The launch of artsindex.org.

What this report covers.

On the evening of May 3, 2026, the Foundation launched artsindex.org, a public-facing research instrument that allows residents and regional audiences to indicate their interest in seventy-five candidate cultural activations under study. Submissions are captured in a structured database and aggregated for analysis under the calibrated demand methodology defined in the Cultural Investment Strategy. The instrument is operational, accepting submissions, and producing data suitable for the Foundation’s 24-month field research program.

No Foundation funds were expended in the launch. The infrastructure runs on free-tier services with a low-cost upgrade path triggered only by submission volume. The instrument operates within the boundaries of the Cultural Investment Strategy and produces data in formats compatible with downstream Cultural Investment Index analysis.

What enables this work.

The Cultural Investment Strategy adopted by the Foundation establishes demand validation as the prerequisite for cultural-infrastructure investment. Section 4.3 of the Strategy defines the methodology: stated-intent ratings translated through the Juster scale, adjusted by the Morwitz factor for intent-to-action conversion, and discounted by a social-desirability haircut specific to cultural-attendance research.

Section 7.2 of the Strategy specifies how calibrated demand becomes one of the five components of the Cultural Investment Index that governs all Foundation activation decisions. The Strategy explicitly contemplates a public-facing instrument to gather resident demand signal at scale. The artsindex.org launch is the first operational deployment of that instrument and the first systematic mechanism by which the Foundation receives structured demand data from the public.

What the Foundation built.

The instrument

A single-page web application is deployed at artsindex.org. The application presents seventy-five candidate cultural activations across eleven discipline categories. For each concept, a respondent provides a Juster intent rating on the standard zero-to-ten scale. Respondents enter a five-digit ZIP code (any valid ZIP, with the form welcoming Duncanville residents and regional respondents alike) and may opt in to receive follow-up communication. Submissions complete in two to five minutes depending on the number of concepts rated.

The data pipeline

Submissions are captured by a third-party form processor (Formspree) and routed simultaneously to two destinations: a Foundation-controlled Google Sheet titled “Arts Index Submissions” and a live dashboard accessible to authorized Foundation staff. The Google Sheet is the authoritative record. The dashboard supports operational triage between formal reporting periods.

The reporting mechanism

A standard report format has been developed for periodic analysis of the accumulated data. The format applies the calibration math from CIS Section 4.3, generates per-concept implied demand estimates, ranks concepts against their per-event capacity targets, and produces a watch-list of concepts showing early signal. The format is repeatable and produces deliverables suitable for binder insertion alongside the Cultural Investment Strategy. A worked sample of the report, run on synthetic data to demonstrate the format, is available at duncanvillearts.org/sample-demand-report.

How the instrument feeds the Cultural Investment Strategy.

Each operational feature of the instrument has a specific function within the research methodology defined by the Strategy. The diagram below places the instrument within the four operational stages of the Strategy. The mapping table that follows identifies which feature contributes to which Strategy component.

The catalog gathers structured demand signal from residents and regional audiences. Advancement to Stage 2 (Validation) requires the concept to clear the demand thresholds defined in CIS Section 7.2 and to demonstrate financial pre-commitment. The Foundation requires additional evidence beyond intent data before moving any concept between stages.

Feature mapping

The table below maps each feature of the instrument to the Strategy component it serves.

Each feature has an explicit role within the Strategy. The instrument contains no feature designed for marketing or audience engagement independent of the research function.

What this costs the Foundation.

Direct cash outlay to the Foundation: $0. The domain registration was paid personally by the Founding Executive Director and is not currently reimbursed by the Foundation. No Foundation budget line was created or drawn against. All cloud infrastructure was deployed on free-tier services.

How the build labor estimate was calculated

The build labor figure represents an estimated 120 hours of Founding Executive Director time spread across the development period. The work includes concept research and peer benchmarking for seventy-five candidate cultural activations, methodology development under the Cultural Investment Strategy, technical implementation of the catalog and data pipeline, deployment configuration, and design of the periodic reporting format. Hours are estimated rather than logged; the figure can be refined when timekeeping for in-kind professional services is formalized in the Foundation’s recordkeeping practice.

Valuation uses the Independent Sector 2025 estimate of the value of volunteer time for Texas of $33.59 per hour, published by Independent Sector with the Do Good Institute at the University of Maryland and based on Bureau of Labor Statistics wage data. This represents a conservative wage-replacement value. The work performed (research methodology, statistical calibration, technical infrastructure development) meets the FASB ASC 958-605 criteria for specialized contributed services that the Foundation would otherwise have purchased at fair market value. Specialized professional rates in the relevant market would place the equivalent purchased value materially higher; the conservative figure is reported here for accounting prudence.

Anticipated future costs

The Formspree free tier accommodates fifty submissions per month. The Foundation should anticipate moving to the paid tier ($10 per month, 1,000 submissions) at the point where digital outreach scales beyond the Advisory Board to community partners. The expense becomes appropriate as a budget line at that point. At $120 per year, it remains within ordinary operating discretion and would not require a separate Director vote.

Domain renewal continues at approximately $10 per year. No other recurring costs are anticipated for the operation of the instrument.

What could go wrong.

Methodological limitations

Stated-intent data, even when calibrated, overstates actual behavior. The Strategy addresses this through the Morwitz factor and the social-desirability haircut, but the residual uncertainty cannot be eliminated. The Cultural Investment Index treats demand as one component among five for this reason. The catalog produces signal; activation decisions require additional evidence.

Self-selection in the response base introduces bias. Respondents who reach the catalog through Foundation channels are systematically more arts-engaged than the average Duncanville resident. The 24-month research design addresses this through staged outreach to channels that reach less-engaged residents. The first months of data will overrepresent arts-engaged respondents and should be interpreted accordingly.

Operational limitations

The instrument operates at the discretion of three third-party services: Cloudflare for the domain and hosting, Formspree for form processing, and Google for data storage. None has long-term contractual commitment to the Foundation. The Foundation has redundant access to all submitted data through the Google Sheet, which means a service disruption at any single vendor is recoverable. A complete loss of Formspree would require switching to an alternative processor, which is a few hours of work; the data already collected would remain intact.

Reputational considerations

A public-facing instrument is observable to the City, to peer organizations, and to potential funders. Inaccurate or premature claims drawn from the data would carry institutional reputational cost. The reporting methodology defined in the Cultural Investment Strategy, with its explicit n-thresholds and calibration disclosures, is designed to keep Foundation communications about the data within defensible bounds. Director discipline on this point is requested: any external reference to the catalog’s findings should be cleared through the Executive Director and should reflect the methodology’s caveats.

What happens next.

The instrument enters its operational phase. All outreach during this phase will be digital, conducted one-to-one and through community partners. The Foundation will not engage in mass-mail or door-to-door outreach. Anticipated milestones follow.

Within thirty days. Direct digital outreach to the Advisory Board (eighteen members) and a small first cohort of residents through the Foundation’s existing channels. Target: one hundred submissions. Anticipated content for next Board update: confirmation of operational stability, initial submission volume, qualitative observations, no quantitative findings.

Within ninety days. Expansion of digital outreach through community partners, with one-to-one introductions made to residents through trusted intermediary relationships. Target: two hundred fifty submissions. Anticipated content for next Board update: per-concept sample sizes approaching methodological thresholds for the most-engaged formats; first quarterly demand report.

Within twelve months. Continued sampling, with cohort tracking to test stability of demand signal across reporting periods. The first formal CII activation review (which combines demand data with the four other CII components) becomes possible at approximately eighteen months from launch, contingent on sample volume. The instrument continues operation through the full 24-month research window.