Cultural Investment Strategy
The complete governing, research, and operational protocol for the Foundation’s 24-month applied field study. Version 3.2, effective May 1, 2026.
A governing and research protocol for testing arts demand in Duncanville.
This document is the official governing, strategic, and operational protocol for the Duncanville Arts Foundation’s 24-month Cultural Investment Strategy. It defines the study question, the decision rules, the operating model, the measurement framework, and the limits of inference. It is written as an applied field-study and program-evaluation document: every claim is bounded, every metric is sourced, and every conclusion is earned.
Duncanville’s current official profile establishes the practical need for this approach. The city had an estimated population of 39,203 in 2024, 13,215 households in the 2020-2024 ACS, median household income of $76,457, and per capita income of $30,942. Because Duncanville remains below the standard 65,000-population threshold used for most ACS 1-year estimates, local planning must rely heavily on 5-year ACS data, metro-level expenditure benchmarks, and locally collected behavioral evidence.
The Foundation’s central question is straightforward: can arts programs incubated in Duncanville demonstrate repeat local demand, estimated substitution of out-of-city entertainment spending, and program-level operating viability sufficient to continue beyond the incubation period? This document establishes how that question will be tested and how findings will be reported.
Revision history.
Version 3.2, April 6, 2026. Restructured Section 5 as “The Operating Model” to align with the Foundation’s public three-stage framework: Activations, Measurement, Incubation. Activations now occur across Duncanville at a range of venues rather than exclusively at Arts Junction. Programs that demonstrate consistent performance graduate into incubation at Arts Junction, the Foundation’s institutional home for programs that have earned continuation. This revision protects the methodology from venue-dependency risk: the research design no longer requires exclusive control of any single property, and the Foundation’s long-term commitments can adapt to changes in Arts Junction tenancy or Foundation real estate arrangements without disrupting the study. Sections 2.2, 3, 5, 9.8, 10, 11, and 12 updated to reflect the citywide activation model. Principle 1.6 updated. The four-sub-stage operational pipeline (Intake, Development, Validation, Execution) is preserved as sub-stages nested under Stage 1. Stage 2 cross-references Section 6. Stage 3 cross-references Section 10. Section 4.3 derivation row 5 rewritten to use the BLS fees-and-admissions subcategory ($935 per consumer unit in 2024) rather than an estimated percentage, producing a defensible $9.1M arts envelope grounded in published BLS data. NADAC/ICPSR 38050 (Kickstarter Data, 2009-2020) added to Section 13 references as the underlying data source for the Kickstarter analysis. Pension and Fristoe (2025) added with a corresponding in-text citation in the Research Foundations section. Type scale consolidated and design system refined for document decorum. No changes to research protocol, measurement framework, decision rules, or scope conditions.
Version 3.1. Added human subjects and ethics determination (Section 9.5) and data management protocol (Section 9.6). Corrected scholarly citations to DOI-anchored references. Clarified the median/mean basis of the income adjustment ratio in the expenditure derivation (Section 4.3). Consolidated redundant methodology descriptions. Editorial and design refinements throughout.
Version 3.0. Initial governing protocol establishing the Cultural Investment Strategy framework, research question, decision rules, measurement protocol, and appendices.
Who runs this, and how.
Operating entity.
The Cultural Investment Strategy operates under the Duncanville Arts Foundation, an independent nonprofit that builds the infrastructure artists and arts organizations need to work, grow, and stay rooted in Duncanville.
Board of Directors.
A Board of Directors holds fiduciary and policy oversight. The Board authorizes governance documents, major organizational actions, and the strategic framework under which the Cultural Investment Strategy operates.
Executive leadership.
Ron Thompson serves as Founding Executive Director of the Duncanville Arts Foundation. His background includes portfolio development, philanthropic strategy, and cross-sector partnership building. He previously served as founding Chair of the Duncanville Arts Commission, where collaborative work established the Duncanville Arts Fund grants program and secured formal designation of the Armstrong Park Cultural District.
Advisory board.
The Foundation maintains an Advisory Board composed of professionals in arts administration, community development, and cultural programming. The Advisory Board provides strategic and methodological counsel. Formal external research partnerships will be disclosed only when finalized.
Staffing model.
The Cultural Investment Strategy uses a per-activation staffing model. Each validated program carries its own staffing costs within the pre-commitment budget. This reduces fixed overhead, allows staffing to scale with activity, and reinforces the rule that activations proceed only when costs are covered in advance.
The Duncanville Arts Foundation provides the enabling infrastructure: intake processing, workshop coordination, data collection, and reporting. Those functions are supported through Foundation operations, not charged against individual activation budgets.
Ten principles governing every investment decision.
The following principles apply to all programs, partnerships, activations, and decisions undertaken through this strategy.
An applied field study and incubation framework.
2.1 Core identity.
The Cultural Investment Strategy is an applied field study and program-incubation framework. It is designed to test whether arts programming incubated in Duncanville can demonstrate repeat local demand, estimated substitution of out-of-city entertainment spending, and operating viability at the program level. It is also a Foundation governance tool for deciding when to activate, redesign, graduate, or sunset a program.
2.2 Scope and design boundaries.
This strategy is a bounded observational design conducted in a defined local setting. It operates across Duncanville over a 24-month window and observes activations in the venues and conditions where they naturally occur. Its conclusions apply to the programs, audiences, and conditions actually observed. Broader claims require broader evidence.
2.3 Research question.
The primary research question is whether arts programs incubated through this framework can, over a 24-month observation window, demonstrate sufficient evidence of local demand, repeated participation, and post-incubation viability to justify continuation in Duncanville.
2.4 Units of analysis.
The primary unit of observation is the individual activation. The primary longitudinal unit is the program across repeated activations. The portfolio is the aggregate unit used for Foundation-level interpretation. Conclusions must remain at the level supported by the available data.
2.5 Primary and secondary outcomes.
Primary outcomes: pre-commitment attainment, Duncanville resident share, estimated substitution, and repeat participation. Secondary outcomes: adjacent business lift, proposer development, and feasibility of permanent placement. Secondary outcomes inform decisions and enrich interpretation; primary outcomes carry the governing weight.
2.6 Operational definitions.
Sustainable means a program demonstrates repeated demand and a credible continuation pathway without recurring emergency underwriting. Independent means continuation is feasible after incubation without ongoing Foundation subsidy as a condition of routine operation. Take root means repeated activation, identifiable local audience formation, and a plausible permanent-placement pathway within Duncanville.
The Foundation’s incubator for programs that earn continuation.
3.1 Location and context.
Arts Junction is located within Old Rail Station at 202 W. Center Street in downtown Duncanville. Old Rail Station is a 3.35-acre mixed-use development with multiple buildings, outdoor gathering areas, and an existing tenant mix that includes dining, fitness, and professional services. Arts Junction is the Foundation’s institutional incubator: the home for programs that have demonstrated consistent performance through citywide activations and earned formal Foundation commitment.
3.2 Facility specifications.
The property includes about 4,000 square feet of event-capable space with kitchen access, 8,400 square feet of flexible retail and office space, outdoor patios and gathering areas, pickleball courts, and adjacency to tenants including a coffee house, fitness studios, and dining options.
3.3 Strategic function.
Arts Junction serves as the Foundation’s incubator. Programs that demonstrate consistent performance through citywide activations graduate into Arts Junction for fiscal sponsorship, governance support, administrative cover, and continued measurement. The venue supports incubated programs with event-capable space, retail and office flex, and adjacency to established Old Rail Station tenants. Some incubated programs operate at Arts Junction on a residency basis. Others use Arts Junction as their institutional home while continuing to operate at other Duncanville venues. The incubator is a commitment, not only a building, and the Foundation’s support of incubated programs is structured to survive any future change in Arts Junction tenancy or venue arrangements.
3.4 Adjacency benefits.
Programs that operate at Arts Junction benefit from co-location with existing Old Rail Station tenants. Activations at the venue can increase foot traffic for neighboring businesses while those businesses add convenience and amenities for attendees. That setting also makes adjacent-business impact measurable for activations held on site.
Economic context and expenditure assumptions.
4.1 The spending context.
The strategy begins from a simple premise: Duncanville households already spend money on entertainment. In the absence of compelling local options, much of that spending occurs elsewhere in the metropolitan area. The Foundation’s research tests whether a measurable portion can be redirected under actual local conditions. It makes no assumption about the total share available to arts programming.
4.2 Source data.
The expenditure framework uses official federal data because Duncanville does not have city-level consumer expenditure microdata. Local demographic context is drawn from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2020-2024 ACS and QuickFacts profile. Household expenditure context is drawn from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2024 annual release.
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Population estimate, 2024 | 39,203 |
| Households, 2020-2024 ACS | 13,215 |
| Median household income | $76,457 |
| Per capita income | $30,942 |
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Average annual expenditures | $78,535 |
| Average income before taxes | $104,207 |
| Entertainment share of expenditures | 4.6% |
4.3 Directional expenditure envelope.
Because city-level consumer expenditure data are unavailable, the Foundation uses a clearly bounded scaling exercise to estimate the approximate size of household entertainment spending potentially available for redirection. This is a directional planning device: useful for establishing scale, intended for context, and subject to the limits described below.
4.4 Scenario framework.
The recapture scenarios below are interpretive benchmarks only. They contextualize what observed portfolio data might mean once collected.
| Scenario | Annual | 24-month | Per household | Monthly |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10% | $3.5M | $7.0M | $265/yr | ~$22 |
| 20% (baseline planning scenario) | $7.0M | $14.0M | $530/yr | ~$44 |
| 30% | $10.5M | $21.0M | $795/yr | ~$66 |
4.5 Analytical use and limits.
This calculation applies national expenditure ratios to local income, uses median rather than distributional data, and treats the BLS fees-and-admissions subcategory as the venue-based arts portion of household entertainment spending. The estimate establishes scale, and scale is useful context. The $9.1M fees-and-admissions envelope represents the addressable arts portion; the recapture scenarios in 4.4 above apply to the broader $35M total entertainment envelope. Program-level evidence remains primary. Ticket sales, resident share, repeat participation, and substitution estimates generated through actual activations carry more weight than any theoretical market envelope.
Three stages, one system.
The Cultural Investment Strategy operates as a three-stage system. Activations happen across Duncanville at a range of venues. Measurement applies the Cultural Investment Index to every activation. Programs that demonstrate consistent performance graduate into incubation at Arts Junction, the Foundation’s institutional home for programs that have earned formal commitment.
Programs achieving 100% pre-commitment proceed. Programs that do not achieve full pre-commitment do not proceed.
The three stages are the Foundation’s operating framework. Stage 1 contains the operational sub-stages through which each program moves from concept to execution at a Duncanville venue. Stage 2 applies the evaluation instrument specified in Section 6. Stage 3 carries validated programs into incubation at Arts Junction, with the entry criteria and continuation pathways specified in Section 10.
5.1 Stage one: Activations.
An activation is a validated program running at a Duncanville venue. During the 24-month study period, activations occur at a range of locations across the city: partner spaces, parks, commercial properties, civic venues, and other sites suited to the specific program. Venue selection is made collaboratively during development based on each program’s format, audience, and operational needs. Activations move through four operational sub-stages from concept to execution.
5.2 Stage two: Measurement.
Every executed activation is evaluated through the Cultural Investment Index, a weighted five-factor scoring instrument. The Index combines pre-commitment achievement, Duncanville resident share, estimated substitution, repeat participation, and adjacent business lift into a single 0-to-100 score that informs continuation, redesign, or sunset decisions. Complete specifications of the Index, its scoring rubrics, its decision thresholds, and its governance uses appear in Section 6.
5.3 Stage three: Incubation.
Programs that demonstrate consistent performance across activations graduate into incubation at Arts Junction. Incubation is the Foundation’s formal commitment to a program’s continuation and includes fiscal sponsorship under the Foundation’s 501(c)(3), governance scaffolding, administrative cover, continued measurement, and institutional and physical home at Arts Junction within Old Rail Station.
Incubated programs operate in one of several configurations. Some take on a recurring residency at the Arts Junction venue. Some continue operating at other Duncanville venues under the Foundation’s administrative umbrella. Some use Arts Junction as their base while pursuing eventual independent establishment. The incubator is structured for flexibility so that each program’s configuration can match its operational fit. Complete specifications of entry criteria, review standards, and continuation configurations appear in Section 10.
5.4 Foundation-initiated activations.
The Foundation may identify gaps in Duncanville’s cultural landscape and recruit founders to address them. Those programs still move through all three stages. The Foundation provides enabling infrastructure, not permanent operational control. Independence remains a condition of Foundation-initiated entry.
5.5 Cohort-based development.
The Foundation develops proposers in cohorts. Multiple proposers enter the development sub-stage at the same time, move through a shared workshop sequence, and contribute activation data into a common learning environment.
Proposers learn from one another’s validation and execution results. A culinary concept can learn from a performing arts concept’s pre-commitment strategy. A visual arts group can learn from a film society’s audience development approach. Cohorts also create a peer network where none currently exists; research on arts organizations operating in isolation (Tully and Schrag 2025) shows that structured knowledge-sharing improves outcomes. And when multiple proposers validate and execute in overlapping periods, the Foundation can identify patterns across categories, formats, and audiences that a purely serial pipeline would obscure.
A provisional decision instrument built for disciplined governance.
All programs are evaluated using the Cultural Investment Index. The Index is a standardized Foundation decision instrument designed to create consistency across proposals and activations. It is a governance tool: a structured way to weigh observed evidence so that decisions rest on comparable data rather than ad hoc impressions. Professional judgment remains essential to interpretation.
Graduation requires an adequate number of activations, acceptable data quality, and a pattern of evidence consistent with post-incubation viability. A score alone does not authorize it.
6.1 The Cultural Investment Index.
| Factor | Weight | Measure |
|---|---|---|
| Pre-Commitment Achievement | 30% | Percentage of 100% threshold reached and timing of attainment |
| Duncanville Resident Share | 25% | ZIP code distribution of purchasers and attendees |
| Estimated Substitution | 20% | Survey responses indicating likely redirected spending |
| Repeat Participation | 15% | Return attendance across activations |
| Adjacent Business Lift | 10% | Measured tenant traffic or revenue change on event nights |
Weight rationale.
The weights are policy choices anchored in the logic of the strategy. Pre-commitment carries the highest weight because it is the strongest ex ante signal available before activation. Resident share follows because the strategy is specifically concerned with Duncanville-based demand. Estimated substitution is central to the research question but remains partly self-reported, so it is weighted heavily without being allowed to dominate the model. Repeat participation matters for durability but cannot be observed at first activation. Adjacent business lift is retained as a secondary place-based indicator because it is useful but externally sensitive.
These weights are provisional. After Year One, the Foundation will review whether the allocation differentiates strong programs from weak programs in ways that match observed outcomes. Any recalibration will be documented publicly and applied prospectively.
6.2 Scoring methodology.
Each factor is scored on a 0 to 100 scale using observed activation data. Where data are unavailable or analytically weak, the factor is either flagged as provisional or withheld from standalone interpretation. Low-quality data do not become high-confidence findings by being inserted into a formula.
6.3 Decision thresholds.
70 and above: eligible for graduation review, but not automatically graduated. 50 to 69: development support, redesign, pricing adjustments, or audience strategy revision. Below 50: redesign or sunset review. No graduation decision is made from a single activation.
6.4 Data-quality override.
Survey response rates below the protocol threshold, major missing-data problems, material operational anomalies, or unrepeatable one-time conditions trigger a data-quality override. In these cases, the Foundation may defer scoring interpretation, require another activation, or treat the result as provisional. This protects the framework from false precision.
6.5 Plateau rule.
Programs scoring between 50 and 69 across three consecutive activations without meaningful improvement are reviewed for redesign or sunset. The purpose of the plateau rule is to prevent indefinite drift inside the pipeline and to keep Foundation development capacity available to stronger propositions.
What the data does beyond program evaluation.
7.1 Donor development.
The strategy generates validated data that makes the case for philanthropic support. Donors see which programs demonstrated demand, which audiences attended, and which substitution patterns emerged. The CII provides donors with a transparent framework for understanding how their contributions are evaluated and deployed.
7.2 Real estate consideration.
Programs that have completed citywide activations and entered incubation at Arts Junction carry demonstrated demand data, operational track records, and proven audience bases. Property owners gain candidate tenants with validated performance metrics. Real estate developers can use CII scores to evaluate cultural tenants for mixed-use developments.
7.3 Regional communications.
Public data, the dashboard, and annual reporting create a communications platform. The Foundation speaks with authority about what works because the data is published. The substitution survey data provides compelling narratives about local choice and community preference.
7.4 Land use planning.
Aggregated data on attendance patterns, geographic distribution, and adjacent business impacts informs municipal land use decisions. This data supports alignment with Duncanville 2040 comprehensive planning objectives.
Two entities, two mandates, one city.
The Duncanville Arts Commission and the Duncanville Arts Foundation operate in the same city under different structures, funding streams, and mandates. The Commission is a municipal advisory body administering public Hotel Occupancy Tax funding for tourism promotion. The Foundation is an independent nonprofit validating private demand to retain resident entertainment spending. Their roles are different and mutually useful.
8.1 Structural comparison.
| Dimension | Arts Commission | Arts Foundation |
|---|---|---|
| Entity type | Municipal advisory board; nine members appointed by City Council | Independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit |
| Funding source | Hotel Occupancy Tax (public); up to 15% of annual HOT revenue | Pre-committed private revenue (ticket sales, sponsorships, vendor deposits) |
| Legal mandate | Promote tourism and the hotel/convention industry (Texas Tax Code §351.101) | Recapture resident entertainment spending through demand-validated programming |
| Validation model | Grant application review by Commission members; City Council approval | 100% pre-commitment of projected costs before activation proceeds |
| Risk profile | Public funds granted on projected merit; standard grant accountability | Zero capital deployed without demonstrated demand; per-activation staffing |
| Scale | Annual grants in the thousands ($3,000-$20,000 per award) | $6.2 million annual recapture target across validated activations |
| Measurement | Tourism promotion compliance | Substitution behavior, ZIP code distribution, repeat attendance, adjacent business impact |
| Audience | Outward: attracting visitors to Duncanville | Inward: retaining residents who currently spend outside the city |
A program can score high on the Cultural Investment Index and low on tourism eligibility. The mandates overlap partially. This is a design feature: each entity fills a gap the other cannot reach.
8.2 What the Foundation generates for the Commission.
The Foundation produces behavioral data at a level of specificity that exceeds what the Commission’s structure supports. Four outputs are especially useful: ZIP code distribution, substitution survey results, repeat attendance and adjacent-business impact, and a pre-vetted pipeline of programs already carrying documented track records.
8.3 What the Commission generates for the Foundation.
The Commission provides capabilities the Foundation cannot create on its own: municipal legitimacy, access to public funding and grant infrastructure, and the civic framework created by the Armstrong Park Cultural District through the Texas Commission on the Arts.
8.4 The feedback loop.
The Foundation validates demand. The Commission can use that evidence to support stronger grant recommendations and better policy conditions. Better conditions lower barriers for proposers. More proposers produce more activations. More activations produce more data. The cycle compounds.
8.5 Managing the structural tension.
A program drawing overwhelmingly local audiences may score well on the Foundation’s CII and poorly on tourism promotion criteria. That tension is manageable if both entities publish their evaluation frameworks, proposers are clearly told which funding path fits which audience pattern, and annual reports keep the two data systems distinct while cross-referencing overlap.
8.6 Shared origin, distinct paths.
The Foundation’s executive director previously served as founding Chair of the Arts Commission (see Organizational Structure above). That history produced the public policy scaffolding: the Arts Fund grants program and the Armstrong Park Cultural District designation. The Foundation was later established as an independent nonprofit to operate beyond the structural limits of HOT revenue, tourism rules, and municipal advisory authority.
How demand is documented, bounded, and reported.
9.1 Core indicators.
Revenue retention is interpreted through four complementary indicators. Convergence across indicators strengthens confidence; divergence triggers caution and additional observation. The four indicators are resident share (are Duncanville residents attending, verified through transaction records and ZIP code analysis), estimated substitution (would attendees likely have spent money elsewhere, captured through the standardized survey), adjacent business lift (do nearby tenants experience measurable change relative to baseline comparison nights), and repeat participation (does attendance recur across activations strongly enough to suggest local habit formation).
9.2 The substitution survey.
All activated programs administer a standardized six-question survey (see Appendix C for the complete instrument and scoring method). The survey captures a self-reported counterfactual: what the attendee would likely have done, and spent, if the event had not existed. Standardized response categories separate out-of-city substitution from staying home and other local activity, so redirected demand and newly created activity remain distinct. Because the counterfactual is self-reported, all substitution findings are treated as estimates.
9.3 Analysis protocol.
Response-rate rule: 40% or above is the standard threshold for strong confidence; 25 to 39% receives a reduced-confidence flag; below 25% is insufficient for standalone substitution interpretation. Item nonresponse: missing answers are excluded from that item denominator and reported. Outliers and open-ended spend values: extreme values are top-coded or conservatively handled under the annual protocol so that a small number of unusually high responses do not inflate portfolio estimates. Anomalies: unusual weather, simultaneous citywide events, or operational disruptions are documented in the activation record.
9.4 Transparency commitment.
All public reporting will present findings at the scale supported by the data. The Foundation will publish aggregated results, response-rate flags, major exclusions, methodological revisions, and stated limitations. It will not publish personally identifiable information through this framework.
9.5 Human subjects and ethics.
The substitution survey collects anonymous, minimal-risk responses from attendees at public events. No names, email addresses, or other personally identifiable information are gathered in the core instrument. The survey design meets the criteria for exempt status under federal human subjects regulations (45 CFR 46.104(d)(2)): research involving survey procedures where responses are recorded anonymously and where disclosure would place respondents at no reasonable risk. The Foundation maintains this exempt-status determination on file and will seek formal IRB review if the research design is extended to include identifiable data or vulnerable populations.
9.6 Data management.
Activation-level data (ticket records, ZIP code distributions, survey responses, adjacent business measurements) is stored in the Foundation’s secured operational database with access limited to Foundation staff and authorized research partners. Data is retained for the duration of the study and for a minimum of three years following the publication of final findings, consistent with standard research retention practices. Aggregated data is published through the dashboard and annual reports. Source-level records are available for methodological audit by the Board of Directors or authorized external reviewers. At the close of the retention period, the Foundation will evaluate whether continued retention serves a legitimate research or governance purpose.
9.7 Portfolio reporting threshold.
Portfolio-level substitution findings and recapture estimates will be emphasized only after the Foundation has accumulated a meaningful survey base. Before that threshold is reached, results are reported primarily at the activation or program level and described as early directional findings.
9.8 Scope conditions.
The study operates within four defined boundaries. First, substitution is self-reported: respondents describe what they believe they would have done, which is the best available proxy under field conditions. Second, all activations occur within Duncanville, so findings describe the local operating environment specifically. Third, the design is observational, which means patterns can be identified and tracked but causal claims require caution. Fourth, two years is long enough to observe meaningful behavioral patterns while leaving longer-term institutional questions open for future study.
9.9 From activation data to citywide interpretation.
The Foundation will move carefully from documented activation-level results to broader interpretation. First, each activation produces its own observed sales data and estimated substitution result. Second, those results are aggregated at the portfolio level. Third, the portfolio total may be interpreted against the directional arts-relevant expenditure subset described in Section 4. Portfolio estimates describe what the Foundation has observed, and the Foundation will report them at exactly that scale.
Graduation requires repeated evidence.
10.1 Graduation criteria.
A program becomes eligible for graduation review only when it demonstrates a repeated pattern of demand across multiple citywide activations, acceptable data quality, strong or improving resident share, credible evidence of repeat participation, and a plausible operating pathway under Foundation incubation. A CII score of 70 or above is necessary for review but is not sufficient on its own.
10.2 What graduation means.
Graduation means that, within this protocol and this local operating environment, a program has generated enough evidence through citywide activation to justify formal Foundation commitment and entry into the Arts Junction incubator. The conclusion is specific to the conditions tested.
10.3 Incubation configurations.
Incubated programs operate in one of three configurations. The configuration is selected based on operational fit, not as a hierarchy.
10.4 Risk-mitigation function.
The framework reduces speculative risk on multiple sides. Proposers test concepts at appropriate venues before taking on fixed occupancy obligations. Property owners encounter operators with actual demand history instead of untested assumptions. The Foundation learns which programs merit deeper support and which do not. And because activations are not bound to any single venue, the framework remains intact through changes in Arts Junction tenancy or Foundation real estate arrangements.
10.5 Multi-activation decision pattern.
| Pattern | Observed trajectory | Decision |
|---|---|---|
| Consistent high | 70+ across three or more consecutive activations with acceptable data quality | Graduation candidate |
| Improving trajectory | Below 70 initially, then moving into graduation range by later activations | Graduation review with monitoring |
| Plateau | 50 to 69 across three consecutive activations without meaningful improvement | Redesign or sunset review |
| Declining | Scores or core indicators deteriorate across activations | Corrective review or sunset |
| Consistent low | Below 50 across repeated activations | Sunset recommendation |
No program remains in indefinite trial status. Programs that have not demonstrated a credible graduation pathway by the sixth activation are reviewed for redesign or sunset so that the pipeline remains available to new entrants.
May 2026 through April 2028.
Year one: Build the pipeline (May 2026 to April 2027).
| Quarter | Primary activities |
|---|---|
| Q1 (May-Jul 2026) | Launch intake process; establish workshop curriculum; recruit initial proposer cohort |
| Q2 (Aug-Oct 2026) | First activations launch at selected Duncanville venues; establish data collection protocols; first quarterly partner report |
| Q3 (Nov 2026-Jan 2027) | Analyze substitution patterns; refine workshop content; launch public dashboard |
| Q4 (Feb-Apr 2027) | Comprehensive Year One review; identify graduation candidates; publish annual impact report |
Year two: Graduate and scale (May 2027 to April 2028).
| Quarter | Primary activities |
|---|---|
| Q5 (May-Jul 2027) | First graduations into Arts Junction incubation; establish property owner partnerships; expand proposer pipeline |
| Q6 (Aug-Oct 2027) | Track incubated program performance; deepen repeat participation analysis; refine graduation criteria |
| Q7 (Nov 2027-Jan 2028) | Evaluate citywide commercial inventory opportunities; document placement case studies |
| Q8 (Feb-Apr 2028) | Comprehensive two-year assessment; recommendations for Year Three and beyond |
The study is designed to support one of three defensible conclusions.
At the close of the 24-month period, the Foundation will issue a bounded conclusion based on the quality and consistency of the evidence actually collected. The study follows the data wherever it leads.
Evidence supports post-incubation program-level viability.
If multiple programs demonstrate repeated demand, credible resident participation, and viable continuation pathways, the Foundation may conclude that Duncanville can support post-incubation arts programming under the conditions tested.
Demand exists, but continuation requires subsidy or partnership.
If local interest is observable but earned revenue alone is not sufficient, the Foundation may conclude that demand is present but that long-term continuation depends on subsidy, partnership, sponsorship, or venue support.
Evidence remains insufficient for a firm recommendation.
If the activation count is too low, data quality is inconsistent, or results are materially mixed, the Foundation will say so plainly and identify what additional evidence would be required to justify a firmer conclusion.
The most important rule in this phase is discipline: findings will be stated at the level the data can support, no higher.
The protocol is informed by peer-reviewed literature, and the claims stay within what that literature supports.
This methodology draws on peer-reviewed work in cultural crowdfunding, arts audience behavior, nonprofit cultural management, and community-based arts development. Those studies inform the Foundation’s design choices. They provide a defensible starting point. Duncanville’s outcomes will be validated locally.
Primary evidence informing the validation gate.
The strongest external evidence informing the pre-commitment gate is the large-scale longitudinal analysis of 506,199 Kickstarter cultural and creative campaigns from 2009 through 2020. Of those campaigns, 61% were unsuccessful (failed, canceled, or suspended before reaching their funding target). By 2020, the overall success rate had climbed to 48.9%, illustrating that community commitment can concentrate under constrained conditions. The relevance is specific and bounded: underfunded cultural propositions fail at high rates, and category dynamics matter. That pattern is consistent enough across half a million campaigns to justify the Foundation’s insistence on full pre-commitment before activation.
Additional supporting literature.
Audience-travel research helps justify the emphasis on local ZIP codes and travel substitution. Community-facing arts management research helps justify the importance of neighborhood-scale programming and cohort learning. A recent participatory case study of Out of Hand Theater in Atlanta (Pension and Fristoe 2025) found that an arts organization’s shift to community-focused programming, aligned with Song’s Arts-Based Community Engagement model, produced greater financial stability over time. That finding is consistent with the Foundation’s working assumption that demand validated through community engagement supports operational viability. These studies give the protocol an evidence-informed starting point. Local testing will do the rest.
An open question this study can examine.
The literature is stronger on campaign behavior and audience travel than on small-city arts incubation tied to venue-based substitution estimates. This study may contribute useful practice-based evidence on that question. Whether the final dataset is strong enough to support broader scholarly claims will depend on sample size, response quality, repetition, and the consistency of results.
Sources cited in this document.
Federal and municipal sources.
U.S. Census Bureau. QuickFacts: Duncanville city, Texas. Population estimate (2024), households (2020-2024), median household income (2020-2024), and per capita income (2020-2024).
U.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2020-2024. Guidance on the use of 1-year and 5-year estimates for areas below the standard 65,000-population threshold.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Expenditures--2024. Average annual expenditures, average income before taxes, entertainment share of expenditures, and the fees-and-admissions subcategory of entertainment ($935 per consumer unit, 2024).
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Expenditures for the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington Metropolitan Area, 2023-24.
City of Duncanville. Duncanville 2040 Comprehensive Plan implementation materials and related public planning documents.
City of Duncanville. Arts Commission duties, powers, membership, and public arts funding guidance.
Leland, J. (2022). Kickstarter Data, Global, 2009-2020. National Archive of Data on Arts and Culture (NADAC), Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]. doi:10.3886/ICPSR38050.v1 [The 506,199-project dataset underlying the Kickstarter analysis cited in this protocol.]
Peer-reviewed and scholarly sources informing the protocol.
Guimarães, A.D., Munim, Z.H., Maehle, N., Rykkja, A., and Bonet, L. (2025). Cultural and Creative Crowdfunding: How Project Categories Shape Adoption and Success on Kickstarter. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society. doi:10.1080/10632921.2025.2519715
Ostrower, F., and Marti, C.N. (2025). Performing Arts Attendance: What Leads Audiences to Travel Further? The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society. doi:10.1080/10632921.2025.2584124
Pension, J., and Fristoe, A. (2025). The Arts-Based Community Engagement (ABCE) Model in Practice: A Demonstrated Tool for Revenue Generation and Community Support in the Arts. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society. doi:10.1080/10632921.2025.2559995
Tully, K., and Schrag, A. (2025). Community Contexts Over Solutions: The Rural Art Network, Scotland. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 55(3), 123-139. doi:10.1080/10632921.2025.2473903
This framework is built to make disciplined decisions under constrained conditions.
The case for validation first.
Duncanville needs credible local evidence about what can actually endure. The strategy therefore treats every activation as both an opportunity and a test. Resources are deployed only after audience commitment is visible, and continuation is earned through repeat evidence.
That discipline matters because every allocation carries opportunity cost. A weak program that is allowed to drift absorbs venue time, staff attention, and public confidence that could have been used for a stronger proposition. The validation gate and the scoring framework are meant to prevent exactly that.
Cultural infrastructure as operating infrastructure.
This document treats arts activity as infrastructure in an operational sense: it must be maintained, measured, and capable of continuation. A building can host a program once. Cultural infrastructure exists only when programming recurs, audiences return, and an operator can plausibly continue.
What persists beyond the initial 24 months.
At the end of the initial period, the Foundation will publish an assessment of outcomes, limitations, revisions, and recommendations. What continues beyond Year Two should be determined by the evidence gathered. The strategy remains useful only so long as it helps Duncanville make better decisions.
Six questions, 90 seconds, every activation.
The standardized survey instrument captures estimated substitution behavior, geographic participation, and a conservative spending-displacement proxy. Brevity is intentional. The survey is designed for field use during live activations and should support response rates without creating respondent fatigue.
Recapture estimation method.
| Spending range | Midpoint | Application |
|---|---|---|
| $0 | $0 | Excluded from recapture calculation. |
| $1 to $25 | $13 | Multiplied by substitution respondents in this range. |
| $26 to $50 | $38 | Same method. |
| $51 to $75 | $63 | Same method. |
| $76 to $100 | $88 | Same method. |
| More than $100 | $125 | Conservative cap. |
Per-activation estimated recapture = sum of (midpoint value x number of substitution respondents in each spending range), extrapolated to total attendance using the survey response rate.
Administration requirements.
Timing: during the event after arrival and before the final 20 minutes. Administration: dedicated survey staff rather than the proposer or lead performers. Response-rate rule: 40% or above preferred; 25 to 39% reduced-confidence flag; below 25% insufficient for standalone substitution interpretation. Anonymity: no names, email addresses, or other personally identifiable information are collected in the core instrument.
Scoring rubrics, worksheet, and worked example.
The worksheet is completed by Foundation staff after each activation. Proposers receive their scored worksheet as part of post-activation feedback. Scored worksheets should be contextualized against category-specific benchmarks from published research (Section 4.5).
Scoring rubrics.
Each factor is scored on a 0-100 scale. Four tiers: Strong (80-100), Solid (60-79), Developing (40-59), Weak (0-39).
| Score | Rating | Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| 80-100 | Strong | 100% reached before original deadline. Multiple revenue sources. No extensions. Accelerating velocity. |
| 60-79 | Solid | 100% reached within one extension (up to 14 days). Two or more revenue sources. Steady velocity. |
| 40-59 | Developing | 100% reached after multiple extensions or significant last-stage effort. Single revenue source. |
| 0-39 | Weak | Did not achieve 100%. Scored only for programs that entered validation but did not activate. |
| Score | Rating | Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| 80-100 | Strong | 70%+ from Duncanville ZIP codes (75116, 75137). Strong retention alignment. |
| 60-79 | Solid | 50 to 69% Duncanville. Majority local with meaningful regional attendance. |
| 40-59 | Developing | 30 to 49% Duncanville. More regional than local. |
| 0-39 | Weak | Below 30% Duncanville. Insufficient local draw for meaningful recapture. |
| Score | Rating | Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| 80-100 | Strong | 60%+ indicate they would have gone elsewhere. |
| 60-79 | Solid | 45 to 59% indicate substitution. |
| 40-59 | Developing | 30 to 44% indicate substitution. |
| 0-39 | Weak | Below 30%. Limited evidence of spending redirection. |
| Score | Rating | Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| 80-100 | Strong | 40%+ return visitors (third activation or later). |
| 60-79 | Solid | 25 to 39% return visitors. |
| 40-59 | Developing | 15 to 24% return visitors. |
| 0-39 | Weak | Below 15%, or first activation (scored at 50 by default). |
| Score | Rating | Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| 80-100 | Strong | 25%+ lift vs. baseline. |
| 60-79 | Solid | 15 to 24% lift. |
| 40-59 | Developing | 5 to 14% lift. |
| 0-39 | Weak | Below 5% lift, no measurable change, or decline. |
Worked example (hypothetical): Jazz Series, second activation.
120 attendees. 45% survey response rate. 100% pre-commitment reached five days before deadline. Programming category: Music/Performance.
| Factor | Wt | Observed data | Score | Weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-Commitment | 0.30 | 100% reached 5 days early. Two revenue sources. No extensions. | 85 | 25.5 |
| Resident Share | 0.25 | 62% Duncanville (75116: 48%, 75137: 14%). 27% adjacent. 11% broader DFW. | 70 | 17.5 |
| Substitution | 0.20 | 52% would have gone elsewhere. 33% stayed home. 15% other. | 65 | 13.0 |
| Repeat | 0.15 | 22% attended first activation in August. | 55 | 8.25 |
| Adjacent Lift | 0.10 | Coffee house: 18% lift. Fitness studio closed. Net: 12%. | 55 | 5.5 |
CII Score: 69.75 / 100. Determination: Development Support. At the second activation, this is a strong trajectory. Pre-commitment is the highest-scoring factor. Repeat participation and adjacent business lift are developing, which is expected at this stage. A third activation with improved performance in these two factors would position the program within graduation range.
Category context: Music/Performance campaigns on Kickstarter achieved a 50.2% success rate across the 2009 to 2020 study period (Guimarães et al. 2025; NADAC/ICPSR 38050). This program’s pre-commitment performance exceeds that benchmark. The 62% resident share aligns with the Ostrower and Marti (2025) finding that community-scale performing arts programming draws primarily from local audiences.
The following supplementary materials are maintained as part of the Cultural Investment Strategy. Each addition is dated and version-controlled.