Item 07 - Arts Commission_May2026_Funding Update 2.pdf — original pdf

Backup

Funding Programs Update Arts, Culture, Music, and Entertainment | May 18, 2026 Awardee Status (as of 5/18/26) Program Total Awardees Pre-Agreement Not Submitted Pre-Agreements Submitted- Need Revisions Pre- Agreements Approved (Contracting Phase w/ TLC) Payment Phase ALMF Elevate CSAP HPG TOTAL 396 277 22 22 717 4 10 2 0 16 5 58 1 12 76 96 80 19 10 205 291 128 0 0 420 2 Funding Disbursement Status (as of 5/18/26) Program Total Awardees Total Funds # of Awardees Paid % of Awardees Paid $ of funds disbursed % of funds disbursed ALMF Elevate CSAP HPG 396 277 22 22 $7,045,000 $12,616,773 $1,320,000 $3,000,274 292 128 0 0 74% $2,795,000.00 46% $2,735,615.50 0% 0% $0 $0 40% 22% 0% 0% TOTAL 717 $23,982,047 420 59% $5,530,615.15 23% 3 Survey Results ▪ 360-degree perspective ▪ Panelist Reviewer Experience (68 responses) ▪ Application Experience Survey (152 responses) ▪ Commissioner Perspectives Survey (6 responses) ▪ The goal was to understand: ▪ Was the application design accessible/ clear? ▪ Did support systems and communications meet community needs? ▪ Was scoring/ panel processes consistent and understandable? ▪ What improvements should be prioritized ahead of the July 7th launch? ▪ Overall: The content of the programs is strong, but the experience of navigating them needs clearer structure, better tools, and more intentional support. 4 Major Themes – Applicant Experience Streamline and Simplify the Three- Step Process Improve Email Communication (Clarity, Consistency, Tone) Improve Deadline Communication Reduce Documentation Burden and Repetitive Requirements Clarify Eligibility Rules Improve Instructions for Attachments, Budget Tables, and Technical Fields Expand Support Options and Increase Availability Address Language Access Gaps Improve Marketing and Awareness Make Application Questions More Relevant, Less Redundant Improve Tech Reliability Provide Transparency About Review Process Responses came from: 78 ALMF, 57 Elevate, 22 CSAP, 18 HPG Applicants 5 Major Themes – Commissioner Perspective Provide Clearer Eligibility Guidance Upfront Simplify or Better Explain the Three- Step Process Strengthen Reviewer Training Improve Deadline & Timeline Clarity Increase Marketing & Public Awareness Expand & Better Advertise Assistance Resources Improve Technical Reliability & Reduce Upload Difficulties Increase Transparency of Scoring Clarify the Role of the Third-Party Administrator Improve System Accessibility & Language Access Responses came from: 5 Music Commissioners, 1 Arts Commissioner 6 Major Themes – Panelists Better Training More Consistent, Clearer, Centralized Communication Improve Submittable User Experience Reduce/ Right-Size Workload Panel Day lacked purpose Adjust Structure of Applications Strengthen Bias Training & Consistency in Scoring Improve Applicant Introduction Statement Integration Provide Better Timeline Stability Responses came from: 60 Elevate Panelists, 9 Heritage Panelists 7 Summary of Theme Priorities Eligibility Three-Step Process Communication Tech System Documentation Training/ Examples Timeline Direct Support Resources Marketing/ Awareness Language Access 8 Priority 1: Eligibility Eligibility Issues ▪ Struggled to understand what they were eligible for and why ▪ Some questions seemed repetitive ▪ Many questions around Venue documentation or Sponsored Project eligibility Eligibility Enhancements ▪ Developing a flow chart to visually clarify the table in the Guidelines ▪ Removed or combined similar questions (i.e. ALMF 23 → 20) ▪ All groups must list key decision makers (bands, sponsored projects, etc) ▪ ALMF Venues: Requiring applicant to identify what 5 criteria make them eligible and provide 1:1 evidence 9 Priority 2: Three-Step Process Process Issues ▪ Three-step process (Intake → Eligibility → Application) was not intuitive ▪ Delays between steps ▪ Multiple deadlines were confusing ▪ Manually reviewing over 2,000 eligibility forms took time Process Enhancements ▪ Removing the three-step process ▪ Visually clarifying the different parts of the application ▪ Automating eligibility reviews at the beginning ▪ No delays in receiving application ▪ Staff can focus on assistance during the open window ▪ Single deadline 10 Priority 3: Communication Communication Issues ▪ Applicants: unclear emails, confusing transfer notices, and repetitive messaging. ▪ Commissioners: communication was insufficient, poorly timed, or not accessible enough. ▪ Panelists: communication came from too many inboxes or lacked clear, actionable expectations. Communication Enhancements ▪ ACME + TLC Retreat: mapping/ drafting all communication touchpoints before launch ▪ All communications will have a consistent voice and will be checked for appropriate language level (8th grade or below) ▪ No “transfer of ownership” messages from Submittable 11 Priority 4: Technology Systems Technology Issues ▪ Some applicants were unclear about navigating the system Technology Enhancements ▪ Clear size limit and type language for uploads ▪ Upload issues and system freezing ▪ Templates available ▪ Difficult for reviewers to get to the ▪ No transfer of ownership information they needed ▪ Enhanced communication with Submittable to troubleshoot ▪ Reorganizing parts of application (demographics and attestations at the end) 12 Priority 5: Documentation Documentation Issues ▪ Extremely document-heavy ▪ Panelists/ Reviewers thought scoring was a bit of a scavenger hunt at times ▪ Everyone spent more time than expected on documentation Documentation Enhancements ▪ Streamlining questions and uploads ▪ Helper text within application ▪ Templates ▪ Videos to show how to combine 10 images into one pdf ▪ Size limits per upload 13 Priority 6: Training/ Examples Training/Examples Issues Training/ Examples Enhancements ▪ Panelists wanted better rubric training, scoring examples, and clarity about expectations ▪ Applicants wanted clearer guidance on what to upload and what reviewers were looking for ▪ Commissioners were unclear about scoring ▪ Templates and examples ▪ How-to videos ▪ Variety of workshops focused on specific topics ▪ More training for panelists/ reviewers ▪ Rubrics posted on website 14 Priority 7: Timeline Timeline Issues Timeline Enhancements ▪ Confusion around multiple ▪ Single deadline announced early deadlines ▪ Timelines felt too tight ▪ Last minute extension was not universally appreciated ▪ Panelists felt rushed to review ▪ Strategic partnerships to communicate timeline ▪ No extensions ▪ Panelists trained earlier and fewer applications assigned 15 Priority 8: Direct Support Direct Support Issues ▪ Effective but hard to find/ not enough ▪ Many applicants didn’t know it existed until too late ▪ 1:1 sessions filled up ▪ Wanted easier access to materials Direct Support Enhancements ▪ ACME Ambassadors to help co-host workshops and direct community to available resources ▪ Staff focused on assistance during application window, not eligibility reviews (more availability for 1:1 meetings) ▪ Topic specific workshops ▪ More support materials available online 16 Priority 9: Marketing/ Awareness Awareness Issues Awareness Enhancements ▪ Marketing could not begin until after ▪ ACME Ambassadors November election ▪ Applicants learned late that multiple programs existed ▪ First time all programs launched at the same time ▪ Promote programs, deadlines, support, co-host workshops ▪ 10-15 Ambassadors ▪ Sector/Culturally specific ▪ Can apply for funding ▪ Marketing campaign begins earlier and more strategic ▪ ACME Marketing Manager! 17 Priority 10: Language Access Language Access Issues ▪ Application language was at a graduate school level ▪ Translations from different vendors caused confusion ▪ Auto-translation on City website didn’t use the same language as the vendors Language Access Enhancements ▪ Application has been streamlined/ simplified (8th grade reading level) ▪ Secondary review of Spanish translations ahead of build out ▪ Shared Spanish Word-Bank to all vendors (interpretation/ translation) ▪ Trying to edit City web backend ▪ Community Navigator focused on Spanish language support ▪ ACME Ambassadors to co-host workshops and share resources 18 2026 Application Steps Intake Form (Part 1) Wait for Eligibility Form Fill out & Submit Eligibility Form (Part 2) Wait for Eligibility Determination Receive access to Application (Part 3) Complete Application Part 1: Demographics Complete Application Part 2: Program Specific Questions Complete Application Part 3: Attestations Submit 19 2027 Enhanced Application Steps ACME Eligibility Program Specific Eligibility & Application Demographics + Attestations Submit No delays for eligible applicants to have access to the full application Streamlined user experience (demographics/ attestations at the end) 20 2027 Major Enhancements Highlights ▪ Application Window: July 7th – August 18th ▪ No Intake Form/ Clear Process ▪ Automatic Tentative Eligibility Approval ▪ Wraparound questions: Interested in ACME space? Community showcases? Arts Education? ▪ Consistency across all programs – language, application, reporting ▪ Guideline edits for clarity/ continuity ▪ Awareness/ Access ($40k) ▪ 1 Community Navigator ($25k) – cannot apply for funding ▪ Application support, focus on Spanish language ▪ 10-15 ACME Ambassadors ($15k total; $1k each) – can apply for funding ▪ Co-Host workshops with ACME staff ▪ Promote programs through their channels 21 2027 Programs Launch Timeline June 2026 August 18, 2026 Sep. 2026 Website updated •Assistance Calendar •Application Questions •Rubrics •Support Materials Applications Close! Program Evaluation/ Scoring begins Panelists review period Nexus Opens! Nov. 2026 2027 Awards Announced January 2027 FY27 Contracts/Payments Applications Open! •Austin Live Music Fund •Elevate •Heritage Preservation •Thrive Panelists Trained Panel Meetings Scores Finalized 2027 Appeals 2026 awards end (1Y) July 7, 2026 Aug. 2026 Oct. 2026 Dec. 2026 22 Questions? www.austintexas.gov/acme/grants-funding