Part Three: Dynamic Partnerships and Their Necessity

From my experience in urban communities, most non-profit organizations are hesitant to create partnerships, especially non-profits providing a similar service.   As government funding continues to decrease for human services and communities remain in decline, I grow increasingly confident that partnerships are the key to a thriving non-profit sector.

At the Dynamic Partnerships: The Arts and Community Development workshop, Megan Whilden made great points about why the partnership between the Storefront Artist Projects and Pittsfield’s Office of Cultural Development worked so well, but I was most impacted by her assertion that partnerships should highlight already present community strengths.

Some projects do not highlight present community strengths. For example, the creation of a community mural solely to improve a space’s attraction will not empower the community for real change.  The motivation of any project will be evident to community members by who is involved in the project, the project’s theme, and access to the planning.  When only outsiders are engaged in the project and community members have no part of the planning process, community empowerment will not happen.  Instead, the project will communicate to community members that their community is: ugly, dangerous, insufficient, etc.

The more effective and empowering project involves collectively planning and promoting a design highlighting positive community attributes.  Empowerment will happen when community members are engaged, in their areas of skill, to executive the project.  In order to accomplish this, partnerships with other community organizations in these projects are important: they provide both unity and positive reputation. 

I believe organizational partnerships help community members to see the broader picture in their community.  When organizations begin to function together towards a common goal, it becomes one community.  Competition breeds distrust, and community members can sense this distrust.  If organizations do not trust one another, why should community members trust organizations working on a community project?  In a project, positive reputation helps community members warm to new project and unity helps them feel comfortable enough to participate.

Non-profits resisting partnership are counterproductive and hurting their constituents.  The best projects are those approaching communities from a holistic perspective: just like a person, communities have multifaceted needs.  Community problems are usually much more complex than projects care to address.  The simple route is indeed to say that a community is not thriving because of _______ (a lack of jobs, you fill in the blank), but providing just _________ (allowing a new factory to be built in the community, a one-dimensional service) does not provide the whole answer (community members with the skills they need or remove the obstacles they have to succeed in a newly obtained job, other problems below the surface will exist).   When non-profits come together, they often are able to provide a more holistic project that successfully addresses the “whole” problem.

Partnership promotes unity, positive engagement, and holistic solutions in communities.  When non-profits overcome their fears of partnership and need to compete, the result will be thriving organizations and communities.  

Part 2: Dynamic Partnerships and the Role of Art in Revitalization

While Pittsfield Storefront Artist project was not intentionally designed to promote economic development, the natural outpouring of their efforts was attracting businesses.  It seems as if beautification of the space gave people motivation to return downtown.  This is an example of how artists can become social entrepreneurs: those who create opportunities in their neighborhood while earning a living (SIAP, Cultivating “Natural” Cultural Districts).  

Keynote speaker, Megan Wilden shared that one challenge of partnership with artists/an arts organization is to encourage without destroying the purity of the art.  In other words, when involving art with community development, the focus must always be creating art.  The partnership between the City of Pittsfield and artists seemed to reach an appropriate balance, because artists were cultivated to continue creating art, not attracting businesses.   Around this premise, the partnership provided fertile soil, because in addition to the presence of art, a sense of community was created among artists.  I think this sense of community was an added attraction for residents and businesses. 

University of Pennsylvania’s Social Impact of the Arts Project (SIAP) promotes a model of development integrating neighborhood residents with regional economy and civil society through aiding a transition from creative economy to creative society (Seifert and Stern, Culture and Urban Revitalization).  One way to achieve this is to create opportunities for artists, amateurs, and residents to collide; artists’ centers are an effective opportunity for this collision to occur.  Artists’ centers provide the community open access to the arts, classes, opportunities to mingle with artists and art lovers, mentoring, and useful networks for resource sharing (SIAP, Culture and Urban Revitalization).  Artists' centers make it more about relationships than transactions; thus creative society rather than economy.

Practically, how do artist’s centers revitalize communities?  Artists’ centers are so are embedded in the lives of community members that it provides: youth development through classes and mentoring, increased neighborhood safety through heavier foot traffic in the community, and improves local economy, as more foot traffic leads revenue for local businesses (Seifert and Stern, Culture and Urban Revitalization).  Moreover, stronger community relationships always generates greater community security among residents.

Cultivating the arts through partnerships in local communities is very effective as the arts continue to become more open and accessible to the general population.  The arts are powerful expressions of culture and experience, so it only seems natural that community revitalization engages art to empower community members and tell the neighborhood story.  Increased access has also uncovered the presence of organic art in low-income communities through anything from graffiti, to rap and spoken word, to resident gardens.  As stories are told, these organic artists are empowered to embrace their talent and use it towards personal, community and maybe even professional transformation.  

Resources:
Seifert, Susan, and Mark Stern. "Culture and Urban Revitalization: A Harvest Document." Social Impact of the Arts Project (January 2007). Web. 14 Sept. 2011. <http://www.sp2.upenn.edu/SIAP>.
Seifert, Susan, and Mark Stern. "Cultivating “Natural” Cultural Districts." Creativity and Change (September 2007). Web. 14 Sept. 2011. <http://www.trfund.com/resource/downloads/creativity/NaturalCulturalDistricts.pdf>.

Part One: Dynamic Partnerships and Pittsfield, Mass.

Last Thursday, I attended a workshop presented by the Philadelphia Association of Community Development Corporations.  Entitled Dynamic Partnerships: the Arts and Community Development, this workshop began with a Keynote speaker who shared her experience in a partnership between city government and the arts.   Why are partnerships so important? In this three part Dynamic Partnership series, I will talk more about partnerships, and why they are important. To start, I will share the example given by keynote speaker, Megan Whilden.

Megan Whilden is from the community of Pittsfield, Mass.  Pittsfield is the largest city in Berkshire County and in the past, a center of thriving industry.  Like so many East Coast cities, the decline of industrial business brought about general city decline.  General Electric housed a large factory in town that employed about 10,000 residents.  When it closed in 1977, the population decreased by approximately 20,000 people (General Electric / Housatonic River RCRA Site NRD Settlement, Mass.gov).  Decreases in population were accompanied by the closure of many downtown businesses, which left downtown deserted.  However, where residents saw failure, one artist, Maggie Mailer, saw potential.  Maggie decided to initiate a movement that came to be known as the Storefront Artist Project (http://storefrontartist.org).

As their website states, “Following in the footsteps of its nomadic tradition, the Storefront Artist Project continues to find vacant commercial spaces in Pittsfield for artists to use for temporary projects” (http://storefrontartist.org).  For a period of 6 months, artists from around the local area began to occupy empty storefronts and display their artwork.  The agreement between property owners and these artists consisted of: temporary use of the storefront, artists holding their own liability insurance, and artists paying utility costs, while there (Megan Whilden). 

Eventually, due to the success of the Storefront Artist Project, they partnered with the City of Pittsfield’s Office of Cultural Development to promote economic development.  One project they began was 3rd Thursdays, a monthly event that provides evening access to downtown businesses and artists.  As a result of the work by the City and artists, 50 new restaurants and businesses have opened (Megan Whilden).

Resources:

"General Electric / Housatonic River RCRA Site NRD Settlement." Mass.Gov. Energy and Environmental Affairs. Web. 14 Sept. 2011. <http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eoeeaterminal>.