Coronavirus Response: Setting the frame (Podcast Transcript)

The full transcript of this podcast is published below.
Explore the full GIA podcast.

Sherylynn Sealy:
Welcome to a podcast by Grantmakers in the Arts, a national membership association of public and private arts and culture funders. I’m Sherylynn Sealy, GIS program manager. In this podcast, we’re providing insight on moving from response to recovery with a longterm lens. The philanthropic community came together to respond rapidly in a moment of hardship and great uncertainty. But as we begin to rebuild, what should funders keep at the forefront of their recovery strategies? How can funders be drivers toward a re-imagined and more equitable future for the sector? We’re glad to present this series of conversations with leaders in the field.

Joining us, we have Deana Haggag, president and CEO of United States Artists. Lauren Hainley, program manager of disaster services at Houston Arts Alliance. Tempestt Hazel, art program officer at Field Foundation, and Vu Le of Nonprofit AF. This is a combination of separate dialogues between the presenters and GIA, and we address how each presenter is designing their rapid response efforts. What kind of equity lens can be utilized for the greatest impact, and how to shift from short term response to longterm recovery. Thank you for joining us, Dina.

Deana Haggag:
Thank you for having me.

Sherylynn Sealy:
So what are some of the new rapid response practices that didn’t exist before COVID-19 and should continue during recovery?

Deana Haggag:
Yeah, so I think one thing I’m just really struck by as we understand the effects of COVID-19 as really deeply affecting individuals and their families is how important it is to think about being an unrestricted grantmaker. And I say that for two reasons. A, the organization I work with United States Artists since its founding has been an unrestricted grantmaker. And what that means is the grant we offer our fellows has no strings attached, never requires any reporting, and they can do anything they want with it. And I think for our founders, it was really important to trust artists in that way. And I think something my board reminds me all the time is that the needs of artists goes so far beyond financial, right? There are wellness needs, professional needs, societal needs. And we should really let artists determine for themselves how to use financial resources to meet their own needs.

Deana Haggag:
So I think generally, I’ve always been really proud to work at United States Artists for this reason, because I think to trust artists in such a deeply impactful ways is super important.

Deana Haggag:
When the pandemic hit and many grantmakers, specifically individual artist grantmakers were really actively thinking about relief efforts, it became clear how vital it was to be an unrestricted grantmaker, right? That we could offer artists fast grants, never need a report, let them decide how to spend it to take care of themselves in this very precarious time. And how little infrastructure there was to do that because most grantmakers are not structured that way. So I think right now, one thing I hope exists past this is that more grantmakers, if they are able, consider what it would take to become an unrestricted grantmaker. To not necessitate so much reporting from artists and to let them determine how to spend their own funds knowing that capitalism affects people very differently. And that they should be the ones driving their own recovery really with our resources in hand.

Sherylynn Sealy:
So yeah. So what United States Artists has been doing is not, as you said, it’s not just specific to COVID-19. This is your practice, this is your standard, which is incredible. And for folks who are concerned and thinking, “I see how successful it’s been with United States artists, but I’m still a little bit concerned. Especially with seeing this as a longterm strategy. We don’t have any reporting if we do it this way.” What advice or what would you say to those people who want to get a little bit more comfortable with the idea if they’ve never done anything like this before?

Deana Haggag:
Yeah, I think we need to investigate why. Why do we need to scrutinize the money that goes to individuals? What is the worst thing that can happen? And I think I say that because I think generally speaking in this country, one of my concerns is that the way we treat money is that the person who has it just has more power over the person who doesn’t. And whoever’s giving the money gets to dictate how that money is spent and used. And I think this has historically harmed artists, right? As they struggle to demonstrate projects and budgets to earn that money. Right? Or to earn the right to that money more specifically.

Deana Haggag:
But if we zoom out a little bit, I don’t think that’s just a problem for artists. I think it’s a problem in general for how we think about poor communities, working class communities who have someone constantly, subtly, and explicitly telling them this would be the best way to invest in yourself. And I don’t know why we do that. I don’t know why that’s needed. I mean, United States Artists has been around for going on 15 years. Our program has always been unrestricted and we have no failures to report. Artists do everything from take care of their rent and their families to making new operas and writing new books, to taking vacations. To having surgeries that they need, to making babies. I mean, I think all of those things are incredibly valid in how we think about the wellness of another person.

Deana Haggag:
So I think for the foundations that are worried, I understand the liability. I understand the anxiety about not having something to report. And I think instead the frame should be it’s a different thing to report. And it’s one that is more sustained by the lived experience of the exact people we’re trying to support. Unless by the metric we’ve determined in a power structure that is imbalanced, usually incredibly inequitable. And I think really increasingly archaic.

Deana Haggag:
At USA when we give people these grants, we find out from them how they’ve spent it. We don’t ask them overtly, but they tell us. And every time we share that with funders, they seem proud and excited. They seem excited by those stories. And I think it informs for them how people are living across the country in various circumstances. And yeah, I think this is a concern this crisis maybe can help us let go of. That we need to scrutinize how people without money spend their money, and instead trust that every part of the country is different, that every community is different and that what they need should be at their disposal. And instead, it’s our job to ensure that they have a fighting chance of meeting their needs, not dictating what their needs should be. And I think we can get there.

Sherylynn Sealy:
Yeah, I’m hopeful. So then in terms of practices that need to change as we move from response to recovery, we’re in this space sort of right now getting there. And then if we think about longterm investment in artists to live sustainable lives as well as revitalizing underestimated communities, what are your thoughts on that? And I know you sort of alluded to it previously, but if you want to expand a little bit more.

Deana Haggag:
Yeah. So I’m in a few different places here. Yes. I will die on this hill that we need to really think about unrestricted funding for individuals. I will die on it, I promise. But I think beyond that, beyond what it takes to fund and trust individuals and to not treat money like the ultimate and only power mechanism here. The only knowledge base. I think other things I’m thinking about that I want to mark that I don’t have an answer to. I only have questions, is what does it mean to run a fellowship that exists on the back of a meritocracy at a moment when we know that people have urgent financial needs? What does it mean to run selection processes that are inevitably subjective in a moment where it becomes objectively clear what people need to survive? So I think I just have questions about how to support artists outside of the frame of awards, fellowships, etc. Is there a better way?

Deana Haggag:
And I don’t know, but I know that that question is heavy on my mind and many of my colleagues. If we have this resource, this pot of money that we are entrusted to distribute to artists across the country and across disciplines, is there a better way to think about that challenge? Is there a better way to ensure that it is distributed equitably without asking artists to compete in this way, or asking jurors to make these difficult decisions? I don’t know. But I think many of us feel like we won’t be able go back to business as usual post-COVID and that we need to interrogate some of our systems of how we find artists and who are those artists that we find. And then how are we supporting them.

Deana Haggag:
I also want to say that the other thing that feels complicated to me is that on one hand we offer people money, which is always helpful and always necessary. But we also offer them a platform and an opportunity to be seen and heard across our various organizations. Oftentimes because I think a lot of us feel like we’re trying to correct a cannon, right? We’re trying to uphold voices that maybe have been left out or missed out of how we think about a cultural landscape. So I also know that some of the work we do is really important. And it’s not about the money, it’s just about identifying for you that these are X number of artists that we all need to be paying attention to right now. So I think we’re all just struggling with how complicated some of this feels. And I think COVID is encouraging us to break the fourth wall on some of those conversations to admit our vulnerabilities, to say we don’t know. And to then really work together to find a new horizon line over the next three, six, 18, 24 months. However long it takes to feel like we’re on the other side of this thing.

Sherylynn Sealy:
Yes. Thank you. So ALAANA arts organizations have statistically lower budget sizes and staff sizes. So how can these organizations sustain themselves and this ecosystem, and is merging an option? What are your thoughts on merging?

Deana Haggag:
Yeah. Okay. So yeah, I think merging is definitely an option. But I want to flag here that I think it’s an option for everybody. I think it’s an option for everybody. And I think for many of us, it’ll be an inevitability, right? As we think about how the cultural sector writ large survives in any way past the sort of impact of the pandemic.

Deana Haggag:
So for ALAANA orgs, merging is an option. And I think it will be inevitable for art schools, museums, large nonprofits, midsize nonprofits. I mean all of us will have to really reckon with this. But in the meantime, I think what can ALAANA organizations do? Seems a little few to me because I think ALAANA organizations are doing what they’ve always been doing, which is working with our constituencies in a way that they only know how, right? Because they have the trust built to those communities. So for this question, I think it’s less like what can ALAANA orgs do, and more what can philanthropy and the government, and all these other power brokers do to help ALAANA organizations, right? What are the new vernaculars we all need to learn to best support these communities so that they can also have their needs met?

Deana Haggag:
And I think one thing I’m just really struck by is I think that, and I experience this both as a grantmaker and then also as someone who is in the nonprofit position of raising funds. That we contort ourselves to appease our funders, right? Especially small vulnerable nonprofits. The acrobatics it takes to keep up with their funders are really extreme. I think everyone is a little intimidated by their funder. I think everyone really doesn’t want to lose the funder, right? So they do things that aren’t always native or in their natural vernacular. And I wonder if there is an opportunity moving forward to shift that.

Deana Haggag:
And instead of asking these organizations to do so much to match the needs of the foundation or the donor, that we reverse it and see are there ways that the foundations can meet the organization where it is? And maybe more importantly to admit that in the case of investing in ALAANA organizations, I really don’t think the money is the most important thing on the table. I think it’s the lived experience and knowledge of those organizations. And perhaps, is there a paradigm where we shift that the donor or the funder, we are the ones that are lucky to be in conversation with these orgs, and not that they are fortunate to have a fund or invest in them? Because what it will take to support those communities over the next few years is no small task. And we have at our disposal an entire workforce that’s ready to meet that challenge. But it has to be led by them and for them. And that also means lightening up how philanthropy interfaces with these orgs.

Deana Haggag:
And I think that’s something I’m also questioning both that United States Artists in my role as a funder, and then also at Artist Relief in that role as a funder also. Where we can’t do certain work and where we have to trust our colleagues is again, lived experienced and knowledge there. And giving them money and just honestly staying out of their way. And I think many of those orgs are not surprised by where we are. They’re not reeling, right? They’ve been able to get stuff done under some of the worst circumstances with no support, no infrastructure, no leadership. So I actually think if anyone’s going to help us get to recovery, it’s those organizations. It’s not us, you know?

Sherylynn Sealy:
Yeah. So then with the COVID-19 response, you can see who’s able to continue living there. And I’m air quoting the word normal lives, and who cannot. How can advocacy efforts be changed to ensure a better situation for artists who don’t receive these benefits?

Deana Haggag:
Yeah, so a few things. I do think it’s such a glorious day to really think about how we advocate for artists. The first thing from my vantage point is that we have to evolve past constantly making an economic case for the arts, right? So I don’t think we can only talk about what artists contribute to the economy. I think that that is one puzzle piece, but I don’t think it’s the full picture. I think for today’s crisis, we really need to consider artists as a labor force, right? It’s not an economic issue. It’s a labor issue, right? It’s that there are millions of people that consider themselves artists and are gig workers in this way. And how do we advocate on their behalf as a labor force?

Deana Haggag:
I think to do that, we really need to look at other labor forces that have been able to advocate relatively successfully. Like the restaurant industry, the transportation industry, the Domestic Workers Alliance. I think those are groups that feel akin to how we think about this. So I think to advocate A, it’s naming artists as a labor force, not just an economic engine.

Deana Haggag:
The next is is finding parallels between other industries that are structured similarly. And then I think the last thing that we need to do is dismantle finally this notion that artists are removed from their communities or exceptional in some way. Right? When we were starting Artist Relief, even members of my own family were like, “Why are we fighting for artists right now? People are struggling. They can’t find anything to eat. Workers are struggling.” And I’m like, “Those are also artists.” Even artists who make money on their practice are struggling, artists that make money in their practices, but then also in other means such as being restaurant workers, nonprofit administrators, teachers were also struggling. And then lastly, artists who don’t make any income from their work and most of their income, if not all, is derived from other sources. Like again, driving an Uber or being a nanny, etc. This idea that artists are not part of society and affected by how the economy tanks in the exact same way. I think there’s also an advocacy messaging opportunity to dismantle that. So I think many gig workers, they don’t have access to resources and benefits that would go a long way right now as work is sort of coming to a halt for many, many, many communities and families. And I think to get them those rights, we need to position them as workers.

Deana Haggag:
And then in general, I think the U.S. is primed to have a revolution in this way. Think about workers and their rights, and to make sure that artists are not left out of that conversation. But I think we’re going to need to build alliances and collaborations with industries that are not ours to drive that point home that so many Americans now work in a gig economy. And that when the market crashes, we need to think about that group. A, we just need to think about that group. But then B, we also need to think about them a little differently than the way we consider full time or part time workers that are eligible for unemployment benefits. I don’t think the solution is to lump everybody together. I think we need to think about them in different ways.

Sherylynn Sealy:
Yeah. Well I mean, I think shifting the thinking is going to be one of the harder things for a lot of folks as we go through this process. But I’m glad that you brought it up and were so thoughtful about that and all of your responses on this podcast. So thank you for joining us today, Deana.

Deana Haggag:
Yes, thank you for having me.

Sherylynn Sealy:
Stay safe and stay healthy.

Deana Haggag:
You too.

Sherylynn Sealy:
Thank you.

Sherylynn Sealy:
Thank you for joining us Lauren.

Lauren Hainley:
Thank you for having me.

Sherylynn Sealy:
So for our first question, what are some of the new rapid response practices that didn’t exist before COVID-19 and should continue during recovery?

Lauren Hainley:
So I think one of the best things that we’ve seen since COVID-19 has happened is the amount of collaboration that I’ve been seeing across sectors, within sectors. Art service organizations, funders. And we’re all working together to figure out how we can not duplicate services and how we can better serve our communities as one unit instead of individual units.

Lauren Hainley:
Another thing we need to think about is how we can continue to advocate for the things that we need as an industry, and as individuals, and as organizations. How do we fix the systemic inequalities that exist that led to the problems that we have today? Artists aren’t struggling just because of COVID-19. Artists are struggling because they work in a gig economy based on the way that the economy is structured, and they don’t have insurance because of that. So how can we as funders and as advocates and as people with power, work to change those systemic inequalities so that next time it’s not as hard on our workers and on our organizations?

Lauren Hainley:
Now is the time to advocate to set a precedent for where the arts belong and how the arts are included. Because we have to pull the roots out with the flour. You can’t just can’t just clip off the dandelions. You got to pull the roots out to.

Sherylynn Sealy:
Yes. And I love that analogy, especially coming from a family of lots of gardeners. Make a lot of sense to me. So I appreciate that. For our second question, what are some of the practices that need to change when moving from rapid response to recovery? If we’re thinking about longterm investment in artists to live sustainable lives, as well as thinking about revitalizing underestimated communities.

Lauren Hainley:
Sure. I mean, I think one of the first things we need to continue to remind ourselves of is that the arts are not the only industry that’s been devastated by COVID-19 and by social distancing and quarantine. In Houston, we have also seen an oil downturn. Which what we’re seeing in our organizations is that not only have arts organizations lost all earned income, but they’re also seeing a sharp decline in contributed income. And while it may be sharper here in Houston, I know that is a trend that we will continue to see across the nation as people economically recover from this.

Lauren Hainley:
So we as funders need to think about how we can change the way that we structure grants. In the past, we may have focused on project grants. Maybe we need to move to more unrestricted grants. If we have set percentage limits on unrestricted grants, maybe we need to up those percentages for a year or two to understand that in order to create financial security and financial stability for the people that we serve, we may need to take more of the burden because they will be looking on us as reliable streams of funding harder than they have in the past. So I think that’s the first thing we need to do is really look at it from a numbers perspective.

Lauren Hainley:
The second thing we need to do is, you talk about response, recovery, and re-imagining. I do a lot of work with emergency managers and in the disaster recovery system. And what we say is response, recovery, and mitigation. And mitigation means what do you do now to make it not so bad next time? So it’s what you do after you’re finished responding and after everything is better. Call those blue sky days. Right now we’re in gray sky days. Blue sky days are when you can sort of step back and think, “Okay, what am I going to do to make this better?”

Lauren Hainley:
And we as funders and as service organizations need to think about how could we support that mitigation work. What I do in Houston is I connect the arts organizations to those disaster services and to those emergency managers. Another saying for emergency management is people don’t exchange business cards in a disaster, right? So you have to build those relationships when there isn’t something happening. So how can we support organizations in those efforts? Because what you see is that those sorts of programs don’t get funded when there isn’t a disaster happening in that exact moment?

Lauren Hainley:
So if we’re going to talk about re-imagining, we have to think about it like mitigation in that it’s not just while the disaster is happening. It’s a longterm thing that takes years and that we have to support.

Sherylynn Sealy:
Right. And I appreciate that emphasis on longterm because this work is continuous. It’s not just in the midst of COVID-19 or just in the midst of whatever said crisis. So thanks for raising that. And our next question looks at ALAANA arts organizations. So ALAANA arts organizations have statistically lower budget sizes and staff sizes. So how can these organizations sustain themselves in this ecosystem? Is merging an option, or what are your thoughts on that?

Lauren Hainley:
So my first question is because why are we asking ALAANA organizations to merge when there are plenty of other small organizations that are not ALAANA? Why are we not also asking of them the same thing? Why are we asking of our ALAANA organizations something different than we would ask of everyone else?

Lauren Hainley:
And then my second question is we lump the world into two categories, right? There’s ALAANA and there’s white people, but everybody in the ALAANA category doesn’t need the same things. Black communities need something different than Latin X communities, need something different than Chinese communities, need something different than Taiwanese communities, right? We can’t lump them all into one place. So what we need to be doing is listening to them and asking them what they need. And really focusing on hearing what their needs are instead of deciding for them what their needs are.

Lauren Hainley:
I think there’s been some really great conversations in some the meetings that I’ve been in about people saying, “I’m listening to my funders for the first time.” And that should be a practice that we are doing again in blue sky and gray sky days.

Lauren Hainley:
The other thing is that we collectively need to figure out how to get information to black and brown communities. Historically and currently the best way to learn things and the best way to get information out is word of mouth. And if what we’re relying on is emails and posting information on websites and social media, then we’re not going to meet those communities where they are and we’re not going to be getting information out to them. So we have to look beyond the internet. We have to get out there, boots on the ground, build relationships with community leaders, build trust within those ALAANA communities. And learn what they need so that we can provide it to them.

Lauren Hainley:
I think that it’s egocentric of us as funders to think that we know what they need. And the best way for us to really know is to ask. Right? That’s what we’re not doing. So we have to remember that when we go into communities and to take things slow, and to let them lead.

Sherylynn Sealy:
Great. Thank you for that. So I have one final question for you. With the COVID-19 response, we can see who is able to continue living their normal lives. And I have air quotes even though folks can only hear my voice right now. But normal lives, and who cannot. So how can advocacy efforts be changed in order to ensure a better situation for artists who don’t receive these benefits? You kind of alluded to it earlier in our conversation, but would love to hear more about what you’re thinking.

Lauren Hainley:
So my answer to this is two fold. The first part is do we know? do we honestly who is able to return to their normal lives and who isn’t? When you look into the data, the people who are responding to surveys and the people who we are getting data from are white or middle class people. So are we really getting out there and talking to people who are embedded in low income communities, and asking them who really needs help? So do we know who’s able to continue their real lives?

Lauren Hainley:
I’m sitting here in my home office, ready to get out into the sunshine. But what a lot of people don’t realize when we talk about what’s happening in COVID-19 is that there are kids who can’t do their schoolwork because they don’t have the internet. And we don’t have access to those communities and we don’t have data about those communities.

Lauren Hainley:
So I think we need to tell ourselves and ask ourselves, do we really know who’s able to live their lives and who’s not? Do we have real numbers about that? And how can we get real numbers?

Lauren Hainley:
To answer the second part of your question, when it comes to advocacy, we as artists and arts organizations have perpetuated this myth that we exist outside of society. We’re different, we’re special. And what we need to do is advocate for ourselves as an important part of society, and as integral to society. So we need to find spaces where the arts are not historically invited. And we need to sit down at the table, and we need to push into those spaces and say, “We need money too How can we help you? We understand that there are bigger problems. We don’t want to be your biggest focus, but please talk to us, right?” We need to be part of these larger conversations about what makes a resilient community and what makes society what it is. They are not going to invite us to the table. We have to invite ourselves.

Lauren Hainley:
And then the last thing that I’m seeing in COVID-19 is that we are talking more about artists than we ever have before. We’re talking about individuals and their basic needs more than we ever have before.

Lauren Hainley:
In Houston, we have had to change the narrative so that when we say we’re funding artists, we’re telling them we’re not funding them to make art, that’s not what we’re asking for. We’re asking for money because artists are people, and they need to eat, and they need to pay rent, and their children are hungry. So we need to support them in those efforts. So I really, really hope that if nothing else comes out of COVID-19, that we at least don’t forget that while we have a huge nonprofit arts industry, that that industry is made up of individual workers. And each of those workers is a person with a family who has basic needs. And I really, really hope that we don’t stop talking about artists.

Sherylynn Sealy:
Awesome. Well, thank you so much for joining us today, Lauren. And I hope you’re staying safe and healthy.

Lauren Hainley:
Thank you so much.

Sherylynn Sealy:
Thank you for joining us, Tempestt.

Tempestt Hazel:
Thank you for having me.

Sherylynn Sealy:
So for our first question, what are some of the new rapid response practices that didn’t exist before COVID-19 and should continue during recovery?

Tempestt Hazel:
That’s a really great question. So I’m not quite sure if some of these things have been used in other circumstances, but currently we’re seeing a lot of things across the board and certainly in Chicago. So things like foundations loosening their reporting deadlines or moving funds from restricted or project based funds to being unrestricted just so that organizations can be more flexible and use them towards needs that they have right now.

Tempestt Hazel:
But we’re also seeing one of the things that I’ve seen other foundations do and that Field has done recently is thinking about ways to get money out more quickly. So in addition to having the option of receiving a check for funds, having the option to get the money routed, directly routed and having wire transfers to banks has an option.

Tempestt Hazel:
But additionally, something that I think has happened in a lot of other ways, the ways that foundations have been collaborating has been really amazing right now. And being able to see some combining efforts, not just with other foundations. But thinking about how to collaborate with individuals, with city entities, state entities, corporations. Being able to tap into individuals who are interested in being able to support these big efforts. That has been pretty incredible to see everyone pulling together toward one cause.

Tempestt Hazel:
And one of those examples in Chicago has been the Arts for Illinois Relief Fund, which is a collaborative between the state, the city of Chicago, also Arts Alliance Illinois. 3Arts, the Arts Work Fund, the Department of Cultural Affairs and Special Events coming together to make this collaborative fund. And that has been really pretty amazing to see.

Tempestt Hazel:
But then also another thing that we’ve been seeing and what’s demonstrated through this fund I think is being able to fund individual artists, and being able to support them directly. There are a lot of organizations in Chicago that already do that, but then there are a lot of foundations that don’t. We just recently, last year started the Leaders for a New Chicago in collaboration with the MacArthur Foundation. But it’s not something that’s typical. But we’re seeing now how being able to get support directly to individuals so that they can take care of themselves and their families and pay rent and pay for their own basic needs. It’s huge. So being part of that process has been really illuminating and has demonstrated a lot of the different things that have been happening that didn’t exist in quite this way before.

Sherylynn Sealy:
Yeah. So for folks who are doing more unrestricted giving and interest free loans or loosening deadlines, what makes this so simple to do? Are there costs involved with considering that a longterm strategy?

Tempestt Hazel:
Yeah. I think really what makes it so simple to do right now that’s different than it has been in the past is a lot of these things as far as the foundations are concerned are decisions of boards. So it becomes more simple because the boards are responding to the circumstances in a different way. With Field, it’s kind of interesting for us because before all of this happened, we focused on black and indigenous POC communities and organizations that are led and run by folks from those communities and are serving those communities. And we have operated and turned our direction in a way to really lean into the needs of those communities. And arguably, those communities have been in crisis for a very long time. So it’s not a matter of this circumstance. And when we think about recovery and rapid response, there are a lot of ways in which recovery means we’re getting back to somewhere. But in a lot of cases, there are communities that were in recovery and crisis mode before this all began.

Tempestt Hazel:
So right now, we’re feeling it in a very different way. And it feels like very much in your face and it’s being felt very deeply, and very urgently by a lot of folks. And that includes foundation board. So where there was kind of an understanding that there’s this underlying crisis and urgency within communities before all this happened, it didn’t have the same kind of sense of urgency that was driving these big changes and these ways in which foundations are trying to be flexible and nimble in response to this moment and act fast.

Sherylynn Sealy:
And then in the spirit of that, what are some of the practices that need to change when moving from rapid response to recovery? If we’re thinking about longterm investment in artists to live sustainable lives, as well as thinking about revitalizing underestimated communities.

Tempestt Hazel:
So I’ve been grappling a bit with the terminology of thinking about recovery and relief. And the rapid response to release part or the phase that I kind of think that we’re in now and what that transition into recovery looks like, to me it’s a little bit messy. The relief piece I think is going to last much longer than how we tend to talk about it. I’ve been having a lot of conversations about these different phases and when we’ll get to a different phase, and what the recovery period looks like.

Tempestt Hazel:
But the relief period, we’re in a moment when to go back to the Arts for Illinois Relief Fund, the individual artists portion of that received over 7,000 applications from artists across Illinois. And today, this fund only currently can support about 10% of those. So there’s a mighty team of people that are fundraising to get support for this fund to be able to give more. But the truth of the matter is that this is the case. This kind of being inundated with overwhelming need is happening to a lot of programs and relief efforts across the country. So I think the relief piece is still at its beginning. We’re still seeing that people are applying for these paycheck protection program loans or these small business loans and getting denied in the first round. Or not receiving funds and now having to turn to plan B, C, D, E, and F. So it feels like recovery is a long way’s away. And I think we have to be careful with how we use and how we define the terms relief or recovery and that we put it into context and understand that some folks are going to recover more easily than others. I think it’s really important.

Tempestt Hazel:
But back to the questions, so some of the practices need to change. A lot of the folks listening are ones who have been thinking about these things and doing these things in various ways already. But I mean, it’s worth repeating.

Tempestt Hazel:
But I think first and foremost, racial equity and other kinds of equity need to be at the forefront. So racial equity, LGBTQIA equity, disability. Thinking about all of these things, making sure that those voices are centered and that those voices are not just the part of the conversation, but architects of the conversation and what happens needs to be first and foremost. Because that is a thread that needs to find its way into any kind of change in practices that we hope to make moving forward. And into the re-imagining phase, it needs to start with those folks.

Tempestt Hazel:
I think some of the things that were discussed earlier, making money move faster. One of my biggest challenges, even with Field. Our grant making process is a four month long process from LOI to board meeting to checks being cut. That’s a long time. As we see now, a lot happens in four months. A lot happens in four weeks. So that is one thing that I think we need to think about more of having more options.

Tempestt Hazel:
And this is for foundations, but this is also for nonprofits I would say in thinking about how they pay artists or how they pay their contract workers and the different artists that they work with. It can’t take that long, it could be faster.

Tempestt Hazel:
So then the other thing I would say is broadening our definitions of arts and also arts organizations, and understanding how the arts intersect with other groups. And there’s a way in which there are a lot of organizations, one of Field’s focuses while we have some of the kind of more traditional presenting organizations that focus strictly on dance, on visual arts, on theater, on film. We definitely have those, and most of which are ALAANA led, POC led.

Tempestt Hazel:
We also need to realize that there are a lot of arts organizations and when you think about racial equity and when you put that into your mission and make decided effort to have that inform your practices and your grant making, you also to realize that a lot of the ways in which your grantmaking previously was designed, whether it’s the processes or the structures. Or even the application forms or how you do outreach or how you formulate the questions, all of that was geared toward a different kind of grant seeking organization. And when you really intentionally turn toward ALAANA communities, it means that you need to interrogate all of that. And that includes how you define what art is and what an arts organization is. And for a lot of what that has meant for Field is that, which it’s been a little bit easier for field because Field has a history of working deeply in the realm of justice and also in arts and culture.

Tempestt Hazel:
A lot of the organizations within my portfolio do so much more than art. They’re also community kitchens. They also do different kinds of healthcare. They also do counseling. They also do restorative justice work. They’re also feeding people. They’re community hubs. They’re not just arts organizations. So being able to expand how we understand what arts organizations are and what they do, I think is important so that we don’t get in our own way and prevent ourselves from funding an organization just because they don’t read in the same way that perhaps an organization that focuses strictly on creative production and presentation does.

Tempestt Hazel:
And then finally, I would say funding other types of entities. So a lot of the work that I’ve been doing at Field has been that. It’s been learning first and foremost about what these organizations are doing. And then responding to that. So a lot of these organizations are for profit businesses. They’re LLCs, they’re worker owned cooperatives, they’re L3C’s. They’re not just nonprofits. Or, they decidedly don’t want to be nonprofits, but they are still doing very, very important work. So how do you figure out ways to support their work and also honor the fact that they don’t want to put themselves in a position to be vulnerable? For a lot of operations and a lot of arts organizations, and I use that term informally, arts organizations. Don’t want to become nonprofits because they don’t want the burden of what it means to become a nonprofit. And they don’t want to lose their flexibility and nimbleness by becoming a nonprofit. So how do we not push them to formalize into something that we’re more comfortable with as a foundation, and really lean into what it is that they’re doing and honor their decisions and the fact that they know what’s best for them.

Sherylynn Sealy:
Yeah, I think you’re making really great points. And I actually want to go back to one of the points you made about ALAANA arts organizations and just kind of in our next question, would love to hear you expand on that. So ALAANA arts organizations have statistically lower budget sizes and staff sizes. So how can these organizations sustain themselves in this ecosystem? And what are your thoughts on merging?

Tempestt Hazel:
So to the emerging question. First and foremost, I want to say it I think it’s definitely a viable option for some. And there’ve been some really successful examples of that, that have happened in Chicago. But I’m always hesitant to, at least from the funder perspective, throw out the idea of a merger. And the reason for that is because first of all, that to me is a sensitive kind of thing to bring up within ALAANA communities and with ALAANA organization. Because that’s assuming that they’re mission aligned. A lot of these organizations, even though they’re doing very similar work. And even though some of them often collaborate with each other, a merger would actually completely shift or force them to give up a part of themselves that they shouldn’t have to give up. So I’m always hesitant to talk about mergers unless it comes from the organization themselves.

Tempestt Hazel:
The visuals, or whether it’s them getting together collectively and informally to do something. The work will continue. The way that it looks or what it’s called, or the umbrella under which it happens might change. But it’ll still be there.

Tempestt Hazel:
The last point I’ll make on this question is as foundations, there’s this desire to want to invest in things that are assured that things that we know will last. Will stand the test of time, are stable, and all of these different things. But the truth of the matter is that a lot of times, communities don’t operate that way. Some things are static in our firm and are constant. But a lot of things change and you have to be responsive. And organizations are the same way. It’s a hard thing to require that an organization be able to think about longevity and to be looking towards this kind of longevity when they’re really thinking on the ground in response to the current moment. And if any moment is really kind of a testament to that, it’s this one to show how fragile things actually are and the folks who are able to at a moment’s notice when things change drastically in a second. It’s these organizations that are just nimble in that way. They’re ready for things to change because things have constantly been changing for them for a long time.

Sherylynn Sealy:
Yeah. And that actually is a great segue into our next question about what we’re seeing as a result of the COVID-19 response specifically. So we can see who’s able to continue living their ‘normal’ lives and who can not. So how can advocacy efforts be changed to ensure a better situation for artists who don’t receive these benefits or luxuries?

Tempestt Hazel:
Yeah. So that’s a really interesting question and I think it’s an important one. It’s a hard one to answer right now. But I think we’re still learning in a lot of ways what policies are kind of ripe for pushing at this moment, and will be in the near future. And many of them to me are areas where people have already been pushing for a long time. So I’m fortunate at Field to be able to work very closely with my colleagues in other program areas, specifically Angelica Chavez who’s Field justice program officer. And being able to see some of the work that happens with the organizations that are in her portfolio has been super interesting because a lot of that work intersects directly with the arts sector. Even if it’s not directly explicitly naming the arts.

Tempestt Hazel:
So I think about things like different groups that are organizing around worker and labor rights right now. Around public safety, around housing. So many other things that are coming up right now that are super important around healthcare. All of these things are things that have implications on artists. So by pushing for these things that are impacting society in general, it’s directly going to impact and benefit artists.

Tempestt Hazel:
As far as the policies that are arts specific and specific to the arts sector, I think that’s still revealing itself there. There are groups, I know for a fact that here, Arts Alliance Illinois has been thinking really hard and keeping an eye out for what their policy agenda will be and how it will continue to develop as this goes on. But I do think that part of it is a push for the things that are bubbling up in general. But then there’s still so much room for things in the arts to be pushed and for there to be policy and advocacy around things that are specific to the arts sector.

Tempestt Hazel:
But then two, that question too, I think messaging is an important thing to consider as well. Because one thing that we’re not necessarily the best at doing is being able to get the general public to understand that the arts are essential and that they intersect with so many other parts of our lives. So being able to be very flexible with our messaging and realize that there are different ways to tell one story, and just making sure that we’re able to have the language there to be able to pivot, to get people to understand that artists are workers. That arts organizations are small businesses. That all of these things very much so intersect.

Sherylynn Sealy:
Absolutely. So I do want to extend another thank you Tempestt. Thank you so much for joining us.

Tempestt Hazel:
Thank you.

Sherylynn Sealy:
So thank you for joining us Vu.

Vu Le:
Thank you for having me.

Sherylynn Sealy:
Yeah. So we will dive into our first question. So what are some of the new rapid response practices that didn’t exist before COVID-19 and should continue during recovery?

Vu Le:
I just saw a pledge of 600 foundations or so signing this pledge promising that they will provide general operating funds or de-restrict some of their restricted grants. And being more flexible in terms of deadlines and reports, and giving out funds faster. I think that’s really great. And at the same time, these things have been done. These are not new practices. These have been out there for a long time. It’s just that many foundations just refuse to use them, despite many of us in the sector calling for that, for these practices over and over again. The argument of general operating funds has been around for decades. And it’s actually been the progressive foundations, the foundations that have been leaning progressive that have been resistant. And conservative foundations have been the opposite. They have been very focused on these practices over the last three or four decades, as documented by the Sally Covington report that came out about I think 25 years ago where there is a clear difference between conservative funders and progressive funders. Conservative funders are just more relaxed. They give general operating funds, they give more funding over multiple years. They are much more flexible with their timelines and outcomes. And progressive foundations have been the complete opposite.

Vu Le:
And it’s been very frustrating to see that. And now people are being lifted up. I’m actually really kind of frustrated that we are praising foundations who are saying things like, “Because of COVID-19, we are making our restricted grant general operating funds. So you can just use it to do whatever you think is necessary for your community.” And everyone’s like, “Yay, that’s amazing.” But I think that’s like praising someone who just said that they are going to stop smoking in the forest. We’re like, “Yay, you promise to stop smoking in the forest. Why were you smoking in the forest in the first place?!” We don’t have time for this anymore. So I really hope funders understand this these are not innovative practices. These are not new, these are not special or unique or whatever. They’re just effective practices that you have just refused to use, and now you need to forever.

Sherylynn Sealy:
Yes. Yeah. And I’m glad to see it happening, and hoping that it does continue forever as well. So moving on to our second question. What are some of the practices that need to change when moving from rapid response to recovery? If we’re thinking about longterm investments and artists to live sustainable lives, as well as thinking about revitalizing underestimated communities.

Vu Le:
Well, I think all those practices that we talked about, the pledge is only for 2020. It just needs to continue on forever. We can never go to these archaic practices again. Some of them are very, they’re old fashioned, they are inequitable. So I just really hope that we don’t have to talk about them ever again for the rest of time. Because we don’t have time for it. Because we have more important things to talk about.

Vu Le:
For example, we have so many systemic issues. Why don’t we have a paid leave? Why don’t we have more safety nets? Especially as our society transitions into gig workers and we have so many artists who are gig workers, who are contractors, who are consultants or whatever. Speakers, writers who don’t have full time jobs. So that means that they don’t have all of these safety nets.

Vu Le:
So we need to get philanthropy and everyone to be on the same page regarding changing systems. I wrote this week about how we keep responding to all these fires that are being set. We try to put them out, and then we try to have conferences about how these fires are disproportionately burning and hurting ALAANA communities. And yet we don’t stop to think about, well who is setting all these fires and how do we stop them? How do we work together to stop these fires from being started in the first place?

Vu Le:
So I think that that is more important for us to get there, but we can’t do that if we are not willing to have these uncomfortable conversations about race and systemic injustice. About colonization, and reparation, and slavery and all of these things that no one wants to talk about at all.

Vu Le:
So I’m really hoping that society and foundations will start to have the uncomfortable conversations and start moving forwards in terms of advocacy, lobbying, and allowing nonprofits to do this work more effectively.

Sherylynn Sealy:
Yeah.

Vu Le:
So it’s like look at the payout rates. It’s been 5% for so long. And people are wondering why is it a 5% minimum payout rate. That should be a minimum, but it’s become a maximum. And it even counts foundations’ operating expenses. We have all these fires and foundations of a giant tank of water. And they go, “Well, we’re only going to give out 5% of this water to put out these fires because we’re saving up the 95% for future fires.” Well the future fires are caused by the current fires that we don’t put out.

Vu Le:
And if we think about this, this is why we have a huge problem with the environment. We have 10 years left before climate change is irreversible. So what is the point? All these environmental organizations, they should all be spend down. Because in the next 10 years if we don’t reverse these challenges, then they’re permanent. We can never recover what we have in terms of the earth ever again. So it’s ridiculous to try to save for the future when there might not be a future.

Vu Le:
Right now we have, you know this, but there are lots of arts organizations, theaters that are probably never going to open again after this. And meanwhile, we have arts foundations who are just like, “Yeah, we’re just going to save up for the future arts organizations and the challenges they’re going,” there won’t be many of these organizations in the future. So now is the time to release three or five times more what you have been releasing, right? Like 10, 20, 30% of your endowment needs to be released right now.

Sherylynn Sealy:
Yeah. No, and I think that kind of goes to when we were talking earlier about it doesn’t really hit people unless it’s impacting them directly. So yeah. Do you have any thoughts on that before we go onto our next question?

Vu Le:
Yeah. I mean, I’m glad that funders are feeling there’s an urgency here. But there’s always been an urgency. Because of systemic racism and injustice, all of these issues we’ve always had them. It’s just that right now because it affects everyone. Funders, I think in the past have just been able to be in their bubbles and just feel like, “Yeah. We understand that Flint doesn’t have clean water. We understand that people of color are dying disproportionately. We understand that criminal justice system is terribly racist. We understand homelessness is also disproportionately affecting people of color, people with disability, etc.” But because people just didn’t really feel this.

Vu Le:
And now they do, they feel because any one of their family members, they themselves may die from this pandemic. Now they’re like, “Oh wow. Yeah, we need to do something.” When the reality is it’s always been a crisis for our communities. Always for decades. And we have to understand that that lesson right now, that it’s always urgent. And we have to do something for this, and we’ve got to change the systems because otherwise we’re going to learn the wrong lessons from this. And we think that we’re going to be okay if we stabilize and recover from this pandemic. When the reality is even after the pandemic, just like before, it’s always been a system of inequity, and injustice, and racism. And that’s what we have to focus on changing. Otherwise, these problems will keep happening over and over again and then they will continue to be ignored later on.

Sherylynn Sealy:
Yeah, and I think it’s also very interesting that with the new funding practices that we’re seeing as a result of COVID-19, those same funding practices are considered radical. I was having conversations with folks two months ago before COVID-19 became an pandemic really. And they were talking to us about what they’re doing that we and they consider to be radical. And the things that we’re talking about now that people are doing to change their funding, those are the exact things that, it baffles me. But I’m glad that you’ve raised that. We can’t go back to the same things. Having strategies that involve unrestricted funding, changing deadlines, more GOS, sharing more than 5%. That was needed long before right now, long before COVID-19. Now is the best time, not tomorrow or another decade from now. So with that said, I’ll transition us to our final question.

Sherylynn Sealy:
ALAANA organizations have statistically lower budget sizes and staff sizes. So how can these organizations sustain themselves in this ecosystem? And is merging an option?

Vu Le:
ALAANA organizations have always been disproportionately underfunded. Less than 10% of funding has been going into communities of color over decades now. And it’s never been over 10% over the last two or three decades, ever. So that’s why they have lower budgets and everything, even though they’re doing some of the most critical work in our communities. We have so many people of color. Black, indigenous people of color out there that are being served. And we’re not providing enough funding to these communities who are most affected by injustice.

Vu Le:
So I get really frustrated by this sort of putting on the responsibilities on communities that are most affected by injustice to sustain themselves. I think it’s completely inequitable. It’s like asking poor families, “Hey poor families, we know that you’re suffering and you’re poor. So what can you do during this moment? Maybe you should eat more beans. Maybe you should release one of your children into the wilderness.” Whatever, this is ridiculous. Because of systemic injustice, these communities have been under-resourced. So the solution is to resource them more than we have been in the past. Not expect them to carry the burden of sustaining themselves. So now all of these, I get really irritated by questions like, “Well, maybe they should think about earned income. Maybe they should think about mergers.” Well, look at all the arts organizations. Foundations have told them over years and years that they need to do earned income that needs to be sustainable and diversify their funding. So they have been selling tickets and shows and all this stuff, and now they’re hurting because of their earned revenues. Because they were doing the responsible thing that foundations were asking them to do.

Vu Le:
So it’s absolutely ridiculous to ask them to do even more during this moment. And it’s the same with communities of color. We have been doing everything that we could. We have been over-performing with very limited dollars. We perform five times more effectively per dollar than most organizations. And yet it’s just still not enough. It’s like, well what more can you do? How do you work more with less? We’ve gotten less for such a long time now. And the only response is foundations need to increase their payout rates and get significantly more money to ALAANA communities.

Sherylynn Sealy:
Yes. Thank you so much for sharing all that you did. While we didn’t have, it wasn’t a three hour, two hour keynote or something. I think this was equally as valuable as that. And you leave people with a lot to think about. Some major things that I want to call out. Resource communities more than has been done in the past. Change your practices, don’t go back to the old ones. Focus on system change and remember ALAANA communities in this whole process. So thank you so much for joining us Vu so much.

Vu Le:
Thanks for having me.

Sherylynn Sealy:
Yeah of course. I hope that you stay well.

Vu Le:
Thank you

Sherylynn Sealy:
To our listeners, we would like to continue these conversations. So visit the COVID-19 response page on our website and tune into our next COVID-19 response podcast that will be released in May.

And to keep current on new updates on COVID-19, the GIA conference, and other programming. Be sure you are following us on Facebook GIArts, Twitter at GIArts. And Instagram at grantmakersinthearts. If you have any questions, feel free to reach out to me, Sherylynn Sealy at sherylynn@giarts.org. Thanks so much for listening.