SCFD: Envision the SCFD of the FutureReports from Tiers I, II andIII

2011-2012

Table of ContentsTier I Report...................................................................................................................................2Tier II Report..................................................................................................................................9

Tier III Report...............................................................................................................................16

At the request of the Board and Executive Director, in 2011-12 Engaged Public undertook a

major initiative designed to educate and involve SCFD organizations in a discussion of several

issues that are critical to the future success of the district.

In recognition of the high level of diversity among the organizations in each of the tiers,

Engaged Public worked with SCFD staff to create an appropriate format for each organization to

participate. Tiers 2 and 3, which have the largest number of organizations, participated in

professionally facilitated sessions that provided a baseline of information about the background

of SCFD, multiple opportunities for dialogue and use of electronic polling devices to ensure that

each organization’s views were recorded. Because Tier 1 has only five members, the primary

means of gathering information were face-to-face interviews. This document presents all three

reports.

All SCFD organizations were asked to discuss and provide input on a standard set of questions:

What is your organization doing to thrive in the future?

What does the ideal SCFD of the future look like?

How should SCFD organizations collaborate and support each other?

Is the current share of SCFD funds appropriate in each organization’s funding picture?

Should there be incentives for collaboration?

Should SCFD continue with a formulaic approach to fund distribution?

Should SCFD have additional operations funding and are there additional services it should offer?

Engaged Public | 2

SCFD Tier I ReportNovember 5th, 2012

Engaged Public | 3

IntroductionDuring the period October 15-29, 2012, Engaged Public’s Chris Adams interviewed the CEO’s and, in some cases board chairs and senior staff, of the five SCFD Tier I organizations: Denver Art Museum, Denver Botanic Gardens, Denver Museum of Nature and Science, the Denver Zoo, and The Denver Center for the Performing Arts. The following is a report on the themes raised in those interviews and during a November 5th, 2012 facilitated discussion among senior representatives from all Tier I organizations, the SCFD board chair, the SCFD Executive Director and a director of the SCFD board.

OverviewThe SCFD Executive Director worked with Engaged Public to identify key questions that were shared in advance with those interviewed. These questions also included important background and contextual information, and mirrored those questions asked of Tier II and III participants in stakeholder input sessions conducted earlier. The full text of the questions and background information is included as an appendix.

Combined responses to questionsWhat is your organization doing to thrive in the future?

Sophisticated market research – Most Tier 1 organizations are undertaking audience research that will allow them to identify and reach the changing demographics of the region. In particular, efforts are underway to understand and develop programming for the growing Hispanic community in the region. Additional efforts include micro-targeting to specific audiences and encouraging peer-to-peer interaction to generate interest in programming.

Culturally specific/relevant programming – Several of the organizations provided specific examples of new or modified programming directed to specific cultural groups.

Transformation from a one-way relationship with patrons and visitors to one that is two-way and more interactive – One institution described its efforts as bringing the audience inside the institution not just to learn from the experts, but to interact with them and create new understandings.

Continued emphasis on no-cost opportunities – Institutions realize that more and more information is available for free via the Internet and are exploring strategies that combine online interaction with face-to-face programming.

What does the ideal SCFD of the future look like? Very similar to what it is now – SCFD is a stabilizing force that provides broad support

for public access to cultural and scientific offerings. This purpose has served the organization and the recipient organizations well and should fundamentally continue.

Remain a low-profile organization. – For the purposes of marketing to the public, the institutions themselves should be the public face of SCFD as opposed to the tax district itself.

Engaged Public | 4

Lean and efficient – Given the need for taxpayer approval of SCFD and the public’s interest in efficient public entities, SCFD should continue to be run as a lean and efficient organization.

Recognized as important to the health and vitality of the region and as something that needs to be sustained.

Special emphasis on maintaining and supporting stewardship of collections for future generations – Tier 1organizations are the custodians of priceless cultural and scientific assets that require resources to maintain both for current and future audiences. This stewardship requires the reliable, not-restricted funding provided by SCFD.

Help create conditions for collaboration and sharing of resources – By serving as a common funder to more than 300 organizations, SCFD can help build an environment for sharing of resources and collaboration.

How should SCFD organizations collaborate and support each other?Note: Responses to this question also include ideas raised at the November 5th meeting.

SCFD is currentlyhelping to sustain specific recipient organizations and to strengthenin general the environment for scientific and cultural facilities – SCFD provides essential financial support for all SCFD organizations, including some that are struggling in the current environment, as well as creating conditions for collaboration among organizations.

Institutions could share scalable resources, including marketing research – The sophisticated audience research and marketing data collected by or forTier 1 organizations could be shared with those in Tiers 2 and 3.

Tier 1 Organizations could provide workshops, presentations or ad hoc technical assistance to other organizations – Tier 1 organizations have already and would be willing to offer future support on a variety of issues, including strategic planning, board development, evaluation, legal issues, fundraising strategies and how to operate a sustainable facility. However, they also pointed out that the Colorado Nonprofit Association offers good programming on many of these issues and in some cases it may be a more appropriate provider than Tier 1 organizations for some services or topics.

Collaborative programming – Partnering to offer collaborative programs occurs often among SCFD organizations to the mutual benefit of each. For example, Botanic Gardens hosts a community garden managed by Denver Urban Gardens (moving to Tier 2 in 2013); and the zoo and art museum join with the symphony to provide music at special events.

Cross marketing – SCFD organizations often support each other by jointly marketing programs or advertizing the programs of other institutions at their facilities.

Conducting business with each other – Tier 1 organizations have in the past, and will continue to, contract with other SCFD organizations for items such as facility rental, performances and other services.

Is the current share of SCFD funds appropriate in each organization’s funding picture? It is appropriate – Tier 1 leaders understand the history of SCFD and believe that, in

general, SCFD is an essential source of funding and that the current levels of SCFD funds in each institutions’ budget is appropriate.

Engaged Public | 5

SCFD provides a source of general funding that serves as a foundation to develop other sources – SCFD represents a stable source of funding that can be relied upon, which provides evidence of sustainability, which helps to attract other types of funding.

During downturn had ability to adjust – SCFD funding decreased along with the general economy over the last several years, which meant that recipient institutions needed to make budget adjustments. Due to diversification of revenue sources, all were able to manage the decreased SCFD funding.

Should there be incentives for collaboration? Collaboration is already happening widely now and additional incentives are not needed. SCFD has brought about a culture change among scientific and cultural organizations,

one that organically facilitates collaboration – The very presence of SCFD and the wide range of organizations it supports helps to provide a connection that leads naturally to collaboration. As one leader put it, “SCFD itself is the incentive to collaborate.”

Should SCFD continue with a formulaic approach to fund distribution? The formula is a major reason SCFD has succeeded – Tier 1 leaders see SCFD as lean

and efficient. The formula allows it not to be drawn into too many subjective judgments, which could create major administrative problems and decrease efficiency.

SCFD should not act like a philanthropic foundation – Unlike a responsive grant making organization, SCFD’s purpose is to support public access to arts and culture, not to determine which ideas or organizations are most worthy of receiving support.

Should SCFD have additional operations funding and are there additional services it should offer?

It would be appropriate to increase funding for SCFD operations – SCFD is very efficient in its operations, but due to the increasing number of recipients and corresponding workload, an increase in operations funding is warranted.

No additional services or supports are needed by Tier 1’s. Other tiers might benefit from additional services, but be wary – Tier 1 organizations

recognize that smaller organizations may want or need additional services from SCFD, such as assistance with non-profit management, but they are concerned that this may distract from the core purpose of SCFD and could change the nature of the organization in a way that may not be readily explainable to the public.

While a response to the final question regarding Tier 2 audited paid attendance was optional, several respondents felt that student attendance at free programming offered by Tier 2 organizations to schools should be countable in some manner towards the Tier 2 funding formula, which equally weights annual operating income and audited paid attendance.

VisionAt theNovember 5th meeting, participants were asked to write down words that describe their vision for the SCFD of the future. The results are depicted below in a word cloud. The larger the size of the word, the more often it was mentioned. Due to the small number of respondents, no words were repeated exactly. The first word cloud depicts the exact words that were identified. The second represents some combining of similar items.

Engaged Public | 6

Without combing similar words:

Similar words combined:

ConclusionTier1 organizations have a deep appreciation of SCFD and its history. They can readily identify the benefits it provides—both in terms of funding and public support for access to programming—as invaluable. Furthermore, they understand how unique it is and wish to protect this valuable, regional asset.

Engaged Public | 7

Appendix: Interview questionsOver the past several annual planning sessions, the SCFD Board has analyzed data and projections to learn more about what the metro area and demographics might look like in 2030. Why 2030? It is 12 years beyond the current SCFD sunset date of 2018, and the next potential sunset date if the 12-year extension period is maintained. In planning for the 2016 reauthorization process and 2030 demographics, the Board is focused on meeting the projected 4 million metro residents’ needs keeping in mind that:

One in four residents will be over the age of 60 23 percent will be Hispanic One in four adults will live below the poverty level Many residents will experience “time poverty” due to increased work productivity and

longer commutes (85 minutes vs. 26 minutes in 2008) Many residents will expect free or low-cost access to science/arts/culture

1. What is your organization doing to plan for these changes?

Since 1989, the total number of eligible SCFD organizations has grown significantly, from 190 to 300. Tier II has quadrupled—from 7 organizations to 25 in 2011, and will likely to grow to more than 30 organizations by 2016. Tier III has increased by 75% from 160 to 280. During the same time, sales and use tax revenue increased by 220%, from $13 million to $42 million. Given this information and the above projections, the SCFD board is focused on “creating a 21st century SCFD.”

2. What does “creating a 21st century SCFD” mean to you and your organization?

Denver likes to refer to itself as “a world class city,” citing international exhibitions and a full array of top quality scientific and cultural experiences, including ballet, two opera companies and a symphony orchestra. However, several Tier II entities devoted to these performing arts have struggled financially and even stood on the brink of bankruptcy.

3. What, if anything, should or might be done to stabilize or solidify organizations deemed essential for Denver to legitimately claim and maintain its status as a world class city?

SCFD funds constitute an average of 22% of Tier I organizations’ revenue, as compared to 10% for Tier II organizations and 12.8% for Tier III organizations. In both Tier II and III, the median is even lower than the average. In Tier I the median is 21%. Thus roughly one-fifth of all revenue for Tier I organizations is now derived from SCFD. While all recipient organizations benefit from the general operating support SCFD funds provide, Tier I organizations would likely suffer a significant impact from the loss of 21-22% of their annual funding.

Do you think Tier I organizations’ reliance on SCFD for one-fifth of their funding is financially wise, or would it be better to be either more diversified or less reliant on a source that requires periodic renewal by a public vote?

One of the increasing benefits of the SCFD is the degree to which recipient organizations collaborate with one another as compared to scientific and cultural nonprofits in other similar-

Engaged Public | 8

sized metropolitan areas. Most of these collaborations are organic, as opposed to forced, and allow citizens to be exposed to experiences they might not have otherwise had.

4. What, if any, incentives might a 21st century SCFD incorporate to expand the availability of creative programming and cross-pollination of ideas than currently exist?

The foundation of the SCFD from the very beginning has been the use of formulaic calculations for distribution of the lion’s share of the funds, some 86.5% (65.5% for Tier I + 21% for Tier II), as well as a proportional percentage of funds being returned to each county for distribution through local county cultural councils to Tier III grant applicants. While this has allowed the SCFD to be administered by a smaller staff with less expense than an open grant process, it has, to some extent, led to a sense of entitlement among individual organizations, tiers and county constituents.

5. Given that the SCFD board is seeking only simple, incremental changes to the statute in 2016, how might the board address this issue through statute or policy? For example, would a competitive or responsive grant process make more sense?

SCFD is positively viewed as very lean administration due to the .75% allotted for operations, with 99.25% of collected revenue distributed to eligible organizations. By comparison, Colorado Creative Industries, which has a $2 million budget and distributes grant funds throughout the state, spends 15% on administration. Among foundations with low administrative expenses are: Denver Public Schools Foundation (4%), Rose Community Foundation (6.1%), while Mile High Montessori reported spending 19% on administration in 2010-11.

As stated in question 2, the pool of eligible organizations has nearly doubled since 1988, and the number of counties and cultural councils served has grown from 6 to 7. Despite the increased workload attributable to this growth, the current SCFD staff is smaller than in many prior years. The “SCFD paradox” is that the infusion of more than $40 million annually into the science/arts/culture community places SCFD in the position of being an important funder, stakeholder and policy voice in the funding ecology for this sector without the human or financial resources to participate actively.

6. Given that the .75% for administration has never in 23 years covered the actual operating expenses for the SCFD, what could or should be done to fund reasonable operating expenses and the ability of the SCFD to have the required presence as an effective voice in the funding ecology for the science/arts/culture sector?

7. Are there any additional services or activities that SCFD staff should provide that are not being provided due to insufficient funding?

Optional question: Organizations must meet a revenue threshold to be eligible for Tier II funds. Once eligible, each organization’s share of the 21% of allotted Tier II funds is based on a statutory formula that equally weights annual operating income (AOI) and audited paid attendance. While the SCFD board is permitted to alter the weighting of these two factors, any change must remain in place for a period of 5 years. In 23 years, the board has never even discussed altering the weighting of AOI and paid attendance. The SCFD board and statute encourage arts education programming for students. These programs are delivered at no cost in many cases, however, preventing a Tier II organization from being able to count such

Engaged Public | 9

attendance towards its formulaic share of funds. This has been deemed “a perverse incentive” or disincentive by some.

Engaged Public | 10

SCFD Tier II ReportMarch 13th, 2012

Engaged Public | 11

IntroductionOn March 13, 2012, SCFD leadership invited representatives from all Tier II organizations to attend an interactive discussion with a special focus on the future of the SCFD, including reauthorization. The following is a summary report of the session’s findings.

OverviewThe meeting took place at the Hudson Gardens & Event Center with about twenty participating organizations. Through a combination of keypad polling, round table discussion and group discussions, participants were given the opportunity to express their ideas and perspectives on the future of the SCFD. The participants were eager and enthusiastic and offered useful ideas for further action, ways to improve the tier system, and strategies for a successful reauthorization.

Who attended? 61% of total participants identified themselves as multi-disciplinary organizations 78% of total participants identified themselves as heads of their organizations

(President/CEO/ED)

Themes from the discussionWhat does the future hold? Much of the early discussion revolved around what the future holds for the SCFD generally and the tier two organizations specifically. There was consensus that the cultural landscape has seen significant change in the last decade, and the rate of change will only accelerate in the next decade. The conversation centered on sifting through several aspects of coming technological and demographic changes and interpreting what that will mean for the SCFD. Examples include:

Relevancy of content to wide-ranging audiences of varying technological skill sets and expectations

What community will mean in the future (i.e. “brick and mortar” communities verses virtual communal spaces)

Appealing to the younger generation with online content that must be intuitive Playing catch-up with the technological change of the previous decade

Ideal SCFD through 2030Another topic that sparked conversation and interest among meeting attendees was brainstorming what organizations would like the SCFD to look like over the next two decades. Several ideas emerged from this discussion including:

Continuing the collaborative spirit formed by SCFD A desire for the SCFD to be more flexible in the future in aspects such as the formula

and metrics Addressing the challenges in the Tier II formula which excludes unpaid visitor and

patron attendees from the calculation Integrating and increasing the delivery of cultural experiences to youth by partnering with

local schools and offering programming that aligns with school curriculum and state content standards

Engaged Public | 12

Increasing the predictability of SCFD funding, including managing “ripple effects” Being more equitable in the revenue distribution structure SCFD being better understood and appreciated by the public

Tier II Stabilization There was some discussion centering on how to stabilize the required annual increase in the Annual Operating Income threshold qualification criteria for Tier II. The statute currently requires the threshold to increase by the prior year’s Consumer Price Index (CPI). Some ideas include:

Using a set percentage for the annual threshold increase to decrease variability A rolling 5 year CPI average with a year in lag time in the hope that this would smooth

out some volatility for organizations

General ideas One theme that continued to present itself throughout the presentation was the desire

that the formula be adjusted to include “credit” for serving unpaid attendees

Selected Results from Keypad PollingParticipants responded to a total of 15 polling questions. The questions reported below were developed in advance and were used both to gather quantitative information and to stimulate additional dialogue. A full report is included as an appendix to the report. Below are results from select questions.

A solid majority of participating organizations identified themselves as multi-disciplinary.

4 22.22%1 5.56%1 5.56%1 5.56%

11 61.11%Totals 18 100%

2.) I represent the following type of organization. (multiple choice) Responses

Performing artsVisual artsCultural historyScience/natural historyMulti-disciplinary

22.2%

5.6%

5.6%

5.6%

61.1%

Performing arts Visual arts

Cultural history Science/natural history

Multi-disciplinary

Engaged Public | 13

Organizations were represented by top executives.

14 77.78%0 0%1 5.56%2 11.11%0 0%1 5.56%

Totals 18 100%

Responses

President/CEO/ EDArtistic DirectorCOOCFODevelopment DirectorOther (e.g. board member)

3.) How do you identify your organizational role? (multiple choice)

77.8%

0%5.6% 11.1%

0%5.6%

President/CEO/ ED

Artistic Director

COO

CFO

Change brought about by technology will accelerate.

10 50%7 35%2 10%0 0%1 5%

Totals 20 100%Strongly Disagree

4.) The next 10 years will present as much or more change for my organization as the last 10. (multiple choice) Responses

Strongly AgreeAgreeNeutralDisagree

50%35%

10% 0% 5%

Strongly Agree Agree

Neutral Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Other than funding, a majority of SCFD participants value SCFD’s cumulative impact on the S/C landscape most.

13 65%2 10%5 25%0 0%0 0%

Totals 20 100%

Collaboration opportunitiesLeverage for staff recruiting purposesOther

6.) Other than funding what does your organization value most about SCFD? (multiple choice) Responses

Cumulative impact on S/C landscapeRecipient Credibil i ty

65%10%

25% 0% 0%

Cumulative impact on S/C landscape

Recipient Credibility

Collaboration opportunities

Leverage for staff recruiting purposes

Engaged Public | 14

A substantial majority of participants view SCFD’s primary purpose as supporting public access to the arts and sciences.

5 26.32%14 73.68%

Totals 19 100%

7.) The primary purpose of SCFD is to support: (multiple choice) Responses

Arts and sciences organizations2. Public access to the arts & sciences

26.3%

73.7%

Arts and sciences organizations

2. Public access to the arts & sciences

A majority of participants were concerned about the success of reauthorization.

0 0%12 60%

8 40%0 0%0 0%

Totals 20 100%

OtherNo concerns

8.) What is your primary concern about reauthorization? (multiple choice) Responses

The revenue al location will remain the same SCFD wil l not be reauthorizedThe role of Tier 2 in the design

0%

60%

40% 0% 0%

The revenue allocation wil l remain the same

SCFD will not be reauthorized

The role of Tier 2 in the design

Other

There was some disagreement over how Tier II should be represented in the reauthorization process.

1 5%7 35%8 40%0 0%4 20%

Totals 20 100%

1 person from each of the 5 disciplines (visu...1-3 Tier 2 executive level spokespersons Feedback given SCFD staff/board through SCC m...Other

10.) Tier 2 should be represented in the reauthorization discussion process by (multiple choice) Responses

SCC co-chairs

5%35%

40%0%

20%

SCC co-chairs

1 person from each of the 5 disciplines (visu...

1-3 Tier 2 executive level spokespersons

Feedback given SCFD staff/board through SCC m...

Engaged Public | 15

While there was general agreement that Tier II needed to be further stabilized, there was a variety of views on how best to achieve this goal.

3 15.79%8 42.11%4 21.05%1 5.26%2 10.53%1 5.26%0 0%

Totals 19 100%

11.) Given the uncertainty for T2 organizations close to the threshold, what would be the best way to stabilize the process? (multiple choice) Responses

Apply the CPI but cap it Use a roll ing average CPI, e.g., over 5-year ...Increase by a set %, e.g., 1 or 2%, every yea...Lower the threshold No change is requiredOther

15.8%

42.1%21%

5.3%10.5%5.3% 0%

Apply the CPI but cap it

Use a rolling average CPI, e.g., over 5-year ...

Increase by a set %, e.g., 1 or 2%, every yea...

Lower the threshold

How best to stablilzie the Tier II statutory distribution formula.

2 11.11%2 11.11%0 0%1 5.56%4 22.22%9 50%0 0%

Totals 18 100%

12.) Given projected changes (technology, etc.) what should the board consider re: the formula? (multiple choice) Responses

Leave the formula at 50/50 Eliminate attendance factor Increase attendance %; lower AOI %Increase AOI %; lower attendance %Leave formula same but define paid attendance...Other

11.1% 11.1%

0%

5.6%

22.2%

50%0%

Leave the formula at 50/50

Eliminate attendance factor

Increase attendance %; lower AOI %

Increase AOI %; lower attendance %

Ideas for changes to consider in reauthorization.

7 12.50%17 30.36%13 23.21%18 32.14%

1 1.79%Totals 56 100%

14.) What other changes would you like to see with the reauthorization? (multiple choice) Responses

Raise the 1¢ on $10 taxIncrease administrative .75% to 1.0 or 1.5%Change tier criteriaChange % of the revenue allocated to each tie...Other

12.5%

30.4%23.2%

32.1%1.8%

Raise the 1¢ on $10 tax

Increase administrative .75% to 1.0 or 1.5%

Change tier criteria

Change % of the revenue allocated to each tie...

Engaged Public | 16

Tier II organizations can help with reauthorization in many ways.

2 10.53%4 21.05%1 5.26%3 15.79%9 47.37%0 0%

Totals 19 100%

All of the aboveOther

15.) The most valuable contribution my organization could make to the reauthorization campaign is: (multiple choice) Responses

Financial Direct communication with patrons/visitorsDirect communication with local pol icy makers...Collaborate & share PR, marketing & other res...

10.5%21%

5.3%15.8%

47.4% 0%

Financial

Direct communication with patrons/visitors

Direct communication with local policy makers...

Collaborate & share PR, marketing & other res...

VisionAt the session participants were asked to write down words that describe their vision of the SCFD of the future. The results are depicted below in a word cloud. The larger the word, the more often it was mentioned.

ConclusionThe purposes of this process were to both engage Tier II representatives in a dialogue about key issues, including reauthorization, and to provide them with an opportunity to help shape the future of SCFD and participate in reauthorization. These Tier II representatives demonstrated an impressive command of both their own organization’s needs as well as that of the larger cultural and scientific community that SCFD serves. Tier II organizations are ready and able to support SCFD’s present and future success.

Engaged Public | 17

SCFD Tier III ReportDecember 15th, 2011 & January 12th, 2012

Engaged Public | 18

IntroductionOn December 15, 2011 and January 12, 2012, SCFD leadership invited representatives from all Tier III organizations to attend an interactive discussion with a special focus on reauthorization issues. The following is a summary report of findings from the two sessions.

OverviewThe meetings took place at the Botanic Gardens and the Butterfly Pavilion. Between the two meetings, there were about 175 participants. Through a combination of key pad polling, round table discussion and open mic, participants were given the opportunity to express their ideas and perspectives on the future of the SCFD. In both meetings, participants were eager and enthusiastic and often expressed innovative ideas, ways to improve the tier system and strategies for a successful reauthorization.

Who attended?(Unless otherwise noted, all data is an aggregation of both groups.)

43% of total participants identified themselves as a performing arts organization 37% of total participants identified Denver as their home base 50% of total participants identified themselves paid staff of an SCFD Organization

Themes from the discussion

Application processSeveral people mentioned ways to improve the grant application process. Whether standing up and voicing their opinion, or submitting their thoughts through a word cloud (see below) or the new idea forms, people offered ways this could happen:

Streamline the application process Stable organizations should not have to re-apply Streamline the reporting process Provide workshops on how to fill out grant applications for SCFD and elsewhere

Structure of the Tier systemAnother topic that sparked conversation and interest among meeting attendees was brainstorming ways to improve the Tier system. Several ideas emerged from the handouts and from discussion, but overall, the majority of those that spoke out said they want more collaboration between tiers: sharing resources, technology, accounting, etc. People were asking that the SCFD find ways to make it easier to collaborate and share resources. Examples include:

Leverage the 280 Tier III organizations to acquire items like health insurance, advertising money and marketing dollars.

Create a fourth tier Allocate more funds for Tier III organizations SCFD could distinguish between the types of tier III orgs. (staff vs. volunteers). A

volunteer organization cannot easily write the grants so the SCFD could provide support for those orgs that are volunteer only.

Individual counties provide training for donor development and research grants – to help small organizations grow and build infrastructure.

Reauthorization and Branding

Engaged Public | 19

A large number of people, mostly during the January 21st meeting, indicated that they want to see and be involved in more SCFD marketing. This is, in part, due to the upcoming reauthorization process. The general sense is that with more marketing, visibility and knowledge about the scientific and cultural opportunities that SCFD funds, people will be more likely to vote in favor of reauthorization. Some specific ideas mentioned include:

Market to legislature and voters Get a banner to hang at events so that people are more aware of SCFD funding and the

resources they provide Cleo Parker Robinson recommended leveraging the arts and doing something creative

like a flash mob with dance to promote SCFD Post SCFD informational video on Facebook, YouTube, etc. that orgs. can use to

publicize to their users Designate a spokesperson or people to represent tier III orgs. The person could be Cleo

Parker Robison or someone like her who is a well-known and respected member of the community

Provide a lapel button that says, “Ask me about SCFD” Create better moniker (Name and logo) than the bear Market to children to get kids invested and interested in SCFD funded programs and

opportunities Provide literature and information that employees can give to their nonprofit boards so

that the Board is “on board” Hold a public event with all the Tiers represented to inform public about SCFD and what

they do

General ideas Preserve the diversity of organizations as we move forward as the strain for resources

gets stronger. Tier III is very diverse; should be more than one person representing orgs and who gets funding

In a newsletter have a section for “hot ideas” for new trends that organizations have created, so that others could integrate them

Greater transparency and knowledge about how decisions are made by SCFD Board SCFD staff needs more money.

Selected Results from Keypad PollingParticipants responded to more than 20 polling slides. The questions reported below were developed in advance and were used both to gather quantitative information and to stimulate additional dialogue. A full report is included as an appendix to the report. Below are results from select questions.

Engaged Public | 20

A solid majority of participants view their organization as prepared for the future, changing scientific and cultural landscape.

Financial support is by far the most valuable contribution SCFD makes to organizations.

Excluding financial support, the most valuable contribution perceived by organizations is the cumulative impact of SCFD.

Engaged Public | 21

There is an important difference among participants regarding the statutory purpose of SCFD and what organizational representatives would like to see.

Regarding reauthorization, a slim majority said their top concern was that SCFD would not be reauthorized. 45% identified issues related to the tier structure.

Participants want to be included in discussions about reauthorization and are open to a variety of options.

The year 2015 was the clear choice for year to seek

reauthorization.

Engaged Public | 22

80% would like to see the Tier III percentage of total revenue increased.

Engaged Public | 23

Responses broken out by participant home county and role, the same trend continues.

Engaged Public | 24

VisionAt each session participants were asked to write down words that describe their vision of the SCFD of the future. The results from each are depicted below. The larger the word, the more often it was mentioned.

December 15 th meeting at the Botanic Gardens :

January 21 st meeting at the Butterfly Pavilions :

Engaged Public | 25

ConclusionThe purposes of this process were to both engage Tier III representatives in a dialogue about key issues, including reauthorization, and to provide them with an opportunity to help shape the future of SCFD and participate in reauthorization. The substantive results reported above provide a wealth of information and creative thinking that can be built upon to create the SCFD of the future. In addition, from both an observational perspective as well as actual polling, participants felt as though these sessions provided a genuine opportunity to express their views. The results of the final question are unequivocal:

Engaged Public | 26