Mapping Cultural Participation in Chicago - Cultural Policy Center

InformationCollectionInitially, this project focused on the largest not-for-profit cultural institutionsand a set of localized or specialized institutions. The objective was to contrastthe audience reach of the larger institutions with that of more localizedorganizations.In accordance with the original scope of the project, we approached forty-oneorganizations. We contacted them in person and performed intensive follow-up tomaximize the likelihood of a response. Of the twelve largest institutions—those withrevenues of $8 million or more—all responded (100 percent). Of the twenty-nine targetedsmaller institutions, sixteen responded (55 percent).However, in order not to exclude any organizations that might wish to participate, webroadened the scope of the data collection to include a less-intensive recruitment amongas many cultural organizations as possible. We included all registered not-for-profit arts,culture, and humanities organizations located in the Chicago metropolitan area in Illinois. 3These 467 organizations received a written invitation but were not earmarked for intensivefollow-up. Only thirty-three responded. Internal resource constraints and technologychallenges prevented many organizations from submitting their data.A full list of responding institutions is given in Appendix I. As context, we present twomaps in Appendix II, one showing the locations of responding organizations, the othershowing the locations of the eligible organizations that did not respond.Nonresponding organizations did not affect the analysis of the twelve largerinstitutions. However, the large number of nonresponding organizations doescreate some limitations on conclusions for overall and specific levels ofparticipation.Our conclusions on patterns of participation and the reach of the large organizationsare not affected by the nonresponding institutions. Our data do allow us to contrastthe reach of large and small institutions. However, due to the high number ofnonresponding organizations, our data do not permit us to reach strong conclusionsabout the overall level of arts participation, whether in the entire Chicago metropolitanstatistical area or within particular small communities. Significant participation bymembers of a community in local or specialized organizations not included in the studywould crucially affect these estimates.3 Researchers invited an institution toparticipate in the study if it met thesecriteria:• It was classified as an arts, culture, orhumanities organization within theGuidestar coding system.• It had filed an IRS Form 990 in 2003 forfiscal year 2002.• It was located within the Chicago MSA inIllinois.We made an exception to these criteria forseveral organizations that were notidentified as arts and culture organizationsby Guidestar, but whose purpose ostensiblyplaced them in this grouping. Theseincluded the Art Institute of Chicago andorganizations associated with the Universityof Chicago. Guidestar codes these asprofessional schools.The DataOur data are built from records provided by the cultural institutions. We use theserecords, which represent some form of transaction between households and each of thecultural institutions, as our sample. These records become a proxy for arts participation.Each data point is an administrative record of a transaction between theinstitution and an individual or household.The identifying factor we use is the postal address of the record, which is recorded inthe membership and mailing lists of the institutions. The level of detail recorded and thequality of the address information varies by institution; considerable data editing andmanipulation was required to produce a coherent database. The extent to whichinstitutions record transactions and the type of transactions they record vary widely20