Arts in Education Evaluation In early 2001, Mary Liniger Hickman, Arts Education Coordinator of the DC Commission on the Arts and Humanities, retained S.A. Rosenbaum & Associates to perform an independent short-term assessment and evaluation of the Arts in Education Program and its services. The resulting report may be the first assessment of its kind in the Commission's history. Motivation for seeking a report at this time grew not only from the Commission staff's interest in understanding their own effectiveness but also as a tool to develop the groundwork for future strategic planning. Furthermore, comments from the National Endowment for the Arts State Partnership panel indicated the benefits of a program evaluation at this juncture. The evaluation was funded by a technical assistance grant from the National Assembly of Local Arts agencies and DCCAH funds. While our study was limited to a "short term" effort, we nevertheless performed an in-depth examination of diverse aspects of the Arts in Education programs and services. To do so, we used various benchmarks to assess the effectiveness of and make longer-term recommendations for performance. Major considerations included: Staff efforts Context within the Commission's many programs Recommendations from the field, from staff, from at least one member of the board of directors The national arts education environment and issues Materials and information from and about the program and DCCAH Audience for the Report: As evaluator, we view the primary constituency as three fold: first and perhaps foremost, the Commission's staff and board; secondly, the Commission's funding community -- essentially NEA, and no less important, the DCCAH constituency, primarily the arts and education community. Ultimately, this evaluation should support improved program design and delivery systems. Summary of Findings: Because the Arts in Education program is devoted to children, youth and education, it is arguably one, if not the major, DCCAH asset to its public constituency. The program's staff is indisputably well respected by national arts and education representatives and leaders. The vast majority of those we interviewed emphasized their gratitude for Mary Hickman, in particular, and their belief that the Commission overall is providing invaluable opportunities. Operating within fairly severe financial limitations, the AIE program makes up for funding shortfalls with its remarkable performance in accessibility of services, in outreach and technical assistance to potential grantees, artists, arts organizations and the school system. Furthermore, the Arts for Every Student program, a partnership with the Arts and Humanities Collaborative, is a resounding favorite with both schools and arts organizations in the metropolitan area. On the other hand, all agree that in addition to severe funding limitations, the AIE program faces a host of complex challenges and decisions. Many relate to the larger, DC Commission's budget, programming, organizational structure and political exigencies. Other challenges arise from DCCAH's dual role as both a "local" and a "state" agency with a limited strategy at this point with respect to private and even some public funding sources. Some concerns also relate to the volatility of the local and national arts education environment. Some are indigenous to the District of Columbia, and the relative instability of its public schools. Furthermore, at this time, the Arts In Education program's specific mission and agenda with respect to arts learning goals and standards, both local and national, is somewhat ambiguous. Finally, the emerging strength of the DC Arts and Humanities Collaborative speaks to a need to clarify the Commission's role as both a funder, (minimally for Collaborative, but more significantly for its other programs,) an arts education service provider (e.g. teacher training, artists' training, arts education consultant) and as a clearinghouse. Still a relatively young agency, as the Collaborative grows, its relationship with the schools and the school administration, and its emphasis on service delivery, may well be increasingly shared with the Commission. We conclude by recommending that DCCAH consider four major areas for action: Increased emphasis in refining its role vis a vis educational and curricular standards and goals Ongoing constituency educational needs assessments and evaluation Strategic planning A feasibility study to increase funding opportunities, both private and public