municipal
funding(based on organizational size, stability,type,location, etc.)is not feasible.Municipal
funding support to large organizations should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. In each
case,funding decisions should be supported by data on sector norms and realities,build on
provincial and federal funding tools,and require demonstrated impact by organizations against
stated goals and criteria.. Municipalities are encouraged to call on subject area expertise when
required.
Defining Key Cultural Institutions
Through the environmental scan and an analysis of best practices, a guiding definition for
"key cultural institution"was developed. The definition is one that relates to the size and
length of establishment of the organization,its regional impact,and its shared responsibility
with a municipality for cultural facilities.The quality and breadth of its programs and staffing,
its regional impact and its role as a standard bearer in the cultural activities it represents are all
stipulated characteristics of a key cultural institution.
Four of the five organizations that consistently received PC/AS funding are considered key
cultural institutions.Although the Grand Philharmonic Choir was not found to be a key
cultural institution in terms of scale or mandate,the report recommends continued municipal
funding as a mid-sized organization.
Funding and Assessment Models
Combined municipal support to the six organizations in this review is close to $2 million -
investments that warrant a more robust accountability framework than is currently in place.
The advent of PC/AS funding heightened the complexity of three regional funders supporting
the same organizations, and further increased the need for clarity,transparency and
accountability for these collective regional investments.
The area municipalities and Region need to move beyond the status quo in funding these large
organizations. Peer review was examined,but viewed as inappropriate and inefficient for such
a small pool of large organizations. Effective peer review processes require significant
resources and expertise,and would be unwieldy with three jurisdictions and separate funding
envelopes.
3 - 13
Recommended Model
It was determined that collaboration among the regional funders would be a better use of
existing resources. A proposed three-year pilot process for the KW region involves a meeting
each year with representatives of each of the keyz cultural institutions,resulting in a service
agreement with each organization stating annual goals and objectives. Funding applications
would build on the existing tools of provincial and federal funders.3 Funding
recommendations may be annual or multi-year,but the face-to-face review process should
occur annually. During the pilot project,municipal budget envelopes can be separately
managed.
Recommendations
#4 That the municipal funders establish a collaborative funding and
assessment process for the four key cultural institutions of Kitchener-
Waterloo Symphony,Kitchener-Waterloo Art Gallery, Canadian Clay
and Glass Gallery and THEMUSEUM in the form of a pilot program
based on the recommended model in this report.
#5 That the Region of Waterloo, the City of Waterloo and the City of
Kitchener formalize a regular communication mechanism on arts and
cultural funding in the region. This mechanism could include all
municipal funders.
2 Pending outcomes of its review process,GPC or CEI might be included in the review process although they
are not designated as key cultural institutions.
3 These could be adapted for THEMUSEUM which does not receive federal and provincial funding.
3 - 14
EV I EW
f O
U IIi d IIi g a IIi d
for Key Cultural Institutions
City of Kitchener
City of Waterloo
Region of Waterloo
T
Angela Birdsell Inc.
Cultural Management and Policy
Angela Bi rdsel Lcom
September 2015
3 - 15
I IIIIIIIIII CONTENTS
Indexof Tables..........................................................................................................................................................................................4
Explanationof Terms and Acronyms............................................................................................................................................5
EXECUTIVESUMMARY..........................................................................................................................................................6
PC/AS Funding.........................................................................................................................................................................................6
Recommendations................................................................................................................................................................................8
MunicipalFunding Models......................................................................................................................................................................8
Recommendations................................................................................................................................................................................8
BACKGROUND...........................................................................................................................................................................11
Purposeof the Review...........................................................................................................................................................................11
StudyFramework....................................................................................................................................................................................12
Context......................................................................................................................................................................................................13
Methodology............................................................................................................................................................................................17
PART1 REVIEW OF PC /AS FUNDING...................................................................................................................18
Context and Rationale for PC/AS Funding.......................................................................................................................................18
Prosperity Council and the CE Task Force...................................................................................................................................18
Response of the Area Municipalities and Region..........................................................................................................................19
Extent to which PC/AS Funding has Met its Intent........................................................................................................................23
Impacts on the Five Arts and Cultural Organizations..................................................................................................................23
Impactsof PC/AS Funding on CEI...............................................................................................................................................30
PC/AS Funding Going Forward..........................................................................................................................................................32
Recommendations..............................................................................................................................................................................33
PART 2 MUNICIPAL FUNDING MODELS FOR KEY CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS............................34
KeyCultural Institutions........................................................................................................................................................................34
Organizational Impacts and Comparative Revenue Streams...........................................................................................................34
Symphony Orchestras—Kitchener Waterloo Symphony............................................................................................................35
Public Art Galleries —Kitchener Waterloo Art Gallery and Canadian Clay and Glass Gallery............................................40
Museums and Children's Museums,Science and Exhibition Centres—THEMUSEUM......................................................44
Philharmonic Choirs —The Grand Philharmonic Choir..............................................................................................................47
Summaryof Comparative Data........................................................................................................................................................50
MunicipalFunding Considerations......................................................................................................................................................51
3 - 16
FundingModels and Processes.............................................................................................................................................................53
KeyCultural Institutions...................................................................................................................................................................53
Funding Models for Key Cultural Institutions..............................................................................................................................56
FundingModel Recommendations.................................................................................................................................................58
TheProposed Model in Brief...........................................................................................................................................................61
Recommendations..............................................................................................................................................................................62
3 - 17
Ilh,,idex of 16114)I11wrs
Table 1: Municipal and Regional support to the six organizations.........................................................................................16
Table 2: Region of Waterloo PC/AS and other funding to four organizations and the RWAF,Y/E 2014...................20
Table 3: City of Waterloo PC/AS and operational funding Y/E 2014.................................................................................21
Table 4: Kitchener funding to five organizations and other grants,Y/E 2014....................................................................22
Table 5: Combined municipal and Regional funding to the six organizations in 2014.......................................................23
Table 6: Public revenues of KWS and comparative symphony orchestras...........................................................................37
Table 7: Public, earned and donated revenues of KWS and comparative orchestras.........................................................38
Table 8: Revenues of KWS compared with Canadian and Ontario Orchestras..................................................................39
Table 9: Public revenues of KW I AG, CCGG and comparative public art galleries...........................................................42
Table 10: Public, earned and donated revenues of KW I AG, CCGG and comparative public art galleries...................43
Table 11: Public revenues of organizations with mandates similar to THEMUSEUM programming streams..............46
Table 12: All revenues of organizations with mandates similar to THEMUSEUM programming streams....................46
Table 13: Public revenues of GPC and comparative philharmonic choirs...........................................................................49
Table 14: Public, earned and donated revenues of GPC and comparative philharmonic choirs......................................49
Table 15: Summary of public revenue streams of KW organizations and comparative organizations............................50
Table 16: Summary of all revenue streams of KW organizations and comparative organizations...................................51
3 - 18
IIIIIIIIIIIII;'i VIII IIIIIIIII QIII'°111 AINEIII) IIII°,1'°lui"' S
PC/AS funding Per Capita/Arts Sustainability funding,referred to as the `PC/AS Fund'
in the Terms of Reference
The `five' organizations Kitchener-Waterloo Symphony(KWS),Kitchener-Waterloo Art Gallery
(KW I AG),THEMUSEUM,Canadian Clay and Glass Gallery (CCGG)
and Grand Philharmonic Choir (GPC)
The `six' organizations All of the above and Creative Enterprise Initiative (CEI)
Key cultural institution Replaces `pillar organization.' Refers to KWS, KW I AG,CCGG and
THEMUSEUM
CE Task Force Creative Enterprise Task Force,established by the Prosperity Council
CEI Creative Enterprise Initiative (formerly Creative Enterprise Enabling
Organization),the organization formed in 2010 following the
recommendation of the CE Task Force
The Region / RoW Region of Waterloo
Area municipalities City of Kitchener, and City of Waterloo (for the purposes of this
review)
The region The geographic region including Kitchener,Waterloo, Cambridge and
the five townships (as distinct from the legal entity of the Region)
The fenders The three funding jurisdictions (City of Kitchener, City of Waterloo and
the Region of Waterloo) the client group for this review
Tier 1 and Tier 2 grants Grants from the City of Kitchener. Tier 1 are 3-year operating grants to
eligible established organizations,Tier 2 grants are to eligible small
and/or emerging organizations
PRC Project Review Committee (representatives of the three fenders)
The consultant Angela Birdsell
Public revenue Revenue from governments: federal,provincial,municipal and regional
Earned revenue Revenue from ticket sales,admissions,memberships or from sold
products or services
Donated revenue Revenue from sponsorships,donations,bequests and fundraising
activities and events. Revenue from interest on endowments is
sometimes reported as earned revenue,donated revenue or reported
separately.
Canada Council/ CCA Canada Council for the Arts
OAC Ontario Arts Council
3 - 19
IIIIIIIIIIIII���'�i� °°°�°°'� IIIIIIIIIIIII�� �� IIII IIII �'III °""'lug""
In 2010,the cultural sector in Canada was worth $47.8 billion or 3.1% Canada's GDP in direct output—greater
than the forestry and the automotive sectors combined. In addition to its direct economic impacts,growth in
the cultural sector is linked to the development of the knowledge economy in terms of attracting talent and
fostering a creative workforce and citizenry.
Waterloo Region has a vibrant arts and culture sector,which has been strengthened and sustained in large part
by ongoing public support from all levels of government. Municipal financial support is spread across the
sector through direct service delivery,various granting programs and regular contributions to operating
budgets.
This review covers two specific areas within the municipal funding envelope.
Per Capita/Arts Sustainability(PC/AS) Funding
In 2009,the Regional Council and the Councils of Kitchener and Waterloo approved a SI per capita increase to
arts and cultural funding to start in 2010. After five years this source of funding,referred to as Per Capita/Arts
Sustainability (PC/AS) funding,is being reviewed in terms of its effectiveness.
Municipal Funding Models for`Key Cultural Institutions'
As a substantial portion of PC/AS funding was dispersed as increased operating support to large and mid-sized
organizations in the region,this review also explores potential collaborative municipal funding models for`key
cultural institutions.'
Angela Birdsell Inc.,Cultural Management and Policy Consulting was engaged to undertake the review on
behalf of the Cities of Kitchener and Waterloo, and the Region of Waterloo. The following conclusions and
recommendations are based on a review of financial information,interviews with key stakeholders,analysis of
comparative data from other cultural organizations and municipalities, and input from Regional and municipal
staff.
The initial intent of PC/AS funding was to: reduce debt and increase organizational stability;improve the
funding environment;leverage additional funds; strengthen the arts sector; support other municipal priorities;
and provide support for strategic/transformative projects. The following findings were made with respect to
impacts of PC/AS funding.
Debt Reduction and Increased r niz tion l Stability
The impact of PC/AS funding on the five organizations which consistently received PC/AS funds (the
Kitchener-Waterloo Symphony(KWS),Kitchener-Waterloo Art Gallery(KW I AG),Canadian Clay and Glass
Gallery (CCGG),THEMUSEUM,and the Grand Philharmonic Choir (GPC))is difficult to measure. Positive
developments in the sector overall may be due in part to stability provided by PC/AS funding. All five
organizations were in periods of either severe financial crisis,management turmoil,or both in 2008. As of
3 - 20
early 2015,all five organizations have relatively stable management structures and new strategic plans,three
have deficit reduction strategies,two are embarking on capital campaigns and one is exploring expansion
options. No organization is entirely deficit-free and all organizations would be de-stabilized if operating
support were decreased.
Improved Funding Environment
PC/AS funding was never designated for a specific purpose except to stabilize organizations, and was considered by the
organizations to be a supplement to operational funding. Going forward,regular communication among funders and
potentially, a collaborative granting model for large organizations would provide greater efficiencies,transparency and
consistent accountability for municipal and Regional investments.
Additional Funds Leveraged
The new PC/AS funding from the municipalities did not attract additional funding from the private sector and
senior levels of government to the extent envisioned by the Creative Enterprise Taskforce in 2009. However
KWS,KW I AG and GPC each raise private sector funding at levels higher than average for their sectors.
CCGG has had increases from provincial funders,while THEMUSEUM has gained stronger earned and
private sector revenues from large exhibitions and innovative partnerships. Over four years, CEI has leveraged
a total of$1.2 in in provincial and private sector funding for strategic initiatives for small and mid-sized
organizations.
Advancement of Related Municipal Priorities
The economic impact,talent attraction and benefits of culture to communities has been widely documented
and was a central premise of the CE Taskforce. Similarly,there are expectations that cultural organizations
operate efficiently and collaborate appropriately. It is within the rights and responsibility of public funders to
request that organizations demonstrate how their activities tangibly support the public's goals.This information
could be collectively gathered and tracked through a coordinated assessment model at the municipal level.
Support for Small, Mid-sized and Emerging Arts Organizations
PC/AS funding support for small,mid-sized and emerging organizations in the region has primarily flowed
through the Creative Enterprise Initiative (CEI),but was kept separate from CEI operating grants. Initially
these leveraging funds were to be redistributed as cash grants,but eventually CEI used the funding to provide
resources and services to the arts sector;in this way it became part of their operating funds. Various other
forms of municipal support for small and mid-sized organizations also saw increases over the past five years.
The Region of Waterloo Arts Fund(RWAF) received an increase concurrent with PC/AS increases,and
project funding and Tier 2 funding from the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo,have also been increased.
3 - 21
Based on the findings above,the following recommendations have been made.
Recommendations
#1 Maintain overall municipal funding at current levels for Kitchener-Waterloo
Symphony,Kitchener-Waterloo Art Gallery, Canadian Clay and Glass Gallery,
THEMUSEUM and Grand Philharmonic Choir by including Per Capita/Arts
Sustainability funding in the operating grants for these organizations. Retire the
`Per Capita' and`Arts Sustainability'funding nomenclature?
#2 Incorporate remaining Per Capita/Arts Sustainability funding for emerging, small
or mid-sized organizations into the existing funding mechanisms in each area
municipality and the Region.
#3 Each area municipality and the Region should review future funding for Creative
Enterprise Initiative based on its refreshed mandate.
IFuuJndlhig I�''Vk��WeIN for, "Key ttllbuulrW
Many granting agencies make distinctions in funding models between large or major cultural organizations,and
other types of arts organizations. The Region and municipal governments share a role in supporting key
cultural institutions and have expressed a desire to develop a more collaborative funding approach.
The second part of the study is an evaluation of potential municipal funding models for key cultural
institutions. Considerations for determining an appropriate level of funding and an effective framework for
municipal contributions included: support comparisons from all levels of government;differences in type of
organization; other revenue streams;public value expectation in return for municipal contributions; eligibility
and granting criteria;performance measures;and best practises in terms of processes and tools.
The following findings and related recommendations are the first step to refine a collaborative funding model
for key cultural institutions.
Importance of Content
Understanding context is important for both determining the appropriate levels of funding for key cultural
institutions, and for developing a collaborative assessment model. The report documents industry norms for
different types of organizations through the benchmarking of public,earned and private revenues in each
sector.The influence of historical precedence,regional differences and funding policies were also noted.
An environmental scan of funding models for the province of Ontario and for nine other municipalities
documents various funding approaches for large organizations, such as staff review,peer review and a
1 In Appendix 4,an analysis of PC/AS funding history argues that confusion around the'per capita'and'sustainability'terms have
hindered understandings of municipal levels of investment and cultural sector realities.
3 - 22
negotiated service agreement model. Each option was analyzed for its suitability to the KW region and the
latter is recommended for the region through a collaborative review process among the three funders.
Appropriate Levels of Funding
Arts organizations typically receive from 16%-50%of revenues from public (government) sources,with
municipal norms between 7% and 24%,and with variances in those norms by sector. Federal funding levels
(Canada Council) are relatively consistent with sector averages for the key cultural institutions in the Region.
Provincial funding is overall,lower than average for KW organizations relative to their counterparts across the
country. THE MUSEUM does not qualify for operating funding from these federal or provincial agencies.
With some exceptions,earned revenue for KW organizations is slightly below the averages of peer
organizations. The report extrapolates reasons for this where it occurs. Donated revenue is consistent with, or
greater than averages of comparison organizations. This is an indicator of community support—individuals,
foundations and corporations are more likely to be engaged in meaningful projects and when high community
impact is demonstrated.
Strong Municipal Support
For the organizations reviewed,combined municipal funding is higher than the averages of comparative
organizations. However,each organization's total public funding levels (federal,provincial and municipal) are
consistent with comparative organizations. Municipal funding plugs a gap in provincial,and in some cases
federal funding-a finding that supports the research of the Resources Task Force of the Creative Enterprise
Initiative in 2009.
The report suggests that any reductions in municipal funding risk de-stabilizing organizations at this time. The
report also suggests that,in order to demonstrate efficient use of resources to the municipal funders,
organizations be asked to provide examples of partnerships and other cost-saving measures.This could best be
achieved through a collaborative municipal assessment process and service agreement model.
Case by Case, not Formula Funding
Creating a funding formula that would effectively calculate an appropriate level of municipal funding(based on
organizational size, stability,type,location,etc.)is not feasible.Municipal funding support to large
organizations should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. In each case, funding decisions should be supported
by data on sector norms and realities,build on provincial and federal funding tools,and require demonstrated
impact by organizations against stated goals and criteria. Municipalities are encouraged to call on subject area
expertise when required.
Defining Key Cultural Institutions
Through the environmental scan and an analysis of best practices,a guiding definition for"key cultural
institution"was developed. The definition is one that relates to the size and length of establishment of the
organization,its regional impact,and its shared responsibility with a municipality for cultural facilities.The
quality and breadth of its programs and staffing,its regional impact and its role as a standard bearer in the
cultural activities it represents are all stipulated characteristics of a key cultural institution.
3 - 23
Four of the five organizations that consistently received PC/AS funding are considered key cultural
institutions. Although the Grand Philharmonic Choir was not found to be a key cultural institution in terms of
scale or mandate,the report recommends continued municipal funding as a mid-sized organization.
Funding and Assessment Models
Combined municipal support to the six organizations in this review is close to $2 million -investments that
warrant a more robust accountability framework than is currently in place. The advent of PC/AS funding
heightened the complexity of three regional funders supporting the same organizations,and further increased
the need for clarity,transparency and accountability for these collective regional investments.
The area municipalities and Region need to move beyond the status quo in funding these large organizations.
Peer review was examined,but viewed as inappropriate and inefficient for such a small pool of large
organizations. Effective peer review processes require significant resources and expertise, and would be
unwieldy with three jurisdictions and separate funding envelopes.
Recommended Model
It was determined that collaboration among the regional funders would be a better use of existing resources. A
proposed three-year pilot process for the KW region involves a meeting each year with representatives of each
of the keyz cultural institutions,resulting in a service agreement with each organization stating annual goals and
objectives. Funding applications would build on the existing tools of provincial and federal funders.3 Funding
recommendations may be annual or multi-year,but the face-to-face review process should occur annually.
During the pilot project,municipal budget envelopes can be separately managed.
Recommendations
#4 That the municipal funders establish a collaborative funding and assessment process
for the four key cultural institutions of Kitchener-Waterloo Symphony, Kitchener-
Waterloo Art Gallery, Canadian Clay and Glass Gallery and THEMUSEUM in the
form of a pilot program based on the recommended model in this report.
#5 That the Region of Waterloo, the City of Waterloo and the City of Kitchener
formalize a regular communication mechanism on arts and cultural funding in the
region. This mechanism could include all municipal funders.
2 Pending outcomes of its review process,GPC or CEI might be included in the review process although they are not designated
as key cultural institutions.
3 These could be adapted for THEMUSEUM which does not receive federal and provincial funding.
3 - 24
IIIIIIII� � VIII'°� III IIII"°������IIIII'��
The purpose of the study is twofold: to review the effectiveness of the Per Capita/Arts Sustainability
(PC/AS) funding'added by the cities of Kitchener,Waterloo and the Region of Waterloo in 2010;and to
provide recommendations for future municipal funding models for the `key cultural institutions' previously
referred to as `pillar organizations.'
The report provides context for PC/AS funding including the recommendation of the Prosperity Council's
Creative Enterprise Task Force. It examines the success of the funding in meeting its objectives vis-a-vis
the organizations that consistently received the funding,or received increases when it was established.
These include: the Creative Enterprise Organization (CEI),Kitchener-Waterloo Symphony(KWS),
Kitchener-Waterloo Art Gallery (KW I AG), Canadian Clay and Glass Gallery(CCGG),THEMUSEUM
and Grand Philharmonic Choir (GPC). Review of PC/AS funding also includes recommendations for the
investments going forward.
Secondly,evaluation of potential funding approaches for key cultural institutions is based on a
benchmarking exercise of similar organizations in other cities. It evaluates and recommends eligibility and
assessment criteria and funding tools and processes for key cultural institutions.
Findings in this review are intended to result in a stronger arts and cultural sector in the Kitchener Waterloo
region and to provide a definition of key cultural institutions and a mechanism for their funding. They
should assist the funders to determine appropriate support levels, clarify decision-making processes, and
streamline funding processes to ensure transparency, alignment with municipal goals and joint stewardship
for public cultural facilities. Clarification of funding mechanisms, and the establishment of cultural
leadership goals are intended to maximize the return on public investment.
Limitations
Area municipalities and the Region each provide significant cultural funding allocations in addition to
operational funding to key cultural institutions.These include project and community cash grants,Tier 1
and Tier 2 support, one-time funding for special initiatives and ownership and/or operation of museums by
the various area municipalities and the Region. As well,Kitchener owns and operates Centre in the Square
and provides in-kind support to THEMUSEUM, and Waterloo provides the same for Canadian Clay and
Glass Gallery. While reference to the broader cultural funding programs help provide context,this review
is limited to PC/AS funding and operating funding to the six organizations mentioned above,for the period
from 2010-2014.
'The Per Capita/Arts Sustainability increases from each of the three jurisdictions have only been allocated separately from
other arts and cultural funding in two of the three jurisdictions. Therefore it is more appropriate to refer to it as'PC/AS funding'
rather than'the PC/AS Fund.'
3 - 25
"II'll"'tud IF irar vewai,ll .
Request for proposals(RFP)
The Region of Waterloo issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) in November 2014. The detailed terms of
reference (Appendix 1) include the context and the required scope of the review,methodology and
deliverables. The RFP was issued November 13,2014,with a closing date of December 3rd. Selected
proponents were interviewed on December 171h and Angela Birdsell Inc.,was named the successful
proponent.
About the consultant
Angela Birdsell Inc., Cultural Management and Policy Consulting
The consultant has senior experience in cultural program management and funding policy review. She has
worked with medium and large organizations in all disciplines across Canada and federal,provincial and
municipal departments and agencies and has advised artists,CEOs,boards of directors,program managers
and philanthropists. Angela has managed,developed and evaluated delivery mechanisms for arts funding
with Canada Council for the Arts and as a consultant,has provided services in program review,evaluation
of outreach and community impact,and financial analysis. Her national and international cultural policy
research includes environmental scans,market research,qualitative research,public and stakeholder
consultation and interviews.
Review requirements
The table of contents for this study closely follows the required scope for the major elements of the work
described in the terms of reference. Expected deliverables for the final report include:
• A description of the purpose, scope and limitations of the review;
• Indicators and benchmarks along with an understanding of comparators used;
• Methodology used to obtain the information,both quantitative and qualitative;
• Comprehensive recommendations for improvements and changes;and
• Other findings and observations.
Project Review Committee
The review was conducted with assistance from the Project Review Committee (PRC) that includes
representatives of the three funders who shared information and perspectives on the project. The PRC met
regularly with the Consultant for updates,information-sharing and discussion. PRC members provided
introductions to key stakeholders and representatives of community organizations for input and interviews
as required. Members of the PRC included:
Jim Bowman Director,Community Programming and Outreach Services,City of Waterloo
Jim Bowman acted as principal liaison with the consultant,handled logistical
requirements and chaired the PRC meetings.
Silvia DiDonato Manager,Arts and Culture,City of Kitchener
Lucille Bish Director,Cultural Services,Region of Waterloo
Kate Hagerman Cultural Heritage Specialist,Region of Waterloo
Lori Ludwig Manager,Community and Neighbourhood Services,City of Waterloo
Astero Kalogeropoulos Manager of Arts, Culture,Festivals and Events, City of Waterloo
I l i,d I",ic_ P / of r
3 - 26
Dan Chapman Deputy CAO, City of Kitchener
A comprehensive list of participants in the review,including other area municipality and Region staff
members,community members,representatives of stakeholder groups and interview participants is in
Appendix 2.
Mary ext
The arts and cultural infrastructure
In 2010,the cultural sector in Canada was worth $47.8 billion or 3.1%Canada's GDP in direct output-
greater than the forestry and the automotive sectors combined. Canadians spend approximately$27.4
billion on cultural goods and services each year,for an average of$841 per person,'and every year 80%of
Canadians attend at least one artistic performance or event.?
Cultural sector growth is linked to the development of the knowledge economy in terms of attracting talent
and fostering a creative workforce and citizenry. Supporting examples were widely cited in the Prosperity
Council and Creative Enterprise Task Force discussions from 2003 to 2009.
A robust cultural sector includes the mix of individuals,enterprises and organizations. The chart on the
following page provides a context for the overall arts infrastructure (not including heritage organizations) in
order to situate the six organizations within a wider context. Funding agencies have programs tailored to
many of these different categories of stakeholder.
5 Policy Research Group, Department of Canadian Heritage:Cultural Statistics Strategy Newsletter. March 2015.
6 Hill Strategies Research 2010.
ibid.
e i,d i/ , PC/1 A5 R. lI ; ;! 13 of 62
3 - 27
Figure 1: The arts and cultural infrastructure and associated regional funding mechanisms
CATEGORY DESCRIPTION FUNDING AVENUES
IN THE REGION
Artists Often considered at the centre of cultural infrastructure,artists -------------------
create,marketand sell products,are commissioned to creatework
City of Kitc
and are employed by arts organizations and companies. hener
Cultural Investment
Strategy
Artist-run These noin-profit organizations are made up of the artists who use I Tier.1 and Tier 2
Centres the services or benefitfirom the organization. Artist-run centres Grants
(ARCs)may provide services such as affordable studio or exhibition
space,or professional development for members.
I City of Waterloo
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Co m m u n rty G ra nts
and Foundational
Groups Performing artists may collaborate In un-incorporated groups N Funding
such as bands,ensembles and theatre or dance collectives. They
may incorporate for long-term projects(such as film projects)or
as non-profits.Funders support groups to record,tour,develop or CEI Leverage Funds
present work, i forSmall,Medium
and Emerging
Organizations
Small and Most arts and cultural organizations are incorporated small-and
medium-sized medium-sized non-profit organizations,usually in the core areas of
organizations visual,multi-diisciplinary and performingarts(Grand Philharmonic Region of Waterloo
(non-profit) Choir). Arts Fund(RWAIF)
...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Festivals and Cultural festivals play an important role in community-building Waterloo Region
Presenters and visitor attraction. Cultural presenters(such as Centre in Economic
the Square)also provide year-round programing. Festivals and Development
Grants
presenters are supported through Canadian Heritage(not Canada
Council for the Arts),and by many provincial and municipal -------------------i
funders.
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Major Such organizations might be called majors,key institutions,large -------------------i
organizations organizations,anchor,cornerstone or pillar organizations etc. s (Current)
(Key cultural Usually these are the large and iong-established organizations. Tier I(Kitchener*)
institutions) They're considered intrinsic to major cities,and might include Operational
a symphony orchestra,a ballet and/or opera company,a major (City ofWaterloo
and Region)
public art gallery,and in some cases,a civic museum(Kitchener
Waterloo Symphony,Kitchener Waterloo Art Gallery,Canadian Clay Except C:CGG
and Glass Gallery,TH EIVILISELIM).This wi III be discussed at greater
-------
--------------
length in Part 2 of the report.
Industry As in the private sector,cultural sectors are represented by asso- -------------------i
Associations, ciations that provide services such as industry advocacy,gov- Operational
Service ernment relations,labour standards,professional development, and Leverage
Organizations marketing and promotion.Representative industry associations Grants
exist at national and many provincial levels.Revenues for service Region,Kitchener,
organizations are typically program-and member-driven.Some Waterloo
funders have support programs for service organizations with
--------------------
specialized grant criteria(Creative Enterprise(initiative).
[�,,IIrdseH ir'ic_ PC1.11'A5 Re,,,,/Ie,,,),/ 1A, of 62
3 - 28
The six organizations in this review
In the Terms of Reference (Appendix 1),nine organizations were initially identified as in scope for this
review. Each had received PC/AS funding from one or more of the Region and area municipalities at some
point over the past five years. The organizations were identified either as a`pillar'organization,or as part of
a group of well-established organizations.
At the first project meeting on January 8,2015,it was determined that of these nine organizations, six
organizations were recipients of PC/AS funding annually since its inception,and were considered as `pillar'
organizations by at least two funders. The remaining-the Button Factory,The Jazz Society and
Oktoberfest8-received PC/AS funding on an ad hoc basis. Part 1 of the study reviews the impact of PC/AS
funding on `pillar' cultural organizations from its inception to 2014. It was therefore determined with the
PRC to limit the review to the organizations identified below,which were recipients of the bulk of the
PC/AS funding from 2010—2014:
• Kitchener-Waterloo Symphony (KWS)
• Kitchener-Waterloo Art Gallery (KW I AG)
• Canadian Clay and Glass Gallery (CCGG)
• THEMUSEUM
• Grand Philharmonic Choir (GPC)
• Creative Enterprise Initiative (CEI)
As a service organization, CEI is reviewed separately. It receives operating support as well as `matching'or
`leverage' funding for targeted initiatives from the PC/AS increases.
The review of CEI includes the context for its establishment and a brief synthesis of its evolution and
activities from 2010 to 20149 (Appendix 4 provides a more detailed analysis of events leading to its
establishment). While recommendations for PC/AS funding going forward are in scope,recommendations
for CFI's strategic direction (or for any organization) are out of scope. CEI engaged Overlap Consulting to
assess stakeholder views on its preferred mandate going forward. The two consultants have communicated
on areas in which their respective reviews may intersect.
Table 1 shows that Waterloo provided per capita/sustainability,operating or other funding to all six
organizations. Kitchener has funded all with the exception of CCGG and the Region supports all except
the KW I AG and CCGG.10 Funding levels are outlined in the report.
s Support for emerging,small and mid-sized organizations in the region will be referenced in Part 2.
e The review of CEI strategic investment in cultural projects also provides perspective on mid-sized and emerging organizations in
the region.
10 In 2000,the Region of Waterloo established that in return for increased funding to KWS,each area municipality would fund its
own resident art gallery—KW JAG in Kitchener,CCGG in Waterloo and Cambridge Galleries(Ideas Exchange)in Cambridge. The
City of Waterloo has since provided funding to KW JAG.
3 - 29
TABLE 1: MUNICIPAL AND REGIONAL SUPPORT TO THE SIX ORGANIZATIONS
ORGANIZATION FUNDING JURISDICTIONS
REGION OF WATERLOO CITY OF KITCHEhNER CITY OF'WATERLOO
K`JV symphony(KWS) ✓ +1
Grand Philharmonic Choir(GPC) w✓ __.
TMIEMUSEUM V f
Creative Enterprise Initiatrve GCEI) +�
KitchenerWateHoo Art Gallery(KWAG)
Canadian Day acrd Glass Gallery(CCGG) +�
Out of scope
Centre in the Square (CITS)
While Centre in the Square is region's largest cultural organization,it is not included in this review. CITS is
owned by the City of Kitchener and has a legislated mandate. A pivotal organization in the cultural life of
the region,the operations and programming policies of CITS directly impact three of the five cultural
organizations in the scope of this study (KWS,KW JAG,and GPC).
An operational and strategic review of CITS and KWS was conducted by Webb Consulting in 2014.
Subsequently,ArtsBuild Ontario conducted a review of the City of Kitchener mandate for CITS,which was
released at the end of March 2015. Kitchener City Council was presented with two options for CITS and
has voted in favour of a balanced mandate with an emphasis on community.
Festivals and presenters
Cultural festivals and presenters play an important role in community-building and visitor attraction. They
have different funding and governance models, organizational realities and provincial and municipal support
mechanisms.
Museums and heritage organizations
The Waterloo Region Museum and other heritage museums that are directly funded by the area
municipalities and Region are also out of scope. Museum support differs from that of arts and other
cultural organizations. In addition to a museum's exhibition programs,the mandate to collect,conserve and
preserve artifacts constitutes a service that is not revenue-generating. Museums preserve historic and
natural artifacts and records to share knowledge,learn from the past, and foster and promote the collective
identity of the municipality,region,province or country. Regional or national museums are often governed
through legislation,funded as departmental line items,and reviewed through service agreements. None of
the museums in the region received PC/AS funding."
11 THEMUSEUM(formerly the Kitchener-Waterloo Children's Museum)is a unique cultural presenting organization that is
included in this review. How it differs from the regional museums is discussed in the report.
V d i/ , PC1.11 .`,,, R e lI ;l';! 1,6 of rte,,
3 - 30
City of Cambridge
Although the City of Cambridge and its largest cultural organization -the Cambridge Galleries (Idea
Exchange) -were not part of this review,opportunities for collaboration on future funding programs or
models remain an option for the Cambridge.
I'Vledrioddo 6'
gy
The work plan and critical path were finalized with the PRC at the start of the project and is summarized
below. Detailed information on the methodology can be found in Appendix 3.
• Project Review Committee (PRC) meetings were ongoing from January—July 2015.
o A joint stakeholder meeting held January 15,2015,included PRC members and
representatives from the six stakeholder organizations.
• A documentation review was ongoing over the course of the project. The funders and the six
organizations provided extensive documentation of programming,operations and budgets.
• Discovery and Interviews
• Discovery meetings were held with the PRC to learn more about the cultural landscape,
funding mechanisms,the stakeholder environment,opportunities and challenges.
• Formalized meetings were held with each stakeholder organization CEO or a group from
senior management.12 Interviews were also conducted with other community stakeholders.
• Benchmarking and Environmental scans
• Information on revenue streams of comparative organizations was compiled.
• Research of 10 Canadian funding jurisdictions included:
• Municipal criteria used to define a key(major/anchor etc.) institution.
• Assessment models for large cultural and arts organizations (provided in Appendix 6).
• Data collation, summary and analysis in March and April 2015.
• The draft report,review,final report and presentations of findings was undertaken April to July 2015
with the presentation of a first draft at the end of May and final draft end of July 2015.
At the start of this project Andrew Bennett had been in the position of ED for two months. Chris Sharpe, Director of Education
and Community Programs,and Board Chair Catherine Copp also participated in the interview.
rd i/ , PC1.1"A`,,, R /I l;! 1,7 of rte,,
3 - 31
VIII'°°° '°° � " VIII'°° IIIIIIIIIIIII VIII IIIIIIIIIIIII VIII'°°° VIII'° " ! VIII'°°° IIII"" VIII' VIII IIII""
Prosperity o0 and the rc
A review of the PC/AS funding should include an examination of events that led to increased cultural
spending of$1 per capita for each of the cities of Kitchener,Waterloo and the Region in 2010. A detailed
analysis of the establishment of CEI and the rationale for the increases is in Appendix 4,including factors
that may have contributed to varied understandings of the role of CEI and the intended purposes for
PC/AS funding that came forward in the interviews.
As a summary,the origins of CEI and the PC/AS funding are in the formation of The Prosperity Council
of Waterloo Region in 2003. One of the five goals of the Council was to create and fund a regional arts and
culture development and promotion body. To this end,it formed the Task Force on Creative Enterprise in
2007.
The Task Force on Creative Enterprise (CE Task Force) was comprised of business,community and arts
leaders. It undertook research and hosted consultations from 2007 to 2009 to establish a framework for the
role that arts and culture could play to achieve prosperity in the region. Research by its Resources Task
Force identified a$3 -$5 in shortfall of resources for arts and culture organizations in the region. It
suggested that meeting this shortfall could stabilize organizations. The CE Task Force proposed that the
shortfall could be addressed through;
■ $1 in in increased municipal support
■ an increase of$1 in in private sector contributions
■ $1 in increased support from federal and provincial governments.
The Task Force made a presentation to an all Council meeting in December of 2009 and recommended that
Councils:
• "increase their current funding to arts and culture in the region by$1 per capita;and
• financially support the Creative Enterprise Enabling Organization"13
The$1 per capita increase in cultural funding became known as the Per Capita, or Arts Sustainability funding
(PC/AS funding). The $3 -$5 in shortfall became known as the sustainability shortfall. The Task Force
proposed that funding from municipalities would leverage increased private sector,provincial and federal
support to the region.14
s CEI Timeline—CEI Website V7ttp„ /vuvuvu cre at%veP_nt „r„ „r„is c a/vu
cc r7tent .a Ic s 2(J7.3 (J:7. C::re::rtive IEntei.rise Initiative 1BackPiound Firneline l.JI:1D/\FI:::ID: ]df .
........C.............................../..........................L............./.............................................................................C.....................................................................................................I,..........................................................................................................................................C..............
14 CE documentation does not specifically state what the leveraging mechanism would be for the$1 m(Appendix 4).
3 - 32
Response of the Area Municipalities and Region
In March 2010, all Councils voted in favour of both increased sustainability funding of$1 per capita and
operational funding for the CEL15 The resulting increase to the cultural sector was close to $1.02 m,an
increase of roughly 20%in grants and allocations to the arts and cultural sector.
In 2014,the $1 per capita increase consists of approximately$236,000 from the City of Kitchener, $197,000
from the City of Waterloo and a net increase of$550,000 from the Region. Funding was directed for the
most part to the large organizations in the region many of which were at the time,in financial distress or
management transition. It was also allocated to CEI for leverage funding,16 to the Region of Waterloo Arts
Fund (RWAF),and to a small number of other organizations on a one-time basis.
PC/AS funding was incorporated into operating grants by the Region and to some extent by the City of
Waterloo.17 In Kitchener it was allocated separately as one-time funding in 2011 and 2012. This funding was
maintained in subsequent years in a separate grant envelope,pending the outcomes of this study of its
effectiveness.
Operating and PC/AS allocations are provided in Tables 2—5 below for the year ending 2014. Allocations
to the six organizations have been relatively consistent over the five-year period.
Expenditures do not include libraries,museums,heritage resources,in-kind support,internal staff
allocations and other cultural investments such as economic development initiatives that relate to culture.
They include some amounts to other arts and cultural organizations in order to provide a perspective on
investments in the arts outside of those to the six organizations.
Region of Waterloo
The RoW increased its overall investment in arts and cultural organizations by$550,000 from 2010—2014
for a total of$1,156,520 in expenditures in 2014. PC/AS funding was included in the operating grants of
organizations including;Kitchener-Waterloo Symphony,THEMUSEUM,Grand Philharmonic Choir and
Creative Enterprise Initiative (CEI).
In June 2000 Regional Council decided to substantially increase funding for the KWS,in return for the area
municipalities providing operating support to the galleries (Report FIN-00-030). This has remained the
case with the exception of project funding for a joint gallery marketing initiative in 2012. However,
KW I AG and CCGG are central to the notion of a key cultural institution with regional impact. This will
be outlined in Part 2 of the report.
CEI has received operating support from the RoW of$100,000 annually, as well as a separate $35,000 grant
for leverage funding.
Support to these organizations since 2010 has largely been based on historical precedent.
s Initially called the Creative Enterprise Enabling Organization(CEEO).
e Some funders understood at least initially,that'leverage'funding was to be distributed by CEI to small,mid-sized or emerging
organizations as grants. It was later understood that CEI provided services rather than grants.
17 For this reason,the notion of a PC/AS'fund' is artificial for the RoW and the City of Waterloo.
'E i/d ,' i/ . Pkw/A5 f 'd lI ,),/ 1 of 62
3 - 33
TABLE 2: REGION OF WATERLOO PC/AS AND OTHER FUNDING TO FOUR ORGANIZATIONS AND THE RWAF,Y/E
2014.
REGION OF WATERLOO CULTURAL FUNDING 2013-14
Grand Philharmonic Choir $ 30,900
KW Symphony $ 370,,900
THEMUSEUM $ 370,900
CEI(operations) $ 100,000
CEI(leverage) $ 41,000
Waterloo RegionArts Fund* $ 242,820
$ 1,156,520
*The RWAF is a volunteer-driven organization operating at arms-length to the RoW. It received an
increase that coincided with$1 per capita increases from the Region and awards roughly 50 grants per year
to artists,mid-sized and at times large arts and cultural organizations for small projects. Grant recipients are
determined by panel of Board members, community leaders and artists.
3 - 34
City of Waterloo
Waterloo provides operating and/or per capita funding to all six organizations. Other cultural organizations
have received PC/AS funding at various times within the five-year period and the city provides cash grants
to other arts and cultural organizations.
In 2010,Waterloo provided$1 per capita funding for a total of$153,000. This amount was increased in
2014 to reflect changes in population growth. Waterloo also provides in-kind support to the Clay and Glass
Gallery and Button Factory Arts on an annual basis. Further funding to small and mid-sized culture
organizations is provided through foundational grants and through an annual cash grant program. In
addition,support for the cultural sector is provided through the City's Economic Development operating
budget in the form of capacity building and the direct delivery of community festivals and events.
TABLE 3:CITY OF WATERLOO PC/AS AND OPERATIONAL FUNDING Y/E 2014
WATERLOO CITY OF 2014 OPERATIONAL TO SIX ORGANIZATIONS
OPERATIONAL PC/AS TOTAL
KW Symphony $ 88,000 $ 10,000 $ 98,000
THEMUSEUM $ 45,000 $ 45,000
KWJAG $ 58,500 $ 18,000 $ 76,500
CEI(leverage) $ 12,000 $ 12,000
CEI(operations) $ 33,000 $ 33,000
CCGG" $ 50,000 $ 50,000
Grand(Philharmonic Choir $ 3,000 $ 3,000
Esther** $ 40,518 $ 29,000 $ 69,518
$190,018 $197,000 $387,018'
Table does not include grant support to smaller arts and cultural organizations.
*Does not include in-kind support to CCGG,,.
**lncl.Olktoberfest,The jazz Society,The Button Factory and one-time PC/AS.
3 - 35
City Of Kitchener
The City of Kitchener also provided$1 per capita funding in 2010 for a total of$282,000 increased
investment,allocating support in a separate process to KWS,KW I AG,THEMUSEUM and CEL Leverage
grants to CEI were provided by Kitchener with the understanding that they were to support emerging
artists and arts organizations. Other organizations such as MTSpace and Lost and Found Theatre have
received one-time grants through PC/AS funding.
Kitchener funds established organizations through its Tier 1 grant program,in a three-year agreement. It
supports emerging groups through its Tier 2 program. Kitchener also invests directly in arts and culture
through events in the performing,visual and literary arts,and supports economic development through
various cultural industries in music,film,digital media and design along with other cultural investments and
properties. Kitchener also owns and operates Centre in the Square and provides in-kind support to
THEMUSEUM.
TABLE 4:KITCHENER FUNDING TO FIVE ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHER GRANTS,Y/E 2014
KITCHENER:SELECTED GRANTS&CULTURAL INVESTMENT-2014(INCLUDES ONE-TIME INCREASES)
FIVE ORGANIZATIONS TIER I PC/AS OPERATING TOTAL FIVE
OR TIER 2 &CAPITAL ORGANIZATIONS
KW Symphony $ 1192,000 $ 40,000 $ 232,000
THEMUSEUM $ 120,000 $ 120,000
KWAG $ 255;000 $ 40,000 $ 295„000
GPC $ 11,137 $ 11,137
CEI $ 46,000 $ 36,000 $ 82,000
SUBTOTAL-
FIVE ORGANIZATIONS $ 504,137 $236,000 $ 740,137
OTHER
CENTRE INTHE SQUARE $1,652,000
OTHERTIIER 1 $ 440,000
TIER 2. $ 120,000
SUBTOTAL-OTHER $ 560,000 $1,652,000 $ 2,212,000
TOTAL $ 1,064,137 $236,000 $1,652,000 $ 2,952,137
3 - 36
Combined municipal and Regional support
This data in Table 5 includes grants and PC/AS funding to the six organizations in scope. Centre in the
Square and THEMUSEUM each receive significant in-kind and other investment from Kitchener, as does
Canadian Clay and Glass Gallery from the City of Waterloo. This support is not reflected here. In 2014,
overall investment to these six organizations was $1,971,337, or about 44%of approximately$4.5 m in the
combined arts and cultural investments reflected in Tables 2 to 4.18
TABLE 5: COMBINED MUNICIPAL AND REGIONAL FUNDING TO THE SIX ORGANIZATIONS IN 2014
2014 Combined funding to the six organizations only(not including in-kind)
tR//egion Kitchener Waterloo
d C Q �� ° OJ �+� C C d
p N C O ` C O
Organization a m Total
U o M o °-' u° " O a °
M m u
Kitchener Waterloo Symphony $370,900 53% $192,000 $ 40,000 $232,000 33% $ 88,000 $ 10,000 $ 98,000 14% $ 700,900
Grand Philharmonic Choir 30,900 69% 11,137 0 11,137 25% 3000 0 3000 7% 45,037
THEMUSEUM 370,900 69% 0 120,000 120,000 22% 0 45,000 45,000 8% 535,900
Kitchener Waterloo Art Gallery 0 255,000 40,000 295,000 79% 58,500 18,000 76,500 21% 371,500
Clay and Glass Gallery 0 0 0 0 0% 0 50,000 50,000 100% 50,000
CEI(grants or leverage) 41,000 46% 0 36000 36,000 40% 0 12,000 12,000 13% 89,000
CEI(operations) 100,000 56% 46,000 0 46,000 26% 0 33,000 33,000 18% 179,000
Total $913,700 4691. $504,137 $236,000 $740,137 38% $149,500 $168,000 $ 317,500 16% $ 1,971,337
IEN"to".r t tx°� wIl,i0 c Il,yd IP(,,V,"A S IFiwli, 0 iris iln e°t if t
Impacts on the I Cultural Organizations
This section reviews the impact of funding on KWS,KW I AG,THEMUSEUM, CCGG and GPC.
Impacts on CEI will be examined separately.
The terms of reference identify that the generally agreed upon intent of the PC/AS funding is to:
• Improve the funding environment
• Clarify, simplify and focus the funding process
• Build relationships between organizations
• Ensure transparent and rational funding decisions
• Provide access to funding for new and emerging organizations
• Leverage additional funds from the private sector and senior levels of government
• Strengthen the arts sector
• Support other municipal priorities (such as vibrant core areas and talent attraction, emerging arts
organizations,economic development etc.)
• Provide support for strategic and transformative projects
• Reduce debt and provide stability for pillar arts organizations.
18 Tables 2-4 include CITS, but exclude; heritage investments,arts and cultural cash grants(Waterloo), in-kind support to CCGG,
THEMUSEUM,staff time and other municipal cultural programs and investments.
eI i/d se i/ , PC1.1 AS R /I ; ;! / ,,` of 6
3 - 37
Recipient organizations were never required to report specifically on PC/AS funding results. The
documentation review19 and interviews are the source of the consultant's conclusions on the overall impacts
of the PC/AS increases.
Although only the leaders of THEMUSEUM and GPC were with their organizations in 2010,20 all
stakeholders provided thoughtful perspectives on their organization's history and their own understanding
of the impacts of PC/AS funding.
Improvement of the funding environment
Clarify and simplify processes
The interviews revealed that if there was a difference between PC/AS funding and operating funding,it was
not clear: PC/AS funding was viewed as a supplement to operating funding. This is not surprising
considering that the Region and Waterloo combined the two funding streams.
Application requirements for operating funding(and PC/AS funding) are not in any way viewed as
burdensome. However, a lack of clarity on whether PC/AS funding would be annually renewed21
negatively impacts budgeting and program planning.
While funding requirements are minimal,complexity is introduced with multiple municipal jurisdictions.
Arts organizations annually apply for and report on funding to three levels of government,with stringent
provincial and federal requirements. They also craft tailored approaches to businesses,foundations and
individuals. To be faced with three or perhaps four separate approaches at the municipal level22 is
inefficient and adds further administrative burden.
Some municipal Council members have expressed frustration about a lack of clarity on the funding of
organizations including,how (or 10 PC/AS funding differs from regular grants, and what organizations
receive from other municipalities.They frequently seek clarification from staff.
Conclusions
PC/AS funding was never designated for a specific purpose by the municipal funders,except to stabilize
organizations. It has been considered a supplement to operations and has been operationalized by the
organizations in practice over the five years.
Organizations make multiple approaches to municipal funders. Combined municipal contributions to
these organizations has not always been clear to Councillors who approve funding recommendations.
19 Including five years'of budgets,audited statements and annual reports,federal and provincial multi-year grant applications
and strategic plans.
20 Luisa D'Amato has been acting as Interim Executive Director in a volunteer capacity since 2009.
21Especially for Kitchener and the City of Waterloo(PC/AS funding was already included in the Region's operating grants).
22 In the case of Kitchener,with its two separate funding envelopes for Tier 1 and PC/AS.
3 - 38
Regular communication among funders and potentially, a collaborative granting model for large
organizations would provide greater efficiencies,transparency and consistent accountability for municipal
and Regional investments.23
Build relationships and partnerships
Stakeholders indicated that partnerships exist on a number of fronts. The Alliance for a Grand
Community24 has emerged as a networking,advocacy and information portal for larger cultural
organizations. This has led to information sharing,joint advocacy and collaborative programming.
Building audiences requires segmentation and targeted marketing and pricing strategies,all of which are
possible with specialized software—but which also make shared ticketing services unwieldy. There are
examples in Canada in which small organizations such as artist-driven companies2'share administrative
services,especially in the start-up phase. Administrative partnerships are not common in large
organizations, although some outsource tasks such as payroll,graphic design and event management to
independent firms or contractors.
Shared administration becomes more feasible when organizations are housed under the same roof26
Stakeholders indicated that organizations establish partnerships where they make sense, such as in
collaborations for bulk advertising buys,marketing collaborations or joint subscription initiatives.
However,programming partnerships between arts organizations or with various types of community
organizations are on the rise. Some KW examples of these are highlighted in the organizational reviews.
They might include shared production development,revenue and risk;or thematic programming with
Universities, or health,wellness and community organizations.
Conclusions
Arts and cultural organizations partner with each other and with sponsoring businesses or organizations
from other sectors. Administrative partnerships are not common in the industry,while partnerships in
programming,joint marketing,community development and outreach are on the rise in the cultural
sector.
Funding agreements can require organizations to propose partnerships that might be appropriate for their
organizations.
zs Greater representation and accountability has also been requested by the organizations—this will be reflected in Part 2.
24 'The Alliance for a Grand Community(AGC)is an association of nine organizations that work together to strengthen the impact
of the arts,culture and heritage sectors in Waterloo Region and improve the quality of life for residents. Members include the
Canadian Clay&Glass Gallery; Drayton Entertainment;Grand Philharmonic Choir; Idea Exchange,Cambridge;Joseph Schneider
Haus Museum and Gallery; Kitchener-Waterloo Art Gallery; Kitchener-Waterloo Symphony; McDougall Cottage and Waterloo
Region Museum." (AGC website).
zs Called'umbrella management'for multiple small (single-person)companies.A manager or management team supports grant-
writing, board management tasks,joint marketing and various administrative tasks. When the company becomes sufficiently
established, invariably they pursue their own full time management structures.
ze Such as Persephone Theatre,and the future Remai Gallery in Saskatoon. Edmonton Symphony and the Winspear Centre share
a CEO and staff.
[,I rd O G IN, PC/1'A5 R °v I a/ of 62
3 - 39
Transparent and rational funding decisions
Staff make recommendations to Councils for approval of annual grants (including PC/AS funding) or
renewal of multi-year allocations. Memos to Council include a funding history and rationale for the
recommendation,based on the receipt of self-directed reports from organizations.As mentioned,what is
less clear are combined municipal levels of support to organizations, and rationale for total levels of
support.
Some PC/AS funding has also been provided to small or emerging organizations by the Region,through
increased funding to Region of Waterloo Arts Fund (RWAF).This may not be widely understood in the arts
community. Waterloo has also provided PC/AS funding to other organizations on an ad hoc basis.
Conclusions
PC/AS funding has been considered as operating funding by the five organizations,and has essentially,
been operationalized. It may serve little purpose to consider PC/AS funding as a separate designated
fund going forward.
Some PC/AS funding increases have also assisted smaller or emerging organizations through various
mechanisms—a fact that may not be widely understood.
Municipalities and the Region are seeking ways to improve clarity,transparency and consistency of
funding,especially to the key cultural institutions,through this review.
Provide access to new and emerging organizations
All jurisdictions support,through various mechanisms, arts and cultural organizations other than the six
included in this review.
The Region of Waterloo Arts Fund (RWAF) supports projects of artists and arts organizations in the
Region. It received an increase in funding of approximately 40%in 2010 (coinciding with PC/AS increases).
As mentioned,Kitchener and Waterloo both support emerging, small and medium-sized organizations
through their funding mechanisms and Waterloo has allocated PC/AS funding on a one-time basis to
organizations other than the key cultural institutions, GPC and CEI.
PC/AS funding support for small and emerging organizations in the region has primarily flowed through
the Creative Enterprise Initiative (CEI),but was kept separate from CEI operating grants. Initially these
leveraging funds were to be redistributed as cash grants27,however, eventually CEI used the funds to
provide resources and services to the arts sector;in this way the leveraging funds became part of their
operating funds. This leverage funding to CEI in the total amount of$89,000 annually from the three
jurisdictions has supported services to artists, start-up projects, small and medium sized organizations and
festivals. CEI has also leveraged other support to provide these services.
27 Documentation indicates that initially at least,it was the understanding of the funders that the leveraging portion of
CEI funding was to be distributed as cash grants,until it became apparent that this funding was used by CEI for services
and strategic initiatives that might leverage funding from other sources (i.e.,Trillium,and private sources).
3 - 40
Conclusions
Total support to the six organizations (Table 5: $1.97 m)is approximately 44% of the arts and cultural
grants and by the three funders of approximately$4.5 in (shown in Tables 2,3 and 4) not including in-
kind support and support for heritage museums and other community investments.Through RWAF,
support to CEI and existing grant programs funding has also increased since 2010 to new and emerging
organizations. It is out of scope to address in the impact on small,medium and emerging organizations.
Leverage additional funds
One rationale for increased municipal investment of$1 per capita was the potential to leverage matching
funding from each of the private and public sectors. Although the plan to achieve this was not fully
articulated at the time,28 the idea is not unprecedented, and resembles the principles of the Bronfman
Foundation's national arts stabilization program in the mid-nineties.29
However,municipal funding leverages provincial funding from Ontario Arts Council or Trillium and
federal funding from Canada Council for the Arts or Canadian Heritage,through grants to individual
organizations. Increased organizational stability inspires greater confidence in private donors. There has
been some success in leveraging such funds by the organizations,which could have been difficult without
the PC/AS investment, and without the leadership of each organization.
• Over four years,CEI raised$885,000 from the private sector and$338,000 from the public sector,
primarily from Trillium,for strategic initiatives in the sector. This total of$1,223,000 was new money
to the cultural sector in Kitchener-Waterloo over five years.
• The Canadian Clay and Glass Gallery(CCGG) has received increases or multi-year funding from
Canada Council for the Arts based on strong organizational assessments. Like other organizations,
CCGG's emergence from its period of instability (2007—2010) may be attributed in part to PC/AS
funding,which enables it to continue to leverage federal and provincial funding.
• Like the other organizations,THEMUSEUM was in a difficult period financially from 2008—2011
(at the time it was the Waterloo Region Children's Museum). Its plan for growth was to expand its
mandate to include programs for people of all ages. Some of THEMUSEUM's large exhibitions
(Titantic,Our Body,the Universe Within,Avatar) have resulted in increased support from the
corporate sector. Increased municipal funding through PC/AS funding has had a stabilizing impact
on the organization. Of its $1.6 in in total revenues (2014), $1 in is earned revenue and donations.
This amount varies from one year to another. This may not have been possible without the PC/AS
funding increase.
• KWS,KW I AG and GPC all have above average donated revenues,relative to peer organizations
across the country(Tables 16—17).
28 Appendix 4 provides a detailed analysis of CE Task Force documentation related to the PC/AS funding and CEI.
29 The Bronfman Foundation provided start-up funding and an endowment in most provinces. These new stabilization programs
were to match the Bronfman endowment with public and private dollars,and then work with organizations to achieve balanced
budgets,or other organizational goals,with funding as an incentive.29 The challenge in many stabilization programs was matching
the Bronfman contribution with private funding—in most cases it was matched with public dollars.
C1.1 �,,, R- /I ;l'A 27 of rte;
3 - 41
Conclusions
New public and private funding was leveraged over the past five years by organizations who received
PC/AS funding:by CEI for strategic initiatives;by the CCGG;and by THEMUSEUM. Private sector
revenue from KWS,KW I AG and GPC is higher than average within their sectors.
As a matter of course,organizations leverage other public and private support through their municipal
investments. This is more difficult when organizations are unstable.
Support municipal goals
Municipalities are generally interested in an organization's impact on audience, outreach,visibility,
community and social benefits and financial stability rather than on pure artistic merit (although arguably,
none of the aforementioned are possible without strong artistic product). Organizations were not asked to
demonstrate how their activities supported municipal goals.30 However, stakeholders stated that they
position approaches to staff and councillors based on many of these impacts,whether required or not.
The economic impact,talent attraction and benefits of culture to communities has been widely documented
and was a central premise of the CE Taskforce. Nevertheless,it is within the rights and responsibility of
public funders to request that organizations demonstrate how their activities tangibly support the public's
goals.
Conclusions
Evidence of how organizations' activities help to support municipal and goals could be required and
collectively gathered and tracked through a coordinated assessment model at the municipal level.
Strengthen the arts sector/Debt reduction and stability
While debt reduction is not the only indicator of strong arts organizations it is obviously a contributing
factor.
As with any individual or corporate entity,arts organizations experience high and low points over time.
The years 2007—2010 were particularly challenging for arts organizations not only in Kitchener-Waterloo
but everywhere. Leading up to the economic crisis of 2008,cultural organizations,like businesses,were
negatively impacted by downward trends in spending. Market losses eroded endowments and reduced
philanthropic revenue. In this period, all five cultural organizations were either in financial crisis,
management transition (some were without an Executive Director for one or more years) or both.
The CE Task Force recommendation to stabilize arts organizations was no doubt predicated in part on this
collective instability. The Resources Task Force measured the accumulated deficits of organizations in the
region at 13%of revenues. Industry norms suggest that organizations can continue to operate reasonably
well with a deficits in this range,providing the annual deficit is not structural, and that the accumulated
deficit does not climb above 20%.
30 At organizations'requests for streamlining,the Region reduced its requirements to the submission of a financial statement
only—arguably a move too far in an effort to simplify processes.
3 - 42
A review of the five organizations'financial data for the 2014 year-end indicates that average accumulated
deficits remain at 13% on average. So while the PC/AS funding has not reduced accumulated deficits,nor
have they increased collectively. The Resources Task Force identified the funding shortfall to arts and
cultural organizations at between $3 in and$5 m. Municipal increases have helped organizations to leverage
additional funding,but with only 30%of the identified shortfall realized collectively,accumulated deficits
have stayed at 2008 levels.
The organizations themselves have leveraged additional revenues—however funding from private sources,
particularly the corporate sector,is often tied to new projects or initiatives rather than in support of
operations. This means that costs would increase proportionally providing a revenue-neutral impact of
some sponsorships.
There are other indicators of stabilized organizations. Reduction of accumulated deficits and healthy
vibrant organizations ultimately require strong artistic direction and talented management over time. It is
worth noting that:
• Four organizations now have CEOs or Executive Directors who have been in place for four or
more years.31 KWS hired its new Executive Director in November 2014 after a year-long search;
• Three organizations have new strategic plans;
• One organization is launching a capital campaign;
• Two organizations have recently contemplated expansion plans;
• From a program quality and outreach perspective,impacts will be outlined in subsequent sections;
collectively the organizations reached roughly 225,000 participants in 2014,including school
children.
All of these points are indicators of relafivej stable organizations compared to their 2008 positions.
Conclusions
All five arts and cultural organizations in this review were in risky financial and/or leadership transition
periods prior to the creation of PC/AS funding. Each now has stable management,two are close to
retiring their deficits and two have deficit reduction plans in place. Municipal investment through PC/AS
funding,though only a portion of the overall estimated gap of$3 -$5 in in additional resources,32 has
provided stability in some areas,particularly in management.
However,accumulated deficits remain a concern if annual deficits are structural, or if deficit reduction
plans are not successful. Deficits that exceed 20% of revenues put the organization at risk.
Strategic oversight of organizations' financial health -often attributable to good governance, strength of
management and quality of programming-is best achieved when funders know what to look for.33
31 Including one volunteer Executive Director.
32 2008 Resources Task Force
33 Staff knowledgeable of large organizations should have adequate authority to intervene if necessary.This can be a complex
situation. Staff can engage with other funders,tie grant disbursements to cash flow statements,engage experts to assist
organizations with deficit reduction,and in severe cases provide fair notice of grant reductions. Community pressures sometimes
make such interventions difficult or volatile from a political perspective.
rd se i/ , Pkw/A5 lI&,),/ / ; o rte2
3 - 43
Building on existing resources and tools (such as OAC or Canada Council forms34) can be a way for
municipalities to increase accountability without adding layers of administrative requirements.
Communication with provincial and federal funders of organizations can provide perspective, consistent
and appropriate messaging and increased accountability for investment.
These points will inform the recommendations on municipal funding models of organizations in Part 2.
Impacts of PC/AS Funding n CEI
The area municipalities and Region provide funding to Creative Enterprise Initiative (CEI) in the form of
operational funding and separate funding for leverage.35 The generally accepted principle is that`leverage'
funding was directed to specific project funding in the sector until it became clear that CEI provided
services rather than grants.
CFI's first full year of operation was May 2011—2012. In that year, CEI established a Leadership Council
to solicit new investment from the private sector. From 2010 to 2014, CEI raised approximately$855,000
from the private sector and$338,000 from the public sector. CFI's services and programs have been
geared towards emerging professionals, cultural workers and leaders of small and medium sized
organizations. Some CEI supported initiatives have included:
• Workshops,mentoring and sessions with industry leaders, and networking opportunities with
professionals and funders;
• Assistance with grant writing and the development of`pitches' to funders and investors;
• Strengthening audience development initiatives through on-line marketing, social media strategies and
other business development tools;
• The creation of Chamber of Commerce memberships for start-up businesses in the creative sector,
enabling new partnerships and access to group insurance rates and benefits;
• The creation of low-rent studio space for artists;
• The Grand Social arts portal;a social media platform to post events, engage the community and market
content;
• Facilitation of access to bulk advertising and market buys for radio and television;
• A mobile ticketing system for small-budget organizations and a centralized community box office;
• The Investing Back program has leveraged matching funding to strategically support organizations in
partnership with other funders and municipalities. Some participating projects have included among
many others:
• Uptown SunL.ife Jazz Festival;
• Festival of Art,Architecture and Sound,in collaboration with CAFKA, Open Ears and
Building Waterloo Region in the form of marketing, social media,design advice and content;
• Kwartzlab,to assist in the purchase of shared equipment;
• KOICON and KOI Festival—a conference and showcase of independent artists;
• Neruda Arts Kultran World Music Festival;
14 For example,the Ontario Arts Council's application form requires organizations to indicate on the front page of their
application,any budget or reporting line item that deviates more than 10%from the previous year,to provide an explanatory note
and to provide a narrative on deficit reduction plans if required.
ss There are different approaches by each funder and different funding envelopes for operational and project funding to CEI.
3 - 44
o Digital Media Content Creation Cluster study,to study and support growth potential of the
digital media hub in the Region and many other initiatives.
CEI is currently undergoing its own review with Overlap Consulting,to identify and assess stakeholder
views on a new strategic direction. This review includes interviews with municipal funders. One objective
should be to ensure that CEI focus for starters, on a small number of developmental needs of the cultural
sector and avoid duplication with existing services,especially those of its funders.
Conclusions
The Region and area municipalities should maintain operational funding for CEI pending outcomes of the
review by Overlap Consulting. The Region and area municipalities may wish to consider leverage funding
based on whether CFI's future directions align with goals and objectives of the area municipalities and
Region.
Funders could jointly consider CFI's grant recommendations as part of a collaborative funding approach
for the key cultural institutions.36
36 Even though CEI is would not be considered a key cultural institution.
3 - 45
IFuiuryudh,,tg G6ui,tg IFauward
Relative levels of support for emerging organizations
Grant support from operating and PC/AS funding to the six organizations included in this review is
$1,971,000 (Table 5) against total cultural expenditures in the region of close to $4.5 in (including Centre in
the Square but excluding in-kind support and support to heritage museums).
Aggregate data is not readily available to assess whether this ratio is within norms of municipal cultural
spending.37 To provide one comparison,Winnipeg Arts Council awarded$387,590 in project and
individual grants, and$3,107,650 to organizations of all sizes in 2013.38
Relationship to existing grant processes
Recommendations for PC/AS funding are intrinsically linked to recommendations in Part 2 on municipal
funding levels and models. From this section forward in the report,PC/AS funding is recommended to be
included in the municipal operational funding to the five organizations.39
These recommendations are based on conclusions outlined in Part 1 and are further supported by Tables 6
to 16 in Part 2,which compare revenues of the five organizations (inclusive of PC/AS increases) with
averages within their sectors. Overall,Part 2 shows that although slightly above average, combined
municipal funding brings total public (government) funding to levels consistent with the averages of
comparative organizations across the country.
Current levels of support are integral to the ongoing stability of the five organizations.
37 A survey of municipalities(2003-2005)indicates that funding to professional arts emphasizes professional organizations over
collectives and groups. Larger municipalities are trending towards arms-length funding mechanisms to disburse funds. Creative
City Network:Inter-municipal Comparative Framework Project, March 2007.
38 Winnipeg Arts Council Annual Report 2013.
39 A separate funding recommendation is made for CEI.
eli/d fir', , PCI.II A5 /I ; ;! 32of62
3 - 46
Recommendations
#1 Maintain overall municipal funding at current levels for Kitchener-Waterloo
Symphony,Kitchener-Waterloo Art Gallery, Canadian Clay and Glass Gallery,
THEMUSEUM and Grand Philharmonic Choir by including Per Capita/Arts
Sustainability funding in the operating grants for these organizations. Retire the
`Per Capita' and`Arts Sustainability'funding nomenclature 40
#2 Incorporate remaining Per Capita/Arts Sustainability funding for emerging, small
or mid-sized organizations into the existing funding mechanisms in each area
municipality and the Region.
#3 Each area municipality and the Region should review future funding for Creative
Enterprise Initiative based on its refreshed mandate.
40 In Appendix 4,an analysis of PC/AS funding history argues that confusion around the'per capita'and'sustainability'terms
have hindered understandings of municipal levels of investment and cultural sector realities.
3 - 47
VIII'°° '° � IIII uu IIII VIII VIII'°° VIII'°°°' IIII VIII' VIII IIII"° IIII VIII' IIIIIIII VIII'°°°' VIII'° VIII IIIIIIIIIIIII""''lug" CU III'°RAL
cullturW Ihi!�u��
Many granting agencies41 make distinctions between large or major cultural organizations, and other types
of arts organizations. Such institutions have comparably large annual revenues,multiple staffing levels,
usually occupy civic venues and have long planning cycles. Major organizations are often identified with, or
carry the name of their cities. They may be the entry point for new audiences to the arts and represent a
standard for the art form in their region.They dedicate significant resources to outreach and programs and
their productions or presentations contribute to the career development of emerging or mid-career artists.
Large organizations train and employ artistic,production and administrative staff who may move on to
found or manage smaller organizations. They should be a vital and vibrant part of the cultural infrastructure
of a region.
Some municipal and provincial jurisdictions (including Ontario) have separate funding mechanisms for
major organizations acknowledging their distinct realities and their role as anchor organizations in the
community. A tailored funding mechanism has the potential to enable a funder to hold large organizations
accountable for their leadership role in regional artistic,cultural, social and economic development.
Through the environmental scan in Part 2,this review provides a sampling of criteria by which
organizations are designated as a`major'in different cities,as well as their funding and evaluation
mechanisms (Appendix 5).
and Carn l;oar dve I� el"llu Ljj Sti"e Diu"fri s
This sections researches and evaluates potential approaches to municipal funding for key cultural
institutions. It includes considerations for determining an appropriate level of, and framework for
municipal contributions,including.
• What level of support do typical major cultural organizations require?
• Is there typically a differentiation between each type of organization, such as a symphony,gallery or
museum that result in industry-standard variances? What role does past funding practices,historic
precedence and municipal best practices play?
• What is the role and standard of other sources of revenue,including earned and donated?
• What are norms for municipal contributions based on population or demographics?
• What should the expected value of municipal contributions be and are there ways to use municipal
contributions more efficiently?
The comparative data in this section addresses these questions by industry sector in Canada,looking at
sectoral norms of public,earned and donated revenue. Three major industry categories are reviewed:
41 Six out of the nine granting jurisdictions scanned for this report.
3 - 48
symphony orchestras,public art galleries and philharmonic choirs.42 Given the unique mandate of
THEMUSEUM,it is compared to organizations with mandates similar to its various program streams.
Similar-sized organizations (in annual revenues) are selected and where possible,those within similar-sized
municipalities.43 KW organizations are positioned within a sampling of the next largest and the next
smallest comparative organizations.
Revenues from year ending(y/e) 2014 are used in almost all cases. Each revenue stream is compared by its
percentage of the total annual revenues of the organization.
• Data from the Kitchener-Waterloo organizations was obtained from their audited statements.44
• For public art galleries,the data was obtained from audited statements of each gallery.4'
• For other symphony orchestras, choirs and comparative organizations for THEMUSEUM,data is
drawn from revenues reported to CRA, obtained through the CRA charitable organizations website.46
In these instances it is not certain whether all reported public funding(federal,provincial and
municipal) is operating funding, or a combination of operating and project funding.
In addition to the comparative data, a brief context is provided for each sector. An overview of activities
and outreach of each organization provides indicators of community impact and return on investment from
a qualitative perspective.
Symphony Orchestras o Waterloo Symphony
In its 2013-2014 season,the Kitchener Waterloo Symphony performed 39 different programs of music in
70 concerts in its main series,pops concerts,family and school concerts and in its Baroque and
Intersections series;which collectively attracted audiences of 80,000.
Context
Canadian communities are home to over 50 professional orchestras—defined as orchestras with a
professional music director,management and staff and a professional core of musicians. They all receive
operating support from Canada Council for the Arts and/or support from other provincial and municipal
funders.
■ The two largest,Montreal and Toronto Symphonies have annual revenues of$29 in and$23 in
respectively;
41 The Grand Philharmonic Choir(GPC)has consistently received funding from the Region,and its funding was increased by 15%
in 2010 through the PC/AS funding. GPC has regional reach and impact and the report makes a recommendation for its continued
support at least at current levels by the Region. However, it does not meet established(and conventional)definitions of'key',
'anchor'or'pillar'organization based on its budget size, its lack of joint stewardship of civic facilities,its options of scalability and
the fact that currently it is largely volunteer-administered.
43 The Regions of Halton, Peel and Niagara were considered. However,none of these Regions have substantially large'key'
cultural institutions of the size of KWS, KW SAG,CCGG,etc.,with comparative revenue streams. In this exercise identifying'like'
organizations took precedence.
44 Except for CCGG. To obtain a figure for'in-kind'support,the data relies on what was reported by CCGG on its y/e 2014 tax
return.
4s ibid.
46
3 - 49
• Calgary Philharmonic,Vancouver Symphony and the National Arts Centre Orchestra have revenues
ranging from $11 m to $16 m;
• Quebec,Winnipeg and Edmonton symphony orchestras are in the $7 m to $9.5 m range.
KWS is the next (9th) largest with annual revenues of$5.4 m. Only four other Canadian orchestras have
annual revenues above $2 m.47 The remaining 37+ Canadian orchestras fall in the small budget category
with annual revenues below$2 m.
Many dozens of community,semi-professional and youth orchestras are also active across the country.
Overview
Since its formation in 1945,KWS has a history of punching above its weight. It has been led by important
international musical leaders including conductor Raffi Armenian,who created the Canadian Chamber
Ensemble,took the orchestra on national and international tours and played a key role in the development
of Centre in the Square, a hall known for its world-class acoustics.
A recent strategic planning process led by its current artistic director has initiated innovations to help re-
invent the idea of`orchestra',by creating multiple entry points for new audiences. Some include its Signature
series;with digital media components,TED-talk style events,online program chats and synced mobile
streams. Its Intersections series links the orchestra in community partnerships,including Quantum
Computing at the University of Waterloo, a project on neuro-science of the brain interacting with music
(Daniel Levithin48), and with artists,writers,and musicians from other genres and world musical traditions.
Intersections has been reviewed in Maclean's, Globe and Mail, Toronto Star and the Montreal Gazette.
KWS employs 52 professional musicians who live and work in the region. Programming of KWS
contributes to the performance of Canadian music,the development of student composers and provides
opportunities for Canadian soloists and guest conductors. KWS runs a youth orchestra program and is a
community resource for teachers and music students,providing school concerts that link with the Ontario
Ministry of Education curriculum. Approximately 13,000 school children per year participate in the KWS
programs.
Centre in the Square and KWS
The 2014 and 2015 reviews of Centre in the Square and KWS49 provide the context for a sometimes
complex relationship between KWS and other community organizations,and CITS. Centre in the Square is
considered a unique cultural asset in the community,known internationally by artists and symphonies for its
unparalleled acoustics. The challenges that arise from the need for a large hall such as CITS to generate
revenue from more commercial offerings balanced by its mandate to serve community organizations is not
atypical. Similar challenges exist in Canada between local organizations and large civic auditoriums that
were built starting in the mid-sixties for Canada's centenary. By comparison to the acoustic excellence at
Centre in the Square,many of these halls are too large to be acoustically appropriate for music other than
large symphonic works or amplified concerts.
47 Tafelmusik in Toronto also has a budget of approximately$5 m. However it is not considered a symphony orchestra,but is a
very active and successful chamber orchestra.
48 Well known neuro-scientist,professor at McGill University and author of"This Brain on Music'.
49 Webb Report,July 2014,Artsbuild Ontario, March 2015
3 - 50
Public revenues
Combined municipal and regional support to the KWS in 2013-2014 of$700,000 has leveraged
approximately$840,000 in combined federal and provincial funding, $2 in in foundation and donated
revenue and$1.7 in in ticket sales for the organization,resulting in approximately$6.50 return on each
municipal dollar invested.Most orchestra revenues are expended in salaries and production costs which stay
in the regional economy.50 Orchestra musicians are employed on a 38-week contract each year and
supplement their income by teaching and other freelance work.
Table 6 indicates KWS public revenue streams from 2013-2014 against those of selected orchestras in next
to largest and next to smallest centres.51
• KWS receives funding from the Canada Council for the Arts (federal funding, 9%) at a level relatively
consistent with the average of all comparison orchestras (10%).
• Provincial revenue (7%) falls well below the average of 14%. (Reasons for this are suggested in Table
8). It is closer to the average of 10%that is obtained by excluding Quebec Symphony Orchestra
(QSO). QSO's provincial funding level of 42% skews the average calculation up by four points.
• Combined municipal funding for KWS at 13%of revenues places it above the average of municipal
funding by six points. Total public funding of 29%puts KWS within the range of averages with
QSO in the mix and slightly higher with QSO excluded.
TABLE 6:PUBLIC REVENUES OF KWS AND COMPARATIVE SYMPHONY ORCHESTRAS
Annual
Canadian • Operating
of budget Revenue Federal Revenues
Edmonton Symphony 812,201 8% $9,787,523 $ 781,700 8% $ 763,355 8% $ 872,400 9% 25%
Winnipeg Symphony 663,617 8% 8,708,303 981,000 11% 1,052,082 12% 322,499 4°% 27°%
Quebec Symphony 516,622 7% 6,931,205 757,625 11% 2,885,300 42% 592,300 9% 61%
Kitchener-Waterloo Symphony 506,096 10% 5,219,181 477,520 9% 365,000 7% 683,671 13% 29%
Victoria Symphony 359,991 7% 4,883,455 443,126 9% 364,980 7% 391,500 8% 25%
Symphony Nova Scotia 390,096 9% 4,334,512 672,313 16% 441,000 10% 20,000 0% 26%
Regina Symphony 193,100 10% 2,028,657 158,000 8% 264,700 13% 125,000 6°% 27°%
Averages(mean) 8% 10% 14% 7% 31%
8% Median 8%Average w/o QSo 10% Median 6% 26%
Public, earned and donated revenue
Table 7 shows comparisons of the three revenue streams: public support, earned revenue and donated
revenue.
■ As noted in Table 6,public funding to KWS is roughly consistent with comparative organizations
nationally.
so Including hall rental fees paid by KWS to CITS.
11 Ottawa is the next largest city in Ontario to Hamilton. The National Arts Centre(and its orchestra)is funded as a line item by
the Department of Canadian Heritage. Its presence creates a complex dynamic in the City of Ottawa's cultural programs and policy.
For example,the Ottawa Symphony is a semi-professional orchestra affiliated with University of Ottawa and comprised of
professional,semi-professional and student musicians. While Ottawa has a vibrant cultural scene,it does not provide a congruent
basis for comparison for symphony orchestras or galleries.
3 - 51
• Earned revenue includes ticket sales and sold senTices.'z While KWS falls below average by six
points in earned revenue,it is important to note that orchestras in Edmonton, Quebec City and
Victoria all sell services to city opera companies. Winnipeg Symphony sells services to both
Manitoba Opera and the Royal Winnipeg Ballet. These would account for a portion of their earned
revenues. KWS has neither the benefit of an opera nor a ballet company as a market for sold
services.
• KWS is nine points above the average for donated revenues overall,and five points above average
if QSO (with 10%of donated revenue) is excluded.
TABLE 7:PUBLIC,EARNED AND DONATED REVENUES OF KWS AND COMPARATIVE ORCHESTRAS
Population Annual
Canadian • • •.- Donated %
budget Revenue
Edmonton Symphony 812,201 8% $ 9,787,523 $ 2,417,455 25% $ 5,067,064 52% $ 2,303,004 24%
Winnipeg Symphony 663,617 8% 8,708,303 2,355,581 27% 4,571,926 53% 1,780,796 20%
Quebec Symphony 516,622 7% 6,931,205 4,235,225 61% 1,971,439 28% 724,541 10%
Kitchener-Waterloo Symphony 506,096 10% 5,219,181 1,526,191 29% 1,673,998 32% 2,018,992 39%
Victoria Symphony 359,991 7% 4,883,455 1,199,606 25% 1,971,473 40% 1,712,376 35%
Symphony Nova Scotia 390,096 9% 4,334,512 1,133,313 26% 1,230,707 28% 1,970,492 45%
Regina Symphony 193,100 10% 2,028,657 547,700 27% 674,194 33% 806,763 40%
Averages(mean) 8% 31% 38% 30%
Average w/o
8% QSo 26% Median 34% Without QSO 34%
Comparison of KWS with Canadian Orchestras
Table 8 provides a comparison with Canadian Orchestras in medium/large and small/medium budget
categories and with all Ontario orchestras. 53
• These comparisons reaffirm higher percentages of municipal funding for KWS;but total levels of
public support roughly consistent with Canadian orchestras in revenue categories both above $5 m
and below$5 m.54
• Quebec's relatively high levels of support position de facto, Ontario's orchestral funding lower than
national averages.
• In donated revenue, Quebec organizations fall well below average. Quebec arts organizations argue
that fundraising is more difficult in Quebec,which has a smaller corporate community and a less
practiced culture of philanthropy. Donated revenue of KWS is greater than averages for Canadian
orchestras in both budget categories (Quebec's low figures in this case make other averages appear
more favourable).
• Earned revenue by KWS is close to the average of orchestras between $1 m and$5 m, and lower than
that of larger orchestras (many of which also sell services to ballet and opera companies).
sz Sold services refer to concerts in which the orchestra(or parts of it)is contracted to play(for example,school concerts or
opera productions).
ss From Orchestras Canada Annual Comparative Data Report.Canadian Museums Association does not gather similar data for
public art museums. Comparative data was previously gathered for Canadian public art galleries by Business for the Arts Canada.
BFAC discontinued its comparative report in 2011. Comparative financial data for galleries would have to be gathered manually.
14 All Canadian orchestras with budgets over$5 m are represented in the chart. Not all Canadian orchestras with budgets
between$1 m and$5 m are represented in the chart.
°E rd se ifc , Pkw/A,a Re l t',)'a/ f ,u o 62
3 - 52
Comparison of KWS with Ontario Orchestras
In the comparison with Ontario orchestras it is important to consider:
• There are 35 orchestras reporting for Ontario. Only eight Ontario orchestras"including KWS,have
operating revenues over$1 in annually. The remainder are small semi-professional or community-
based orchestras many of which would qualify neither for Canada Council nor for municipal funding-
therefore averages of public funding for all Ontario orchestras (19%) would de facto be lower than
KWS and Canadian professional orchestras.
• The Ontario Arts Council does however,have a co�n�nunity orchestra funding program,therefore
provincial funding is roughly consistent in this category.
• Small and community orchestras access project,rather than operating grants,as is evidenced in the
chart.
TABLE 8:REVENUES OF KWS COMPARED WITH CANADIAN AND ONTARIO ORCHESTRAS
Comparisons with Canadian Ontario Orchestras(Percentage of Annual Revenues)
Canadian orchestras
Canadian Orchestras with with revenues greater All Ontario orchestras, Kitchener
revenues greater than$5 than$1 m and less including community Waterloo
m(all 10 reporting) than$5 m(15 orchestras(35) Symphony
orchestras)
Earned Revenue 39.7% 33.1% 38.6% 32.1%
Donated Revenue 27.6% 35.0% 41.7% 38.7%
Government(Public)Revenue 32.7% 31.9% 19.7% 29.0%
---------------------------------------------------------------
Canada Council 7% 7% 5% 9%
Provincial Operating 13% 13% 6% 7%
Municipal/Regional Operating 4% 8% 5% 13%
Project and Special 8% 3% 15% 0%
Conclusions
Overall,KWS has industry-standard public revenues, slightly lower earned revenues and higher donated
revenues. As variances occur in all jurisdictions for specific reasons,relying solely on funding formulas is
problematic. Rather,funding decisions should be made with adequate contextual information,and based
on demonstrated impact by the organizations themselves.
KWS punches above its weight with significant community engagement,educational programs and
reaches 80,000 audience members. It continues to face financial challenges; some,although not all of
which, concern its relationship with Centre in the Square.
Its new Executive Director along with its Artistic Director and the Board are working on strategies to
ensure the viability and vitality of the organization.
ss Toronto Symphony, National Arts Centre Orchestra,Tafelmusik, KWS,Windsor Symphony,Thunder Bay, Hamilton
Philharmonic and London Symphony(LSO reported estimates for the 2013-2014 season,prior ceasing activities in early 2015).
0
3 - 53
The accumulated deficit of 18% at y/e 2014 is a concern.The organization will need a window in which
to implement strategic and debt reduction initiatives. Municipalities will need to work collaboratively with
KWS and provincial and federal funders through dialogue,oversight and appropriate action for the
organization to be successful.
Public Art Galleries of r0 oo Art Gallery and Canadian D
Glass 00
Context
There are over 150 municipal,provincial and federal public art galleries in Canada. A public gallery is one in
which the primary mandate is to collect,preserve, curate and exhibit works of art and to provide public
programs to encourage art understanding,appreciation and enjoyment. Public art galleries may originate
with the bequest of a private art collection (and at times a gallery building in which to house it) to a
community or a foundation. A governance model is established. Over time,many such galleries evolve
into public galleries—in name or in legislation—with contributions from the state to ensure their
continuation for the good of the public. Public galleries are distinct from private galleries,which are for-
profit businesses which represent,exhibit and sell the works of artists.
Kitchener Waterloo Art Gallery(KW I AG)
KW I AG is open to the public seven days per week,receives over 40,000 visitors annually including
approximately 6500 students on educational tours.
Overview
Kitchener-Waterloo Art Gallery is an exception to the norm. It was formed in 1956 as a largely volunteer-
run organization intent on bringing great art to the region. It was officially opened by A.Y.Jackson with an
exhibition of works by Tom Thomson. Within eight years its collection numbered 400 works of art.
KW I AG is now the largest public art gallery in the Waterloo Region with an important reputation in the
Canadian contemporary art world. Its exhibitions include contemporary Canadian art of regional,national
and international significance. Its permanent collection consists of 4,150 works of art including historic
works and a large contemporary collection of over 2,000 works created later than 1970.
In 2013 KW I AG had a 67%increase in school student participation in its programs. It has 450 members
including 50 individual members who donate $1,000 or more,and in recent years has received a number of
significant bequests. KW I AG has 120 active volunteers and student interns.
KW I AG curates exhibitions that premiere in the region and tour abroad, exposing regional audiences to
high-profile contemporary work by international artists and bringing important regional artists to outside of
the region. Through its partnerships,KW I AG brings its collection to alternate public spaces such as
Kitchener City Hall,the Perimeter Institute, Centre in the Square,the Registry Theatre and other public
spaces.
The Gallery has identified five priorities for its strategic plan of 2015—2020. These include community
engagement,partnerships and audience development. Its financial sustainability plan is to reduce the deficit
annually and eliminate it in 10 years.Artistic leadership includes research,development,programming and
provision of professional services.The plan includes enhancing and developing its human resources in a
3 - 54
climate of respect,fairness,open communication and professional development and providing a facility that
is visitor-friendly within the existing space at Centre in the Square.
Revenue Streams
Like other organizations in this review KW I AG experienced significant budgetary challenges leading up to
2010. In 2013,the Gallery balanced the budget as projected and embarked on its deficit reduction plan. Its
operating budget of$1.24 in includes $388,46956 in combined support from the cities of Kitchener and
Waterloo. Earned revenues are significantly below those of other galleries—KW I AG does not charge
admission,but rather makes its programs accessible to all.57 The size of its membership (450 people)is
notable, considering that gallery membership benefits typically include reduced or free admission.
Canadian Clay and Glass Gallery
In 2014 Canadian Clay and Glass Galleries received approximately 21,000 visitors including 3,500
schoolchildren.
Overview
Incorporated in 1982, Canadian Clay and Glass Gallery exhibits Canadian and international contemporary
ceramic and glass artists. Through this specialized mandate and focus, CCGG works to challenges
conventional preconceptions of what silica(clay,glass and enamel) art is,or can be.
The CCGG building was designed by Patkau Architects of Vancouver and completed in 1993. It has won
the Canadian Architect Magazine Award of Excellence and the Governor General's Award for Architecture.
Significant construction costs were borne by the City of Waterloo,which provides and maintains the space
to the CCGG in a 50-year agreement.
To date, CCGG has mounted 175 exhibitions by artists from 25 countries. The Gallery operates five
exhibition spaces,houses a library and archive,provides education programs across the Waterloo region and
manages a large gift shop. CCGG runs outreach programs for young people,francophone communities,
new Canadians and special needs groups,working in partnership with community organizations,other arts
organizations and educational institutions.
Revenue Streams
The CCGG has received Canada Council funding since 1998 and Ontario Arts Council funding since 2007
and was,in the last 5 years, awarded a significant increase from OAC based on program excellence and
artistic merit. CCGG manages a large gift shop relative to other galleries, sales from which contribute
substantially to its earned revenues.51 Municipal funding includes a cash grant of$50,000 (PC/AS funding)
from the City of Waterloo plus the approximate equivalent of$116,19859 worth of support in the form of
rent,utilities,property insurance and building maintenance.
56 KW JAG pays$93,000 in rent to Centre in the Square(KWS and GPC also pay for performance and rehearsal time at CITS). The
value of CCGG's rent and maintenance costs contributed by the City of Waterloo are included in the amounts in Tables 9 and 10.
57 Many Canadian public art galleries and most artist-run centre galleries do not charge admission,although there are just as
many which do.
58 This is atypical for small public galleries-many gallery gift shops have minimal profit margins.
59 CCGG's 2014 tax return reported$166,198 in municipal support to Revenue Canada-$50,000 is a grant. It is extrapolated that
the remainder is reported as in-kind support of rent and building maintenance(see footnote 54).
d i/1 ,,. i/ P!,,,oi l `, R e lI ,),/ 4:1, %;�-'f 6
3 - 55
Comparisons of KW AG and CCGG with other public galleries
Table 9 indicates KW AG and CCGG public revenue streams from 2013-2014 against those of selected
public galleries in other comparative cities.
The annual revenues of KW I AG and CCGG combined are well below those of other public galleries in the
sample, even within in significantly smaller jurisdictions.10
Windsor and Ottawa are not included in this comparative table. Despite their proximity in population to
KW,their exclusions demonstrate again why funding formulas might be problematic for cultural
organizations. To illustrate:
• Windsor has a comparatively smaller population to KW and but has a much larger public gallery.
Following an extensive period of financial shortfalls at the Windsor Art Gallery,the City of Windsor
and the Gallery are negotiating a new funding relationship that includes the transfer of the Windsor's
museum and archives into the Windsor Gallery building.
• Ottawa is the next largest city in Ontario to Hamilton. The presence of the National Gallery in
Ottawa creates a complex dynamic for municipal arts organizations.
The KW I AG and CCGG both receive federal funding at levels on relative par with other galleries.
Provincial funding of 9%and 11%respectively, are each below the average of 17%but closer to the average
of 12%when AGNS (provincially funded at 65%) is excluded from the sample.
For municipal funding, CCGG receives a cash grant from the City of Waterloo of$50,000 and the
remainder accounts for its in-kind support from the City,61 a contribution still below municipal averages of
comparative organizations and below grants of KW I AG,KWS and THEMUSEUM.
KW I AG funding of 31%is 10 points higher than the municipal average of 21%.
TABLE SI: PUBLIC REVENUES OF KW JAG,CCGG AND COMPARATIVE PUBLIC ART GALLERIES
Population
Selected Public Galleries Y/E Population a�a%of Annual Combined Other public Total Public
2014 budget Operating Federal % P-incial % Municipal % (non annual) % Funding %
Revenue
size
Vancouver Art Gal lery 2,300,000 15% $14,883,009 $ 330,000 2% $ 915,000 6% $ 2,304,890 15% $368,649 2% $ 3,918,539 26%
Winnipeg Art Gallery 663,617 7% 9,191,107 179,256 2% 2,357,538 260/. 465,000 5% - 0% 3,001,794 33%
Art Gal Iery of Al berta(Ed monton) 812,201 13% 6,358,535 195,843 3% 447,641 7% 1,622,698 260/. 531,574 8% 2,797,755 440/.
Art Gallery of Hamilton(2013) 519,949 11% 4,704,226 342,130 7% 363,620 8% 1,012,303 22% 1,718,053 37%
Art Gallery of Nova Scotia 390,096 10% 3,817,830 243,000 6% 2,477,274 65% - 0% 43,913 1% 2,764,187 72%
Mendel Art Gallery(Saskatoon)* 222,189 6% 3,729,000 190,000 5% 250,000 7% 2,657,000 71% 100,000 3% 3,197,000 860/.
Art Gallery of Greater Victoria 359,991 140/. 2,600,000 178,300 7% 275,000 11% 742,700 29% - 0% 1,196,000 460/.
MacKenzie Gal lery(Regina) 193,100 8% 2,468,566 494,400 200/. 500,055 200/. 317,000 13% 516,922 21% 1,828,377 740/.
Kitchener-Waterloo Art Gallery 506,096 41% 1,239,345 91,971 7% 111,000 9% 388,469 31% 36,750 3% 628,190 51%
Canadian Clay and Glass 506,096 55% 924,083 50,235 5% 101,186 11% 166,198 18% 0% 317,619 34%
Average(mean) 18% 7% 17% 23% 4% 500/.
Average Average without
without Average Average without Mendel,
*provincial extrapolated MacKenzie 5% without AGNS 12% Mendel,AGNS 20% MacKenzie,AGNS 39%
10 The Beaverbrook Art Gallery in Fredericton has revenues of approximately$1.9 m,with a population in the greater Fredericton
area of roughly 90,000.
11 The figure reported here is the value reported by CCGG to the CRA through its charitable tax return Y/E 2014.
3 - 56
Table 10 indicates the total of three funding streams;public, earned and donated of the same sample of
public galleries.
KW I AG has public funding levels (51%),on par with other galleries. CCGG's public funding(34%) is
lower than comparative galleries. These comparisons change when highly funded galleries are removed
from the sample.
In earned revenue CCGG is well above average,likely attributable to its proportionately large gift shop.
KW I AG's earned revenue falls below average. The Gallery has no admission fees and,unlike other
galleries,lacks ancillary revenue potential from cafe,gift shop or space rentals with its limited space capacity
in Centre in the Square.
However,KW AG has significantly higher donated revenue than average. It has strong donor and patron
support and an active volunteer base that contributes in part to its successful fundraising. CCGG raises
funds on par with comparative organizations.
TABLE M PUBLIC,EARNED AND DONATED REVENUES OF KW I AG,CCGG AND COMPARATIVE PUBLIC ART
GALLERIES
Operating Selected Public Galleries Y/E Population Annual
Population as a%of
2014 budget Revenue Foundation
size
VancouverArt Gallery 2,300,000 15% $14,883,009 $ 3,918,539 26% $8,070,952 54% $ 2,551,823 17% $ 371,695 2%
Winnipeg Art Gallery 663,617 7% 9,191,107 3,001,794 33% 3,177,128 35% 3,012,185 33% 0 00/0
Art Gallery of Alberta(Edmonton) 812,201 13% 6,358,535 2,797,755 44% 2,161,902 34% 1,208,122 19% 190,756 3%
Art Gallery of Hamilton 519,949 11% 4,704,226 1,718,053 37% 1,712,099 36% 1,292,074 27%
Art Gallery of Nova Scotia* 390,096 10% 3,817,130 2,764,187 72% 464,472 12% 464,472 12% 124,000 3%
Mendel Art Gallery(Saskatoon) 222,189 65/o 3,729,000 3,197,000 86% 450,000 12% 36,000 1% 0
Art Gallery of Greater Victoria 359,991 14% 2,600,000 1,196,000 46% 598,000 23% 572,000 22% 234,000 9%
MacKenzie Gallery(Regina) 193,100 85/0 2,468,566 1,828,377 74% 295,100 12% 310,089 13% 57,100 2%
Kitchener-Waterloo Art Gallery 506,096 41% 1,239,345 628,190 51% 88,264 7% 476,781 38% 23,035 2%
Canadian Clay and Glass 506,096 55% 924,083 317,619 34% 435,349 47% 171,115 19% 0 01/.
Average(mean) 18% 50% 27% 20% 2%
*Earned and donated extrapolated Median 44% Median 23%Avg w/o Mendel 22%
Conclusions
High levels of donated revenue are good indicators of community support on the part of both KW AG
and CCGG.
Although municipal contributions to KW I AG are higher than municipal averages,revenues of both
galleries combined, are well below other public galleries in the sample including those in smaller cities.
Municipal contributions as a percentage of population are significantly lower than a number of examples
in the study.62
CCGG has had a successful recovery since 2010,with strong support from the Ontario Arts Council. It
can make a good case for its role as a key cultural institution. However,it receives municipal support only
from the City of Waterloo.
6z For example Hamilton's contributions to AGH are double KW's support to KW JAG and CCGG combined.
3 - 57
KW I AG's ongoing recovery depends on a number of factors.With an accumulated deficit of 23% at the
end of 2014,KW I AG needs to make steady progress on its ten-year deficit reduction plan by achieving
surpluses of at least$20,000 annually. As with KWS,a coordinated,regular dialogue and oversight by
fenders should be part of the strategy to ensure the health of the organization.
Museums and Children's o 6 oo Centres
THEMUSEUM
In 2014,THEMUSEUM's programmes served approximately 65,000 paying visitors through group sales,
memberships and ticketed special events.63
Context—Museums and THEMUSEUM
THEMUSEUM is a unique,ideas-based organization. Despite its branding,THEMUSEUM doesn't fit the
conventional definition of a heritage museum: especially,the collection, stewardship,conservation,
preservation,interpretation and exhibition of physical artifacts of natural,historical or other significance.
Although models and practices of cultural organizations shift over time,fundamentally,it is the artifact-
management activities associated with a traditional museum that are not revenue-generating. This accounts
for higher levels of public support to conventional museums, such as the Waterloo Region Museum.
Municipal,provincial and national museums and heritage organizations usually receive the majority of their
funding from the jurisdiction they serve, at levels anywhere from 50%—80%of overall revenues.64
Like other museums,THEMUSEUM presents and curates exhibitions with interpretive programs and
events. Unlike other museums,THEMUSEUM does not curate exhibitions around its own permanent
collection or artifacts—it presents exhibitions that are curated or produced by other galleries,museums,
science centres,institutes or private entities such as RMS Titanic Inc.,6'for example.
However,THEMUSEUM can be an interesting and potentially apt model of cultural organization for a
region of high-tech businesses,two Universities,one college and an important population of young people
and students. Its transition from a children's museum to a flexible space with varied,and at times edgy
programming,have enabled it to attract people of virtually every age group and demographic.
Overview
THEMUSEUM (formerly the Waterloo Region Children's Museum) underwent a strategic review following
a large accumulated deficit position in 2009. By the end of 2011 it had rebranded and expanded its mandate
to include multi-disciplinary programming for all ages. With its legal name,THEMUSEUM of Ideas
Transcending Objects,THEMUSEUM aims to expand the perception of what a museum can be and to stage
exhibitions and experiences that intersect ideas with art, science,technology and occasionally,history.
THEMUSEUM brings exhibitions to the region from around the world and in the process, attracts visitors
locally and from beyond the region. THEMUSEUM states values o£ experiential learning as a lifelong,
creative process;unexpected intersections with art and technology to stimulate curiosity,exploration and
63 In y/e 2015,there were 90,000 visitors to THEMUSEUM(a 38%increase from the previous year).
64 This is not to suggest that publicly-funded museums should not be encouraged to generate more revenues from earned and
donated sources.
61A subsidiary of Premier Exhibitions Inc.,listed on NASDAQ
e l h°'i ,,, i`'I PC/1'A5 R%,;v I e'/,A 44 of 6
3 - 58
engagement among seemingly unrelated things; and treasuring progressive,innovative and distinctive points
of view which build on,rather than detract from, "our experience and understanding as families and as a
community."
THEMUSEUM may be best described as a multi-disciplinary programming space for live performing and
visual arts experiences that provoke conversations;a hands-on children's museum and science centre; and
an exhibition and interpretive centre for programmes of artistic,technological, scientific, environmental,
and sociological interest. Its flexible mandate enables it to respond to a variety of audiences and present
programming from all over the world, something that smaller conventional museums cannot. Emphasis on
technology is also synergistic with the Region.
A varied selection of large exhibitions presented by THEMUSEUM over the past five years have included
Titanic—the Artifact Exhibition,featuring recovered artifacts,room re-creations and personal stories;Tom
Thomson,Man,Myth and Masterworks, an exhibition that explores the life,work and mysterious death of Tom
Thomson; The Bob Marley Exhibition, Our Body, The Universe Vithin; RAM-Rethinking Art and Machine,
addressing the changing relationship between art and technology.
Its multi-level space enables it to serve different audiences concurrently,with programs and exhibitions for
school children on lower levels removed from interpretive programs that challenge social norms and
perceptions suitable for mature audiences on upper levels. Although considered a strength by the
organization,THEMUSEUM's elasticity could also pose a risk- stretching the organization too thinly.
Revenue Streams
THEMUSEUM's unique mandate presents it with challenges at federal and provincial funding tables. It is
ineligible for funding from Canadian Heritage's Museum Assistance Program (MAP)66 and Canada
Council's public galleries programs. Although it has accessed Ontario's Trillium Foundation programs and
some provincial tourism incentive funding,neither of these agencies provide operating support. In the
absence of stable federal and provincial support,THEMUSEUM needs to apply for project-based funding
from public agencies and foundations and continue to make inroads in corporate sponsorships. It is largely
dependent on self-generated revenue—for which it will need to continue to bring in exhibitions that will be
significant draws for the public.
THEMUSEUM receives funding from the two area municipalities and the Region,including cash and in-
kind support from the city of Kitchener, support through the PC/AS funding from the City of Waterloo
and$370,000 in support from the Region. Prior to PC/AS funding approval,the organization had taken
the step of shifting its mandate and booking large scale exhibitions (such as the Jane Goodall,Andy Warhol
and Titanic exhibitions). PC/AS funding helped provide stability for the organization to continue to curate,
produce and present,while gradually reducing its deficit to 13%in 2014.
Given THEMUSEUM's unique mandate it is difficult to identify comparative organizations in cities close in
size to KW. For the purposes of consistency with the other organizations in this report,comparisons are
made with a sampling of organizations,each which has a mandate similar to apmgram stream of
THEMUSEUM and in relatively comparable markets. They include:
66 Funding through MAP is for curated exhibitions around a museum or an art museum's permanent collection. As mentioned,
THEMJSEUM does not have a permanent collection.
eI rd i/ , PC1. A`,,, R l ,),/ of rte;,
3 - 59
• Telus Space &Science Centre (Edmonton)
• Manitoba Children's Museum (Winnipeg)-a comparable market and comparable budget size.
• Manitoba Museum (Winnipeg) -a conventional museum with a permanent collection, comparable
market.
• London Children's Museum
• Saskatchewan Science Centre (Regina)
o The SSC has an IMAX theatre
• Discovery Centre (Halifax) -An interactive family science centre and museum,with a comparable
budget size.
Tables 11 and 12 include the same revenue streams as the orchestra and public gallery samples. They
indicate that percentages of revenues for THEMUSEUM are not far removed from the combined averages
of these various organizations.
TABLE 11: PUBLIC REVENUES OF ORGANIZATIONS WITH MANDATES SIMILAR TO THEMUSEUM PROGRAMMING
STREAMS
Selected Museums/Exhibition Population Annual Cornbined Other public Total Public
as a 'ng Federal
Centres Y/E 2014 budget size Revenue (non annual) Funding
Edmonton Space&Science
Foundation (Telus Centre) 812,210 5% $15,236,157 $ 23,459 0.15% $ - $2,822,993 19% $ 2,846,452 19%
Manitoba Children's Museum 663,617 38% 1,733,794 9,942 1% 106,164 6% 119,350 7% $ - 0% 235,456 14%
Manitoba Museum(Winnipeg) 663,617 11% 6,226,576 50,010 1% 3,320,453 53% 52,500 1% $ - 0% 3,422,963 55%
THEMUSEUM(KW) 506,096 30% 1,679,959 8,855 1% 45,803 3% 535,900 32% $ 92,228 5% 682,786 41%
London Children's Museum 352,395 33% 1,080,888 103,907 10% 96,475 9% 204,828 19% $ - 0% 405,210 37%
Saskatchewan Science Centre(Regina) 179,245 6% 3,044,679 0 0% 860,827 28% 165,000 5% - 1,025,827 34%
Discovery Centre(Halifax) 372,680 13% 2,888,061 40,381 1% 949,339 33% 145,000 5% $ - 1,134,720 39%
Averages 19% 2% 19% 13% 1% 349/
TABLE 12: ALL REVENUES OF ORGANIZATIONS WITH MANDATES SIMILAR TO THEMUSEUM PROGRAMMING
STREAMS
Operating Populatio
Selected Museums/Exhibition Population n as a% Annual
Centres Y/E 2014 of budget Revenue
size
Edmonton Space&Science Foundation
(Telus) 812,210 5% $ 15,236,157 $ 2,846,452 19% $11,312,051 745/o $ 1,077,654 7% $ -
Manitoba Children's Museum 663,617 385/o 1,733,794 235,456 145/o 1,085,455 63% 412,883 245/o 117 0%
Manitoba Museum(Winnipeg) 663,617 19% 6,226,576 3,422,963 55% 1,868,319 30% 935,294 15% 01 0%
THEMUSEUM(KW) 506,096 30% 1,679,959 682,786 41% 709,309 42% 238,404 145/o 49,460 3%
London Children's Museum 352,395 33% 1,080,888 405,210 37% 525,882 49% 149,796 145/o 0 0%
Saskatchewan Science Centre(Regina) 179,245 6% 3,044,679 1,025,827 345/o 1,565,962 51% 452,890 15% 0
Discovery Centre(Halifax) 372,680 13% 2,888,061 1,134,720 39% 933,405 32% 819,936 28% 0
Ave ra ge s 21% 345o 49% 17% 0%
Conclusions
THEMUSEUM's unique mandate appears compelling for regional audiences and appropriate for this
market with its emphasis on ideas,technology and creative intersections. Its self-generated revenue and
enhancement of the downtown core provide a good return on public investment.
3 - 60
THEMUSEUM cannot however,make a case for funding at the level of a conventional heritage museum.
Although THEMUSEUM may need to further pursue public project funding,its ineligibility for federal
and provincial operating funding mean that the area municipalities and the Region must determine their
own levels of commitment based on the benefits that THEMUSEUM provides, as they will likely remain
its principal public fenders for some time yet.
THEMUSEUM does not use CADAC financial and statistical reporting forms.67 Funders should work
with THEMUSEUM to adopt a multi-year financial reporting model.
Key cultural institutions have an established infrastructure and vision that transcends any one Board of
Directors or leader. THEMUSEUM's CEO has re-invented the organization in recent years with the
support of the Board. The ongoing success or permanence of this transformation will largely be based on
whether the vision and direction continues were there a change in leadership. Based on its size,joint
responsibility for facilities with a municipality,and its multi-leveled programming and outreach,
THEMUSEUM should be considered a key cultural institution for the purposes of this review. However,
funding agreements might include evidence of long-range planning that ensures the organization remains
an institution.
Philharmonic Choirs - The Grand Philharmonic Choir
Audiences for GPC in 2014 were approximately 22,215 people,including regular season concerts, chamber
choir and children's choir concerts,benefit concerts and outreach activities.
Context
Like other symphonic choruses,the GPC has a mandate to perform large masterworks for choir and
orchestra.
Overview
Kitchener-Waterloo is a region identified with high-calibre music and choral activity. GPC is the oldest
arts organization in this review,having continuously operating since 1922 and with roots that stretch back
into the 19th century as the Berlin Philharmonic and Orchestral Society. Led by Canadian choral
conductor and former CBC broadcaster Howard Dyck for 38 seasons,the history GPC is closely allied with
the founding of KWS and later, Centre in the Square—still its primary performing venue.
GPC also manages an associated chamber ensemble,a children's choir and a youth choir.Through these
affiliations it provides accessible and inexpensive music education that covers that gamut opportunities in
choral singing to all ages. GPC produces up to ten concerts per year of large traditional choral works as
well as contemporary and Canadian works with all of its combined choirs.
At times GPC incorporates multi-media components or positions programming to make links with
contemporary issues of social justice. For example,in 2013 GPC hosted the North American premiere of
Benjamin Britten:Peace and Conflict, a docudrama about the life and pacifism of Britten, around their
67 Compulsory for organizations receiving funding from the Canada Council or Ontario Arts Council.
w l i/d ,,, i/ P C A 5 R%,; l ,),A 47 of Vii 2
3 - 61
performance of his Var Requiem. They were joined by the youth and children's choirs,and choirs from the
two universities—over half of the singers were under the age of 25.
GPC has demonstrated sustainability through its longevity and large community base. Its singers and
supporters invest an estimated 17,000 hours of volunteer time each year. Its large network of contacts in
the community position provide multiple partnership opportunities.The benefit concert for Nepal on May
24 was co-ordinated with the Mennonite Central Committee MCC),the church, stage and audio-visual
equipment providers,other musicians including those from KW Symphony and 10 other choirs,local
media, donors and the local Nepalese community.The concert raised more than $25,000 for the MCC's
relief work in Nepal,which was matched by the federal government.
Revenue Streams
Like other organizations in this review,GPC was in financial crisis in 2008-2009 with a deficit approaching
$100,000. This provoked mass resignations,including that of Howard Dyck in 2009-10,and suspension of
the youth and children's choirs. The rebuilding period over the following years included a deficit reduction
plan, aggressive fundraising,volunteer administrative support and the hiring of a new artistic director in
2010.
Since 2010, audiences have grown,the youth and children's choirs have been rebuilt68 and its deficit has
been reduced to $19,000 in 2014. In 2010,GPC received increased support from the Region of Waterloo
coinciding with PC/AS increases. The organization has had a volunteer Executive Director since 2009.
Tables 13 and 14 indicate public funding for Grand Philharmonic Choir and its three revenue streams
against comparative symphonic choirs.
GPC's revenue streams are consistent with comparative choirs in all three areas of public funding,earned
revenue and donated revenue. Its closest benchmark is Chorus Niagara,compared with which GPC has
higher levels of public funding and earned revenue. Chorus Niagara has greater levels of donated revenue,
and also receives interest from its endowment that accounts for 2% of its funding.
Lack of Canada Council funding should not be viewed too negatively in the case of philharmonic choirs
because:
• Contemporary and Canadian choral masterworks are sometimes presented by choral societies,but
performances of large philharmonic works emphasize repertoire from the 18th and 19th centuries.This
is not a high funding priority for the Canada Council.
• Canada Council requires a professional staffing component in the person of the Executive Director,
and in some cases, smaller choruses must demonstrate full professionalism,which means that all
singers are professional—there are few fully professional choirs in the country.
Provincial funding for GPC is significantly below its counterparts while combined municipal funding is
above average.
68 In 2013 the Youth Choir won first place at the Summa Cum Laude choral competition in Austria.
'II rd II I"N, PC1. A`,,, R lI l';! 48 of rte,,
3 - 62
TABLE 13: PUBLIC REVENUES OF GPC AND COMPARATIVE PHILHARMONIC CHOIRS
Operating Selected Phiharmonic Choirs Annual combined Total Public
Y/E 2014 Population
Revenue
Richard Eaton Singers(Edmonton) 812,201 $ 199,297 0 0% $ 22,289 11% $ 10,000 5% $ 32,289 16%
Vancouver Bach Choir 2,000,000 588,106 37,000 6% 69,250 12% 52,387 9% 158,637 27%
Winnipeg Philharmonic Choir 663,617 163,586 0% 10,700 7% 1,300 1% 12,000 7%
Grand Philharmonic Choir(KW) 506,096 378,498 3,000 1% 11,056 3% 45,037 12% 59,093 16%
Chorus Niagara(St.Catherines) 132,000 278,273 8,000 3% 18,200 7% 8,000 3% 34,200 12%
2% 8% 6% 16%
TABLE 14: PUBLIC,EARNED AND DONATED REVENUES OF GPC AND COMPARATIVE PHILHARMONIC CHOIRS
Operating Selected Phiharmonic Choirs Annual Endowment/
Y/E 2014 Population
Revenue
Richard Eaton Choir(Edmonton) 812,201 $ 199,297 $ 32,289 16% $ 99,123 50% $ 67,879 34% 0%
Vancouver Bach Choir 2,000,000 588,106 158,637 27% 314,485 53% 78,711 13% 34,117 6%
Winnipeg Philharmonic Choir 663,617 163,586 12,000 7% 75,167 46% 70,977 43% 5,442 3%
Grand Philharmonic Choir(KW) 506,096 378,498 59,093 16% 148,077 39% 171,328 45% 0%
Chorus Niagara(St.Catherines) 132,000 278,273 34,200 12% 77,098 28% 161,582 58% 5,493 2%
16% 43% 39% 2%
GPC is a mid-sized organization in the region and small relative to KW I AG, CCGG,KWS and
THEMUSEUM. It is largely volunteer-run,does not manage a venue nor does it have multi-layered
staffing and programs. With a small and flexible programming trajectory,GPC has options of scalability,
enabling it to respond to crisis or opportunity. It would not be appropriate for GPC to be subject to the
funding requirements and accountability measures of key cultural institutions.
Conclusions
The reliance of GPC on the volunteer services of an Interim Executive Director since 2009, during which
time its deficit has been reduced by 80%,is a testament to community volunteerism. It may represent a
succession issue if the organization does not acknowledge the important role of Executive Director to the
sustainability of the organization by introducing a salary into the budget. GPC has indicated that this has
also been flagged by other fenders. It has formed a board task force that is working on the issue of how
the organization can,in a responsible way,return to a paid executive director position.
Municipal fenders may wish to work more closely with GPC and communicate with the Ontario Arts
Council to examine avenues that might enable GPC to increase its standing with the OAC.
GPC is one of the few mid-sized organizations in the region,and thus,is a bit of a stand-alone
organization. It is recommended that at the present time, GPC's grants with all three fenders be
maintained at current levels and within its current granting programs.69
69 As an organization that receives funding from all three jurisdictions,funders might consider at some time, including GPC in the
collaborative funding model recommended in Part B,as a mid-sized(rather than a key)cultural institution.
3 - 63
Summary of Comparative
Public Funding
Tables 15 and 16 summarize data from Tables 6 to 14. They provide an overall picture of the region's
organizations relative to sector comparisons. Figures represent percentage of revenue against operating
revenues from year-end 2014. In summary:
• Federal funding is relatively consistent for KWS,KW I AG and CCGG. Each receives funding from
the Canada Council for the Arts. THE MUSEUM does not have operating funding from provincial
or federal funders.70
• Provincial funding for all organizations is slightly, or significantly,below provincial counterparts.
o For symphony orchestras,average provincial funding(top line) includes Quebec Symphony
Orchestra(QSO).The line beneath provides provincial and total averages without QSO.
• Combined municipal and regional funding to four organizations is higher than average:
o Canadian Clay and Glass Gallery is the exception—it receives funding from only one of the three
municipal funding bodies.
• Total public funding to four of the five Kitchener-Waterloo organizations is relatively consistent with
their comparative counterparts.
o There are more small and mid-sized Ontario municipalities relative to provincial counterparts.
Ontario and Quebec are the only provinces with this reality.71 Provincial funding is greater in
provinces with one or two major cities, such as the western provinces.
TABLE 15: SUMMARY OF PUBLIC REVENUE STREAM SOF KW ORGANIZATIONS AND COMPARATIVE ORGANIZATIONS
Summary of Comparative Public Funding Levels,2014 Federal Provincial Municipal Total
Public
on par Comparative Symphonies 10% 14% 7% 31%
Kitchener Waterloo Symphony 7% 13/x, 29°fo
Averages w/o QSO 10% 26%
below Comparative Public Art Galleries 6% 16% 24% 49%
average
Kitchener Waterloo Art Gallery 7% 9% 31% 51%
Canadian Clay and Glass Gallery 5% 11% 18% 34%
above
average
Comparative Exhibition/Museums 2% 19% 13% 34%
THEMUSEUM 1% 3% 37/ 41%
Comparative Choirs 2% 8% 6% 16%
Grand Philharmonic Choir 1% 3% 12/ 16%
70 The Museum Assistance Program (MAP)provides assistance to Canadian museums and art museums for programs and
exhibitions related to permanent collections.THEMUSEUM does not have a permanent collection,and is therefore not eligible
through this program. The Canada Council provides assistance to organizations that have a professional arts mandate.
71 British Columbia may be a close third.
3 - 64
Public, earned and donated revenue streams
Table 16 summarizes the three revenue streams for KW organizations and their comparators.
• Public funding levels for all but CCGG are consistent with averages.
• Earned revenue of organizations vary;
• CCGG has higher than average earned revenues,attributable to its gift shop revenues.
• KWS,GPC and THEMUSEUM are slightly below average,although given THEMUSEUM's
unique mandate,it is difficult to find closely comparable organizations.
• KW I AG has lower than average earned revenues.Like many galleries,it doesn't charge
admission. However it has limited earned revenue potential from ancillary services such as a
cafe,gift shop or space rental.
■ All five KW organizations generate donated revenue consistent with,with or greater than
average. This speaks to community support of these organizations, and is a measure of community
impact. Individuals and corporations typically engage when impact is demonstrated, and when
community relationships are meaningful.
TABLE 16: SUMMARY OF ALL REVENUE STREAMS OF KW ORGANIZATIONS AND COMPARATIVE ORGANIZATIONS
Summary of Comparative Revenue Streams 2014 Public Earned Donated Endowment
on par Comparative Symphonies 31% 38% 30%
Kitchener Waterloo Symphony 29% 32% 39%
Averages w/o QSO 26%
below Comparative Public Art Galleries 49% 28% 21% 2%
average
Kitchener Waterloo Art Gallery 51% 7% 389/6 2%
Canadian Clay and Glass Gallery 349/o 47% 19% 09/0
above Comparative Exhibition/Museums 34% 49% 19%
average
THEMUSEUM 41%, 42% 14%
Comparative Choirs 16% 43% 39% 2%
Grand Philharmonic Choir 16% 39% 45%
l irl d d I�,�u)W IFun d hig CarmWeratkprus
Industry and sectoral norms
The data shows that major cultural organizations receive from 16%-50%in public funding, depending on
type of organization,with municipal norms between 7%and 24%.
Public funding norms differ by sectors. Performing arts organizations generally receive around 30%public
funding and public galleries have higher levels of support (closer to 50%). This is a reflection of higher
overhead costs of building and collections maintenance and lower (or nil) admissions rates.
3 - 65
Variances occur within different jurisdictions across the country based on relative demographic realities
(proliferation or size of cities relative to rural areas) and funding norms (such as high cultural funding levels
in Quebec).
Industry benchmarks of revenue streams should inform grant decisions but shouldn't be determinants.
Municipal funding to a KW organization may be higher than average,only by virtue of anomalies in revenue
sources of comparative organizations (for example, Quebec Symphony receives 42%from provincial
sources,Art Gallery of Nova Scotia receives 65%in provincial support and no municipal support).
Formula funding
The terms of reference request a recommendation for funding levels for established cultural organizations
and formulas for municipal contributions.
Rather than formula funding,the review has demonstrated industry norms of public funding for large
organizations in Tables 6— 14. The anomalies referenced, demonstrate that formula funding can be a
moving target.72 Funding to large organizations should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis;backed by
sufficient data on sectoral requirements,provincial and federal funding precedents, a requirement for
demonstrated impact by organizations based on a series of goals and criteria, and calling on subject area
expertise if required.
Historical precedence
Funding to organizations is based on historical precedence; some have been publicly funded for decades
and perhaps around for longer than that. In most funding models, current grant levels are a point of
departure for recommendations to increase or decrease grants. Without a recalibration of grants -which
may de-stabilize some organizations in order to provide increases to others -or an infusion of new dollars,
it is difficult to increase funding for emerging organizations.
Municipal support to organizations
The review concludes that combined municipal and Regional funding for almost all five organizations is
above industry norms but that each organization is uo blicl funded at levels on par with comparative
organizations. Municipal funding plugs a gap in provincial funding, and in some cases in federal funding-
a finding that supports the research of the Resources Task Force of the Creative Enterprise Initiative in
2009.73
The review suggests that municipal contributions are at levels that can sufficiently maintain organizations,
and that reductions in funding could de-stabilize organizations. However,the municipal funders and the
public should be more aware of the total amount of municipal funding being allocated to each organization.
Municipal funders can require,as part of their funding approach,that organizations report on their activities
such as financial stability,community outreach and efficient use of resources.
72 For example,a municipality may agree to fund an organization at 12%of revenues. If the organization's revenues
subsequently increase through a major event or a large gift, is the municipality then obligated to also maintain 12%funding?
73 Lobbying for regional parity is unlikely to be successful given that Canada Council and OAC each have their own funding
priorities. Rather, it is strong and vital organizations that are most likely to gain traction individually with provincial and federal
funders.
3 - 66
Conclusions
Municipal and Regional funders should base funding decisions not on formulae but on relative
positioning within industry norms and on impact demonstrated by organizations through regular
assessment processes.
Municipal contributions are at levels sufficient to maintain these organizations,and any reductions could
destabilize them.
Combined funding to organizations in this review from area municipalities and the Region is close to$2
m. This level of investment warrants a more robust accountability framework than is currently in place.
Communication, collaboration,appropriate funding tools,resources and reporting mechanisms could
provide evidence that investment in large organizations is generating value for citizens and communities.
How should impact be demonstrated and what criteriaa should be used to define key cultural institutions?
Are there other cultural organizations and that could fall into this category?
A proposed funding model based on scans of practices in other municipalities provides a mechanism
through which organizations can demonstrate community impact,organizational effectiveness and efficient
use of public resources.
Environmental Scan of Funding Models and Criteria
An environmental scan of funding models or granting processes to large organization includes the following
ten jurisdictions:
Province of Ontario Toronto
Victoria. Edmonton
Regina Winnipeg
Thunder Bay London
Hamilton Ottawa
Appendix 6 charts the funding models used in each jurisdiction for large organizations and where available,
criteriaa to determine what constitutes a major organization.
Key Cultural Institutions
Criteria
Criteriaa were gathered from the jurisdictions and sorted by the consultant into general statements of how
the various municipalities defined key cultural institutions.74 These characteristics were compiled and listed
for review by the Project Review Committee (PRC). Eligibility criteria to be considered a major
organization is distinct from assessment criteria.—which might change in a given year,based on municipal
74 Also referred to as large,major,pillar,anchor,cornerstone,flagship organization/institution. In some cases criteria was not
available,but funding to large organizations was carried forward each year based on recommendation from staff.
3 - 67
priorities. However,in some cases, eligibility criteriaa also form part of the assessment criteria.,as in the
Edmonton Arts Council model.
The PRC undertook an exercise to collaboratively determine characteristics of a key cultural institution.
Criteria from eight jurisdictions were collated, charted and compiled into a list that was discussed and vetted
during working sessions with PRC.The criteria were synthesized into two categories:
• General funding eligibility criteria for organizations of any size, and
• Characteristics specific to key cultural institutions in the KW region.
The characteristics specific to key cultural institutions were tested against all mid-sized and large
organizations in the region to determine qualifying organizations.The four organizations that exhibited the
key characteristics were KWS,KW I AG, CCGG and THEMUSEUM and are determined by the area
municipalities and Region as key cultural institutions.
While GPC has strong roots in the community and wide regional impact,it does not exhibit characteristics
of a key cultural institution in four areas.7' Interestingly,GPC is one of the few mid-sized organizations in
the region, and thus,is a bit of a stand-alone organization.
The primary attributes of key cultural institutions,used by those granting agencies which define them,and
as agreed on by the PRC are in summary:
• Size of budget (operating revenues greater than $1 m)
• Length or level of establishment
• Shared responsibility for large cultural facilities
• Regional impact
• High quality and multi-layered programs and staffing
• Long programming trajectories that limit options of scalability76
• A standard-bearer for the arts and cultural disciplines it serves
The PRC further defined these criteria areas into characteristics of a key cultural institution for the region:
• Shares responsibility for a major cultural facility with a municipality;
• Is among the largest cultural organizations in the region in revenues and activity levels and maintains
multiple layers of staffing and programming. Its facility imperatives (size, costs and operating
requirements) and the production and programming norms of its industry(long-range planning and
contractual obligations) typically limit its options of scalability;
• Has as its primary mandate the creation,production and/or presentation of arts and cultural
programmes, or cross-sectoral programs in which art plays a key role;77
75 1)Budget size 2)Shared responsibility for civic cultural facilities,3)multiple levels of staffing;4)limited options of scalability.
76 Limited options of scalability in this context are not viewed necessarily as a positive attribute, but simply a reality intrinsic to
the nature of large organizations.
77 Primarily artistic or cross-sectoral in cultural focus;excludes organizations with a particular themed,religious or ethno-cultural
affiliation.
'e I V d e I"N, P C�"A`,,, R- /I ;l'A of rte;
3 - 68
• Is a recognized standard-bearer for professional artistic and cultural practice and outreach in its
discipline. It qualifies for significant recognition and support from other public sources, such as
Ontario Arts Council, Canada Council,Department of Canadian Heritage,Trillium Foundation or
their equivalents;
• Has multiple series of professionally presented and/or produced programs that are varied in depth
and breadth and include significant education and outreach programs;
• Creates or presents unique programming that contributes substantially to the vitality,energy and
attraction of the region as a whole. Its programming garners attention and draws participation across
the region and outside of the region. It brings recognition and visitors from beyond regional borders,
and brings important regional artists to the world.
• Is a mandate-driven organization that transcends any one individual's aspiration,vision or leadership
tenure.
In the KW region,as in some other jurisdictions,the designation of key cultural institution should remain at
the discretion of fenders,and not based on an organization's own rationalization against listed criteria.
Being or`becoming' a key cultural institution is not intended to be an aspirational notion,but a state of
affairs. Such organizations exist in most large cities, and form part of a healthy eco-system of artists,
groups, small and mid-sized organizations and large organizations. Although highly integral to the cultural
infrastructure, small and mid-sized organizations with limited administrative capacity, should not be subject
to the same levels of accountability and assessment processes as large organizations.
A generally accepted description of key cultural institution was then crafted.78
Key cultural institutions
The Region of Waterloo and area municipalities of Kitchener and Waterloo provide financial
support to key cultural institutions that are recognized as unique and intrinsic to the cultural
infrastructure of the greater region. The artistic and cultural programming they present and the
facilities that they manage contribute to the artistic, social and economic vitality of the region.
Key cultural institutions uphold a consistent level of professional standards and have recognized
achievements in cultural production and programming at national and international levels.These
large organizations are recognized civic institutions that operate public venues,or have
programming intrinsically linked to those facilities. Their varied and multi-layered programming
cements and celebrates arts,culture and ideas regionally,nationally and internationally.
Key cultural institutions demonstrate leadership by encouraging greater community participation
through education and outreach,volunteer opportunities,audience development, and
partnerships with other arts,cultural and community organizations and businesses.These
organizations lead the region's cultural sector in creating jobs and wealth,attracting visitors and
contributing to the region's economic prosperity and vitality as a creative hub.
The Region and area municipalities recognize the unique and specific challenges facing these
large organizations and support their organizational and management structures through grants
78 The narrative is designed to create understanding on why the public investment in key cultural institutions is important.
°E i/d ,,, ifs, , Pkw/A5 f,e lI t',)'a/ of rf
3 - 69
and in-kind contributions. This support ensures the accessibility and accountability of their
programs and facilities for the benefit of our growing and evolving community. In return, funders
require high levels of accountability and delivery on stated objectives and goals that are assessed
through an annual review process.
Key cultural institutions include:79
• Kitchener Waterloo Symphony
• Kitchener Waterloo Art Gallery
• Canadian Clay and Glass Gallery
• THEMUSEUM
The Region and area municipalities periodically review organizations with regional impact to
determine which may be designated as key cultural institutions.
Funding I for Key Cultural InsUtutions
Stakeholder views on municipal models
Interviews with the representatives of the six organizations in this review provided their perspectives on
what would be considered an optimal funding relationship with the area municipalities and the Region.
Currently funding application requirements of the Region and municipalities are not considered in any way
onerous. Stakeholders appreciated this simplicity,but felt it important that organizations demonstrate
accountability for their funding,through stipulated checks and balances. Optimally,an annual review of
activities,identification of opportunities, challenges and agreed upon goals and objectives for the coming
year should be in place.
Some indicated that an`advocate' or officer among municipal or Regional staff,with expertise in working
with large organizations,could facilitate more in-depth and informed conversation. This could be more
feasible and effective with a collaborative and unified process by the municipal funders.
Where it exists,multi-year funding has a stabilizing effect on organizations. Still it was felt that an annual
`check-in'would create more regular accountability and information exchange. Organizations that receive
Canada Council and Ontario Arts Council funding80 already meet stringent requirements. The Region and
municipalities could build on or leverage,rather than duplicate,these accountability tools.
Three types of models
Appendix 5 charts the funding models for scanned jurisdictions where available.81 Funding models fall into
three general categories of staff reviewed,peer reviewed and committee reviewed (including external
assessment). While implemented differently in each jurisdiction,the models can be briefly summarized as
follows:
79 Although funded through a different mechanism,CITS might also be considered as a key cultural institution.
80This is all organizations except for THEMUSEUM and CEI.
81 Some jurisdictions did not have funding criteria for large organizations, but required submission of annual reports.
3 - 70
Staff reviewed
Municipal staff consult with organizations,review applications and reports and make a funding
recommendation to senior management or councils. In some cases a council committee assesses grant
applications based on various criteria,but recommendations and grant approvals are essentially internal to
the municipality.
The municipalities of Thunder Bay and the CRM of Greater Victoria outlined a number of criteria and
requirements for their largest organizations. While organizations are reviewed annually,grant allocations are
largely based on historic precedence. The City of London has suspended funding to the London
Symphony Orchestra. Funding to the Art Gallery of London is primarily based on staff recommendation.
Peer reviewed
An external committee of arts and cultural professionals is convened to assess and make recommendations
on grant levels based on set criteria. Peer reviewed funding is generally seen as arms-length to government
and less subject to lobbying and political pressure.
• Peer review works in Winnipeg and Regina because they both have a large number of organizations
and grants to large organizations are relatively small compared to other municipalities.82
• Hamilton has recently implemented a peer reviewed pilot project. Seven organizations including the
Art Gallery of Hamilton and a number of smaller organizations were reviewed by one panel. It has
been through one year of this process.
• Ontario Arts Council has a peer reviewed program for major organizations. To be considered a
`major'in performing arts the organization's annual revenues must exceed$15 m. In most cases,
major organizations own,or are the major tenants of civic cultural facilities such as Roy Thomson
Hall. Peer assessment works in this case because of a high number of organizations in this budget
range,providing a fair competitive basis. Assessors are true peers,in that they understand large
organizations. Sometimes assessors are invited from outside the country.
• Most major organizations funded by the OAC are the same ones supported directly by the City of
Toronto.83 Toronto Arts Council manages support to other cultural organizations through peer
assessment processes.
Committee reviewed / external assessment
Processes used by the City of Ottawa and the Edmonton Arts Council are hybrids of staff-reviewed models,
supplemented if required,by input or evaluation from discipline experts. In Ottawa,the cultural officer
requests an evaluation of an organization's application by an external assessor,which forms part of the staff
recommendation for funding.
Edmonton Arts Council has a service agreement with the City of Edmonton to manage arts funding
programs. The EAC in turn,has a service agreement with four largest arts organizations;the Edmonton
Symphony Orchestra,The Art Gallery of Alberta,The Citadel Theatre and the Edmonton International
82 The Manitoba Arts Council and Saskatchewan Arts Board are both sizeable provincial arts councils. Their grants to large
organizations are much larger than municipal grants.
83 Including Toronto Symphony Orchestra,Canadian Opera Company, National Ballet, Luminato Festival,Toronto International
Film Festival,Art Gallery of Ontario among others.
3 - 71
Fringe Festival. All four organizations own,or have responsibility for major cultural facilities in the city.84
Grant awards are for one or two years. Service agreements are reviewed annually in a meeting with the
organization and a committee of EAC staff and Board members. Seats at the meeting are open to city
councillors.The Edmonton service agreement model has had successful outcomes and is endorsed by their
arts community.
Model Recommendations
No one-size-fits-all model is suitable for any jurisdiction.The Project Review Committee discussed
considerations of each potential models.
Status quo - not recommended for key cultural institutions
Staff assessment with recommended grant allocations for council approval can and does work in
jurisdictions with appropriate rationale and accountability mechanisms -some of which are in place in the
respective programs of Kitchener,Waterloo and the Region. Each jurisdiction has capable, committed and
knowledgeable staff.
However,the complexity of the KW region's three separate funding jurisdictions and their multiple funding
programs for the same clients,have created challenges for everyone.
• In Waterloo,large organizations with five-digit grant allocations are assessed alongside organizations
applying for small grants, creating assessment disparity and inappropriate comparisons;
• Jurisdictions have recommended or approved grants without the entire regional allocation picture;
o This may contribute to a perceived or real a lack of transparency on granting decisions among
Councillors and the public.
• This complexity led organizations to call for a simplification of the process;
• In response, some funders oversimplified the process,reducing grant requirements to little
beyond receipt of financial statements;8'
• Yet requirements for funding at the Ontario Arts Council and Canada Council are
exceptionally robust. Such existing mechanisms could be leveraged by municipal and
Regional funders to rationalize in part,their grant allocations.
• In the absence of a cohesive and transparent allocation process and accurate,timely information,
municipal and Regional councils are more vulnerable to lobbying and political pressure from
organizations;
• Duplication of staff time across three jurisdictions to fund six organizations is arguably, an inefficient
use of resources.
84 Edmonton Symphony's CEO also manages the Francis Winspear Centre,The Fringe Festival has three year-round performing
arts facilities.
85 While smaller organizations in other programs have greater application requirements than large organizations receiving
significantly higher amounts.
3 - 72
Conclusions
The complexities and the lack of clarity regarding collective municipal funding levels have been
amplified by the addition of the PC/AS funding since 2010, creating greater urgency for the
jurisdictions to collaborate on funding the large organizations.
The funders provide a total investment of close to $2 in to these six cultural organizations (excluding
Centre in the Square). It is the opinion of the consultant,that gains from streamlining and collaboration
should make room for greater accountability and achieving municipal and Regional cultural goals.
Peer review- not recommended for key cultural institutions
Allocating grants using a panel rather than one individual,is generally accepted as a sound model for a
competitive cultural funding process. Given the right conditions, peer review is,in the view of the consultant,
usually the most desirable process for making grant recommendations.
However,peer review works well with a substantive group of similar applicants; either in the same discipline
(music,visual arts etc.) or of a similar size. A critical mass of potential assessors is also necessary for a
successful peer review process.
Peer review is not likely to be effective in this context;with a limited number of large and varied
organizations in a relatively small community. It requires specific skills to design,manage and facilitate,and,
resources to implement. True peers,with direct experience managing large organizations,would need to be
brought in from beyond the region.
Conclusions
Peer assessment would require a large investment of resources and difficult to manage in the case of KW
with its three separate jurisdictions and pools of funds. Rather, staff need the tools and information to
communicate and collaborate with one another and with the organizations to responsibly manage funding.
Recommended Model-Coordinated Committee Review/Service Agreement
The proposed model for KW is a collaborative annual review process by the municipal funders of the four
key cultural institutions.86 Funding recommendations may be annual or multi-year,but the face-to-face
review process between each organization and the funders should occur annually. Funding would be
provided through a service agreement that establishes annual goals and accountability measures.
Annual cost-of-living increases could be considered as part of the annual review process. Organizational
funding should be benchmarked regularly,perhaps every five—six years, against sector trends. Funding
envelopes from each jurisdiction can be maintained separately,within the collaborative review process.
In the KW region,benefits of this model would include:
• A coordinated approach with staff from the Region and area municipalities. Each funder will have a
complete funding profile of the organization;
• Potential for testing as a pilot project,with no reduction to current grant levels;
86 Pending outcomes of its review process,CEI and/or GPC might be included in the assessment model,although not as key
institutions.
°E i/d ,,, ifs, , Pkw/AS f,e lI ,),/ i of rf
3 - 73
• Efficiency-implementation primarily encompasses staff time;
• Recognition of the inherent realities of large cultural organizations and of requirements municipalities
can have through granting processes;
• Improved accountabilities for public funding including
• opportunity for conditional or`tethered' funding based on performance,particularly financial
performance;
• coordinated accountability among all three fenders;
• coordinated communication with federal and provincial fenders;
• Ability to advance tailored objectives including
• municipal cultural development;
• health and vitality of shared municipal cultural facilities;
• other economic, social and core development goals;
• Direct representation of municipal and regional Council members;
• Leveraging of other processes through use of existing forms (i.e., of Canada Council and the OAC);
• Maintenance of multi-year funding while increasing accountability through an annual review;
• Dissuasion of individual and indiscriminate lobbying,rather,
o coordinated advocacy and representation that can be of greater benefit to the cultural sector;
• Promotion of partnerships
• among cultural organizations;and
• among fenders.
'e l h i e I`�,i c_ PC/1'A5 R /I ;l';! 60 o 6
3 - 74
The Proposed D in ro
A day of meetings would be held annually with representatives of organizations and a funder contingent
that would include a senior staff member from each jurisdiction. A seat or seats would remain open for a
councillor or councillors. If required,funders might also invite a subject-area expert for input.87 Each
organization should be represented by the Executive Director or CEO,the Artistic Director,the Board
Chair and other Board representation as well as a staff member who can respond to more detailed financial
questions. The funders should ensure that notes are taken.
Sufficiently in advance of the meeting,organizations submit an application package. To avoid duplication
and to leverage the tools of senior government funders88 this could include:
• The grant narrative portion of the Canada Council or OAC application (usually 10—20 pages);
• CADAC financial and statistical forms;
• A cover page (based on the OAC model) that requires explanations of budget variances greater than
10%;
• A copy of a deficit reduction plan if necessary(for accumulated deficits of greater than 15%);
• The latest annual report.
Advance preparation would include a meeting of funders to discuss each organization and determine
priority areas of questioning,which would be provided to the organizations. At the meeting,organizations
would be invited to make a short presentation,followed by questions and dialogue.
Funders subsequently meet to discuss outcomes,recommend changes to the service agreement or follow-up
action (such as tethered grant disbursements). Results of this discussion would be provided in a service
agreement review letter to the organization.89
In a grant award year,90 allocations would be determined at this meeting. The service agreement is a
commitment in principle for the organization to provide the mutually agreed upon senTices.91 These would
be based on the organizations'mandates and purposes but also may include a goal or goals that align with
municipal and regional objectives. Examples might include initiatives that foster diversity, community
partnerships, core development, cultural facilities,widening public funding support, or deficit reduction.
A sample application template is found in Appendix 6 which includes an outline of requirements and a brief
description of the proposed model. This would require further revision is a collaborative assessment
processes moves forward.
87 An external resource person might be invited in the first year of the process. In subsequent years,it is likely that the funders
would be comfortable in the process.
88 An adaptive set of forms should be found or developed for THEMUSEUM which to this point, has not yet accessed CCA or CAC
funding.
89 Subject to Council approvals where required.
90 In Edmonton,organizations on multi-year funding have requested the annual opportunity to provide funders with an update
on their activities.
91 The model does not encourage funder input on artistic programming decisions. Rather performance is measured against the
organization's success in achieving its goals. Funders can and should hold organizations accountable for this,and for achieving
them within a financially responsible framework.
PC/1'A5 Re',/I&,),/ 6:1, of rte;
3 - 75
Recommendations
#4 That the municipal funders establish a collaborative funding and assessment process
for the four key cultural institutions of Kitchener-Waterloo Symphony, Kitchener-
Waterloo Art Gallery, Canadian Clay and Glass Gallery and THEMUSEUM in the
form of a pilot program based on the recommended model in this report.
#5 That the Region of Waterloo, the City of Waterloo and the City of Kitchener
formalize a regular communication mechanism on arts and cultural funding in
the region. This mechanism could include all municipal funders
3 - 76