Towards a system of cultural indicators for Porto Alegre public policies

1
TOWARDS A SYSTEM OF CULTURAL INDICATORS FOR PORTO ALEGRE PUBLIC
POLICIES
Álvaro Santi
Cultural Observatory / Porto Alegre City Hall
Av. Independência 453
90035-075 Porto Alegre RS Brasil
+55 51 32250793
observatorio@smc.prefpoa.com.br
Álvaro Santi
Bachelor‟s Degree in Music and Master‟s Degree in Language by Universidade Federal do Rio
Grande do Sul – UFRGS, Technical Assistant of Porto Alegre City Hall, coordinates the local
Cultural Observatory. Full member of the Music Sector Chamber of the State of Rio Grande do Sul.
Through the Ministry of Culture he integrated the Music Sector Collegiate and the National Council
for Cultural Policy – CNPC. Guest lecturer in the Specialization Courses on Cultural Management
and Actions at UNIOESTE – PR.
Abstract
In 2005 Porto Alegre City Hall introduced a New Management Model, emphasizing transversal
actions and outcome monitoring. In this model, the Management Portal1
is the tool that allows the
standardized data recording and sharing on the Internet. It gathers more than 500 actions in 13
strategic programs, which are grouped into four strategic axes of priority. The Municipal Culture
Office (SMC) is in charge of 24 actions, monitored through 47 quantitative indicators, created by the
action managers („leaders‟), also in charge of collecting and updating data. Based on literature
available, this study analyzes these indicators so as to provide elements for a discussion with the
leaders on their effectiveness to evaluate results in terms of public policy. It is the initial phase of a
process whose final purpose is to strengthen an internal „culture‟ of evaluation and to create a system
of cultural indicators.
Keywords
local cultural policy, cultural policy evaluation, cultural indicators system.
Number of words
7,148 words
1
https://www1.prefpoa.com.br/portalgestao

2
Introduction
Porto Alegre is the capital of the State of Rio Grande do Sul (RS), the southernmost state of Brazil,
with 1.4 million inhabitants occupying its 497 km², and ranking 9th
among the municipalities with the
highest Human Development Index (HDI-M, 2000) out of the 5,564 Brazilian municipalities. Its
metropolitan region encompasses 31 municipalities where approximately four million people live.
A new administration begins in 2005 at the Porto Alegre City Hall. Among the main innovations
introduced, the „New Management Model‟ allowed the „administration integration and unity‟,
gathering efforts to „qualify public services delivered, modernize the administrative machinery,
improve municipal financial status and optimize the use of funds‟. In his inauguration speech, the new
mayor promised to adopt a „modern managerial methodology based on the identification of
performances, goals and targets‟ (Porto Alegre, 2005). The base document identifies the „limitations‟
of the worldwide known Participative Budget, among which are „lack of diagnoses, indicators and
social targets‟.
The new model constituted the Management Portal, important tool for management and internal
communication to be accessed through the Internet, that allows the standardized recording of data,
and this to be shared in real time. Initially with 21 strategic programs, the Model was restructured in
2009 and began to centralize in the Portal more than 500 actions in 12 programs, categorized into four
groups of priority operation – Environmental, Social, Economic and Administrative. In the following
year, when Porto Alegre was chosen to host the FIFA 2014 World Cup, a specific program was added
with actions regarding this event. Each action is run and monitored by a „leader‟, and each program by
a „manager‟. For every action one or more quantitative indicators have been created, and the
government has offered specific training on this theme to the leaders, who are in charge of updating
the information about their action in the Portal; if this is not done, they might not obtain the predicted
funds, thus jeopardizing the performance of the program as a whole.
Although the Model is based on three basic assumptions – transversality, territoriality and
transparency – regarding the last one it is important to point out that the base document mentioned
above states that the model „allows all citizens to monitor …. the progress of the programs‟, the
detailing provided to the citizens is the poorest possible, once the internal public is the user by
excellence of the Management Portal.
The SMC manages a budget of about US$ 23.7 million which accounts for 0.95% of the
Municipality‟s total budget2
, that fund two cultural centers, three theaters, the city museum, the public
library and the historical archives, among others. With this fund, the SMC executes 24 actions, 19 of
which integrate the Program Porto for Inclusion (Social Axis), whereas other five are part of the
Program Integrated City (Environmental Axis).
The purpose of this study is to provide elements for the reflection on indicators for these cultural
actions, thus promoting a debate on their purpose in culture public management. Therefore, we shall
bear in mind preferably a practical outcome for the institution – the improvement of the current model
– more than a literature review or some progress in theory. This does not prevent its outcome to
become useful to other cultural institutions, once we take into consideration how scarce references on
this theme are in Brazil.3
The initiative for this study emerged in the presentation of the project of the Cultural Observatory to
the SMC managers in 2010, then followed by a preliminary survey on data produced and stored daily.
In this occasion we realized the urgent need for a minimal procedure standardization, avoiding the
loss of institutional memory.
2
Amount related to the budget of 2012 in Reais (R$), converted with exchange rate of 1/1/2012
3
An evidence that the relevance of this study is not only local is the fact that the National System of Information
and Cultural Indicators (SNIIC), main mechanism of evaluation of the 53 goals of the National Cultural Plan –
published by the Ministry of Culture in December 2011 – has not been implemented yet.

3
Therefore, as the managers were familiar with the Management Portal and its indicators, it was natural
taking it as a starting point for the sought reflection. The first issue concerns whether the current
indicators are able to properly evaluate the outcomes of the cultural actions. During the research, these
actions were compared to the objectives of the SMC, defined by law. In literature, we tried to identify
propositions of cultural indicators systems to be used locally, which may later contribute to a refining
process of the current indicators – from quantitative to qualitative, for instance. Finally, we will
present a system proposition that seeks simultaneously to complement the indicators being used, and
extend, whenever possible, the ways to monitor the objectives of each action, and simplify the set,
reducing the current 24 actions to eight, number corresponding to the legal objectives of the SMC.
Cultural indicators
In a quite thorough literature review on this theme, Madden (2005) collects several definitions for the
term „cultural indicator‟, which he summarizes as „a statistic that can be used to make sense of,
monitor, or evaluate some aspect of culture, such as the arts, or cultural policies, programs and
activities‟. Moreover he points out the difference between statistic or information, capable of
describing quantitatively a particular aspect of reality, and the indicator, whose existence only makes
sense when linked to an evaluation process, a link also highlighted by Roemer (2002) and Bonet
(2004), among others. Bonet (2004) goes beyond and states that not even statistics are „neutral‟, once
decisions on their collection depend on the interpretative model being used and the strategic
objectives to which agents and institutions involved are dedicated. Therefore, both statistic and
indicators constitute „one more instrument of the policy of transformation [of reality]‟.
In Brazil, Barros (2007) was one of the first ones to propose that evaluation becomes „a principle in
the public management‟ of culture, seeking for management models compatible with the pressing
need for development, in fact attached to decision-making processes, otherwise it would be
ineffective.
Madden (2005) mentions some problems related to the use of cultural indicators (in no way restricted
to the cultural sector): a) confusion about what indicators are and how they should be used; b) lack of
quality data; c) frameworks are unwieldy; d) policy objectives are vague. Besides these, there is the
difficulty to securely associate causes and effects, i.e., the outcomes occasionally observed to the
actions whose efficacy is being evaluated. (Duxbury, 2003; Madden, 2005).
Roemer (2002) believes that the lack of a „continuous and thorough‟ evaluation of outcomes of public
policies leads to diminished expectations and trust placed by society on institutions and governments.
Evaluations usually just measure the funds invested, instead of goods and services delivered, or more
importantly, the goals reached in terms of public policy. This author sees the creation of indicators as
a process which is also political, whose legitimacy depends on the agreement of governmental
institutions, creators, cultural agents and researchers.
Madden (2005) adds that the lack of coordination among the various work fronts on this theme, based
on different perspectives, in diverse national contexts, forecasts a long path before indicators become
widely used for evaluating and monitoring cultural policies, thus allowing comparisons among several
countries. Currently such comparisons should be seen with a „healthy skepticism‟, once they present
serious restrictions, such as the lack of standardization of concepts and methodologies (Madden,
2004).
The need for a minimum level of international standardization in cultural data collection and in the
design of indicators is also highlighted by Bonet (2004), to whom a significant part of the data only
has value when it allows comparison to other realities. Nevertheless, he warns that the comparison
should not be „an end in itself‟, once outcomes of a specific cultural policy should be sought for and
understood, before everything else, in relation to the goals it sets and the means it can use.

4
According to Carrasco (2006) „information is valuable as far as it contributes to reduce uncertainty
regarding the future, if it is able to effectively affect the decision considered and if it contributes
significantly to the consequences of a decision, by transforming the cultural reality into a new reality‟.
The funds used to obtain data should be kept at a reasonable ratio with the benefits produced and the
relevance of the decisions depending on these data. This same author recommends an inclusive
perspective for the construction of indicators, trying to encompass practices that happen outside the
scopes usually considered as „cultural‟, as well as making the information produced available to
citizens.
As this article does not aim at deeply reviewing the literature on cultural indicators, what has been
mentioned above is enough for contextualizing the issue; let us then proceed to an analysis of the
indicators being used by the Porto Alegre City Hall.
Analysis of actions and indicators
Firstly we will highlight specific aspects of the analysis on the current indicators of the SMC, and
then, we will present propositions of alterations.
Three actions listed in the Management Portal have not had a defined indicator up to the present
moment. The remaining 21 have from one to five indicators each, adding up to 47. Several actions are
„multiple‟, that is, they group distinct aspects, which we will call „sub-actions‟. In some cases, such
sub-actions are closely related or complementary, as in the action „Restoring the artistic heritage‟,
which includes „restoring‟, „retrieving‟ and „publicizing‟ of „works with artistic and historical value‟.
It is clear the need for distinct indicators to evaluate how successful the restoring or publicizing were.
However, in this case, an indicator has not been allocated for the sub-action „publicizing‟.
In other cases, the relationship among sub-actions of the same action is less immediate. For example,
the action „Decentralization‟ involves „workshops, courses, exhibitions and festivals‟, whose shared
characteristic is to happen in „different regions of the city‟. In this case, in an initial analysis, it seems
appropriate to break down this action.
In several cases, as in the above mentioned „Restoring the artistic heritage‟ one or more sub-actions
have not been assigned indicators. The opposite may also occur. The indicator of the action „Free Arts
Studio‟, for instance, takes into consideration the „number of full scholarships granted to students in
the Studio‟, but granting scholarships is not among its objectives.
Based on a thorough analysis, illustrated with the examples above due to restrained space, it has been
possible to propose the following, regarding the current situation:
1) Including indicators to complement the existing ones to expand the database to monitor actions.
For instance, in the action „Visual Arts‟ we suggest the indicator „number of events‟, to
complement the existing „attendance‟.
2) Adding sub-actions or aspects to actions that have not been taken into consideration in their
description, but to which indicators have already been assigned. For instance, granting study
scholarships to the action „Free Arts Studio‟.
3) Including new indicators for sub-actions not encompassed by the current indicators. For instance,
indicators that measure the progress in implementing the Digital Arts Studio and the Popular
University of Carnival.
This proposition aims at complementing the existing set, an intention that might be reviewed
afterwards based on the discussion with leaders, who may choose to work with a smaller number of
indicators (for example, by suppressing those which are not related with the current description of the
action, or the sub-actions to which indicators had not been assigned). Another methodological
decision made was not suggesting, at this point of the process, qualitative indicators, once the
Management Portal has only used, so far, quantitative indicators. The former ones shall be considered
at a later phase in the system improvement, based on the outcomes of the discussion with leaders.

5
Table 1 below presents actions and indicators being used in the Program Integrated City; table 2
regards the Program Porto for Inclusion. The new indicators proposed, as well as complements to
their descriptions and their actions have been added in red. To make future references easier, actions
and indicators have been identified with numbers and letters (not used in the Portal). The columns on
the right hand-side („objectives‟) shall be explained later on:
Table 1: Cultural indicators and actions of the Program Integrated City (Environmental Axis). SMC’s
primary and secondary objectives, according to Article 3 of Law 6.099/88.
ACTION ACTION DESCRIPTION INDICATOR DESCRIPTION PO4
SO5
A. THE MEMORY
OF THE CITY
(FUMPAHC)6
Funds for restoring buildings
and monuments of historic
and cultural value;
implementing projects on
heritage education and
stimulating visitation to
institutions of cultural
heritage; organizing courses
and seminars on material and
immaterial heritage.
A1. Attendance at the activities of the
Program on Heritage Education by SMC
II III
A2. Number of people visiting the
institutions of cultural memory in the
municipality.
III I
A3. Number of restored buildings and
monuments
III VII
A4. Number of implemented projects on
heritage education
II III
A5. Numbers of courses and seminars on
heritage organized
II III
B. MUSEUM OF
IMAGE AND
SOUND7
(FUMPAHC)
Implementing and
maintaining the Museum of
Image and Sound to restore,
extend and properly keep the
collection
NOT ESTABLISHED. Inoperative action
C. QUALIFYING
AND EXTENDING
THE CULTURAL
FACILITIES
NETWORK IN
THE
MUNICIPALITY
Recovering, remodeling and
re-equipping cultural
buildings and extending the
cultural facilities network
C1. Number of recovered, remodeled and
re-equipped cultural facilities
VII
C2. Number of cultural facilities opened VII
C3. Funds invested in qualification and
expansion of cultural facilities
VII
C4. Funds invested by the action in
relation (%) to the SMC total budget.
VII
D. RESTORING
ARTISTIC
HERITAGE
(FUMPAHC)
Restoring, recovering and
publicizing works of artistic
and historic value
D1. Restored and recovered works of art III
D2. Number of people who have had
access to the restored or recovered work of
art (for „publicizing‟)
I III
E.
„MONUMENTA‟
PROJECT
Association with the Ministry
of Culture for restoring
buildings, monuments and
public spaces with historic
interest to the city
E1. Works done in the estate under
governmental trust
III VIII
E2. Restoration of inventoried estate III VIII
E3. Number of restored monuments III VIII
E4. Number of restored public spaces III VIII
Table 2: Cultural actions and indicators of the Program Porto for Inclusion (Social Axis). Primary and
secondary objectives, according to Article 3 of Law 6.099/88
ACTION ACTION DESCRIPTION INDICATOR DESCRIPTION PO SO
F. VISUAL ARTS
Offering courses, seminars,
festivals, exhibitions and
F1. Attendance at the cultural events of the
Visual Arts action
I V
4
PO: Primary objective, according to SMC Objectives (see table 3)
5
SO: Secondary objective, ditto.
6
FUMPAHC: Municipal Fund for Historic and Cultural Heritage (Law 4.349/77)
7
This action has been inoperative once the mentioned collection is being kept by another institution.

6
publications on visual arts;
reorganizing and qualifying the
locations and the cultural
actions addressing visual arts.8
F2. Number of events held
V I
G. VISUAL ARTS
AND IMAGES –
STIMULATING
SHORT FILMS
Showing Brazilian short films
in commercial movie theaters in
Porto Alegre, chosen through
public selection.
G1. Attendance at the screening of films
chosen by the Project Short Films on the
Screen, in the movie theaters of the circuit.
I
G2. Number of films (titles) shown I
G3. Number of screenings of these films I
G4. Number of movie theaters
participating in the project
I
H. FREE ARTS
STUDIO
Offering courses and events
that encompass all activities
within the Visual Arts, with
preferential service to students
over 60. Granting scholarships
to students in unfavorable
socioeconomic conditions.
Implementing the Digital Arts
Studio
H1. Number of students enrolled in the
regular and extra courses in the Free Arts
Studio
II IV
H2. Number of students over 60 enrolled
in the regular and extra courses in the Free
Arts Studio
II IV
H3. Regular courses offered by the Free
Arts Studio
II IV
H4. Extra courses offered by the Free Arts
Studio
II IV
H5. Number of full scholarships granted to
students of the Free Arts Studio
II IV
H6. Percentage of progress in
implementing the Digital Arts Studio
II VII
I. CARNIVAL
AND POPULAR
UNIVERSITY OF
CARNIVAL
Holding the Porto Alegre Street
Carnival; implementing the
Popular University of Carnival,
to be installed in the Dry Port
Cultural Complex
I1. Estimate of attendance at events
composing the Street Carnival
I VI
I2. Percentage of implementation of the
Project Popular University of Carnival
II VI
I3. Number of Street Carnival events V VI
J. CULTURAL
DEMOCRATIZA-
TION
(FUNCULTURA)9
Holding and supporting events
that encompass all cultural
manifestations, allowing the
community to access the
cultural assets10
NOT ESTABLISHED
K.
DECENTRALIZA-
TION
Offering workshops, courses,
exhibitions and festivals in
several areas in the city.
K1. Total of workshops and courses
offered throughout the year, by the project
Decentralized Workshops
II IV
K2. Participants of the workshops and
courses offered in the 17 city regions
II IV
K3. Estimate of attendance at cultural
events offered by in the exhibitions and
festivals of the Action Cultural
Democratization.
I VI
K4. Total number of events (exhibitions
and festivals) offered by the action
I VI
K5. Number of city regions encompassed
by this programming
V I
L. PROMOTING
CULTURAL
PRODUCTION
Promoting culture through
funding, and implementing the
Municipal Incentive Law,12
L1. Projects benefited with this fund IV
L2. Amounts granted without
reimbursement to artistic-cultural projects
IV
8
We suggest „reorganizing and qualifying the locations‟ to be excluded, once it is redundant with action C.
Regarding qualifying the actions, it is equally redundant because it is one of the objectives of the monitoring
system itself, therefore shared by all the actions.
9
FUNCULTURA: Fund for the Culture of the Municipality of Porto Alegre (Law 6.099/98)
10
We suggest the reformulation of this action in more specific terms that allow to establish its indicators.

7
(FUMPROARTE)11
qualifying FUMPROARTE
actions.13
L3. Number of projects registered per call
for application
IV
M.PROMOTING
CONTINUED
WORK IN SCENIC
ARTS
Creation of a Fund to Promote
Continued Work in Scenic Arts.
14
M1. Attendance at Scenic Arts
programming
I V
M2. Scenic Arts performances held V I
M3. Scenic Arts workshops and training
actions held
II IV
N. IMAGES
(FUMPAHC)
Performing actions to preserve
and publicize the memory of
the cinema and to value the
cultural heritage through
cinema and photography
activities
Attendance at the video-art exhibition in
the gardens of the City Department of
Water and Sewage 15
N1. Number of actions to preserve and
publicize the memory of cinema, video and
photography.
III V
N2. Attendance at the actions to preserve
and publicize memory of cinema, video
and photography.
III V
O. IMAGES
(FUNCULTURA)
exhibitions and publications
about cinema, video and
photography; reorganizing and
qualifying locations and
cultural actions addressing the
cinema, video and
photography16
; performing
actions to preserve17
, value and
publicize the national cinema.
O1. Attendance at the screenings offered
in the Festival focusing on teachers and
students of public municipal schools.
II I
O2. Number of participants in the cinema
and video-art sessions, lectures, meetings,
conferences and seminars happening at
P.F. Gastal Screening Room
I V
O3. Estimate of attendance at photo and
video-art exhibitions happening at
Galleries Lunara and dos Arcos.
I V
O4.Number of events of photo and video-
art exhibitions held in these galleries
V I
O5. Number of screenings of national films
at P.F. Gastal Screening Room
V I
O6. Number of courses and seminars held II
O7. Number of exhibitions held V I
O8. Number of publications released V I
P. BOOKS AND
LITERATURE
Performing projects and actions
addressing books and literature,
promoting courses, workshops,
seminars and contests.
Estimulating the use of Josué
Guimarães Public Library.
Establishing strategies and
extending actions so as to
qualify editorial production of
SMC and its distribution18
;
supporting the Porto Alegre
Book Fair.19
P1. Number of people who have become
members of Josué Guimarães Municipal
Library.
I
P2. Attendance at the cultural events
offered by the action
I V
P3. Number of people visiting Josué
Guimarães Municipal Library
I
P4. Number of books lent by Josué
Guimarães Municipal Library
I
P5. Funds invested in the Porto Alegre
Book Fair
VIII
i
I
P6. Number of titles released by the City
Publishing House
I V
12
This bill has been designed by SMC, but its implementation does not have a foreseen deadline, and it depends
on other segments of the government and the legislative power.
11
FUMPROARTE: Municipal Fund to Support Artistic and Cultural Production of Porto Alegre (Law 7.328/93)
13
See observation in action F.
14
Once this fund remains operative, its objective must be reviewed, and indicators similar to those in action L
should be included because they share the same operation characteristics.
15
Excluded for being excessively specific.
16
See observation in action F.
17
Encompassed by the previous action
18
See observation in Action F.
19
The Book Fair is promoted by the Book Chamber of Rio Grande do Sul, an institution that gathers
entrepreneurs from this sector.

8
P7. Number of copies sold by the City
Publishing House
I V
P8. Number of cultural events offered
through this action
V I
P9. Number of books bought by or donated
to the Public Library
I VII
Q. MORE
CULTURE IN THE
CITY
Offering projects and events
that encompass all cultural
manifestations, allowing the
population to access cultural
assets.20
Participants in projects and events that
encompass all cultural manifestations,
allowing population to access cultural
assets.
R. MUSIC
whorkshops, festivals and
performances in the field of
music; supporting events
originated in the community;
qualifying and optimizing the
operation of the Porto Alegre
Municipal Band (BMPA)
R1. Estimate of attendance at cultural
events festivals and shows offered
through the action
I V
R2. Number of performances by BMPA V I
R3. Attendance at performances by
BMPA
I V
R4. Number of events originated in the
community supported by this action.
VIII
R5. Attendance at courses, seminars and
workshops.
II
R6. Number of courses, seminars and
workshops offered.
II
R7. Number of festivals and shows offered
through the action
V I
S. NATIVISM AND
POPULAR
MANIFESTATIONS
Offering courses, seminars and
lectures; supporting community
actions in festivals and relevant
dates of our history.
S1. Estimate of attendance at the
Farroupilha Camp Festival
VI I
S2. Number of participants of the Festival
of Our Lady of Sailors
VI I
S3. Participants in music techniques
classes related to the Project New
Horizons, focusing on professional singers
and instrumentalists searching for refresher
courses courses, seminars and lectures21
II VI
S4. Number of entities participating in the
Farroupilha Camp Festival
VI
S5. Number of cultural activities held at
the Farroupilha Camp Festival
VI
S6. Number of supported „community
actions‟
VIII
T. FESTIVAL
„PORTO ALEGRE
ON THE SCENE‟
Offering courses, debates,
lectures and workshops on the
scenic arts; holding the theater
festival, with local, national,
and international performances
on the city streets and in
performing rooms, at popular
prices.
T1. Attendance at Theater, Dance and
Music performances offered by the action
I V
T2. Participants of courses and workshops
II IV
T3. Number of performances offered by
the action.
V I
T4. Number of courses and workshops
II IV
T5. Amount of admissions sold at „popular
prices‟ (50% discount for students,
professionals linked to theater, senior
citizens, etc) or donated
I
U. PORTO
ALEGRE WEEK
Offering events in various
cultural areas in conjunction
with other offices and with the
U1. Estimate of attendance at cultural
events offered through the action Porto
Alegre Week
I V
20
See observation in action J.
21
Indicator was change to become less specific and to encompass all educational activities.

9
mayor‟s office, to celebrate the
foundation of the city.
U2. Number of cultural events offered
V I
V. OPEN
THEATER
Promoting theater projects,
organizing courses, contests,
seminars, festivals and
publications; participating in
events and celebrations
regarding the scenic arts;
revitalizing cultural spaces
and 22
stimulating the scenic
spaces in the city to be
occupied.
V1. Attendance at municipal theaters,
taking into consideration all kinds of
events.
I V
V2. Attendance at theater performances at
municipal theaters
I V
V3. Courses and workshops offered
through the action
II IV
V4. Total of events held at municipal
theaters
V I
V5. Number of plays performed at
municipal theaters
V I
V6. Number of people enrolled in contests I
V7. Total amount corresponding to awards
given in the contests
IV
V8. Number of publications released IV
V9. Number of participants in courses and
workshops
II IV
W. DANCE UNIT
Promoting dance projects,
organizing courses, seminars
and publications; participating
in events and celebrations for
the National and International
Dance Day
W1. Number of participants in events held
by the Dance Unit
I V
W2. Number of students finishing the
course given by the Experimental Dance
Group
II IV
W3. Number of courses and seminars
organized
II IV
W4. Number of festivals organized V I
X. „Usina do
Gasômetro‟ Cultural
Center (former Gas
Plant Building)
Fully exploring the potential of
the Usina do Gasômetro
Cultural Center to promote
popular culture and stimulate
art making through language
development, allowing this
space to be occupied by several
groups simultaneously, offering
a diversified and qualified
programming; qualifying and
recovering the „Usina‟ building.
23
X1. Workshops and courses held in the
rooms of the „Usina‟ Cultural Center
II IV
X2. Estimated participants in performances
and workshops24
of theater, dance and
music, offered through the action „Usina‟
I V
X3. Number of cultural activities held at
the „Usina‟; exhibitions, fairs and events.
V I
X4. Estimated participants in theater,
dance and music workshops.
II IV
The next step was retrieving the objectives the SMC had designed upon its creation, described in
Article 3rd
of Law 6.099/88, and subsequently explore their relationship with the current actions. They
were:
„I. Intensifying cultural development so as to enable all levels of the municipal population to access
cultural assets;
II. Promoting cultural education through training and informative actions, allowing individuals and
groups to participate in the cultural process;
III. Preserving Porto Alegre cultural heritage through research, protection and restoration of its
historical, artistic, architectural and landscaping heritages and permanently retrieving the city memory
and making its inventory;
IV. Stimulating and supporting creativity and all forms of free expression, thus aiming at optimizing
Porto Alegre‟s cultural life.
22
Encompassed by action C
23
The objective encompassed by action C has been excluded. Some aspects are difficult to be measured
(„promoting popular culture‟, „language development‟, „diversified programming‟) except for qualitative
analyses.
24
A specific indicator for the workshops has been created: X4

10
V. Promoting the publicizing of local cultural aspects, as well as its expansion and exchange with
other areas of knowledge;
VI. Stimulating the culture-making in all its manifestations, aiming at valuing the municipal cultural
identity;
VII. Creating, keeping and managing the cultural facilities and spaces of the Municipality;
VIII. Promoting associations and cooperation agreements with public or private entities operating in
culture development‟. (Porto Alegre, 1988)
In the two columns on the right hand-side in tables 1 and 2, we have tried to distinguish the objectives
whose range each indicator is capable of evaluating. These objectives have been limited, somehow
arbitrarily and due to practical reasons to two: a primary and a secondary one. We chose these
objectives to be the basis for a system, based on the common sense found in literature according to
which there is a need to link indicators to objectives or targets whose range one intends to evaluate.
The whole matrix, resulting from the correspondence among the 21 current actions (with their 47
indicators) and the eight objectives of the SMC shall not be shown here due to space constraints. A
summary table of this matrix is shown in Table 3, where the objectives are represented by keywords.
Table 3: Proposal for restructuring cultural actions (from 24 to 8) according to SMC objectives and the
indicators associated to each of them.
Art.
3rd
item
Objective (keyword) indicators
primary secondary
I ACESS,
DEVELOPMENT
D2, F1, G1, G2, G3, G4, I1, K3, K4,
M1, O2, O3, P1, P2, P3, P4, P6, P7,
P9, R1, R3, T1, T5, U1, V1, V2, V6,
W1, X2
A2, F2,K5, M2, O1, O4, O5,
O7, O8, P5, P8, R2, R7, S1, S2,
T3, U2, V4, V5, W4, X3
II TRAINING,
INFORMATION,
PARTICIPATION
A1, A4, A5, H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, H6,
I2, K1, K2, M3, O1, O6, R5, R6, S3,
T2, T4, V3, V9, W2, W3, X1, X4
III MEMORY, HERITAGE A2, A3, D1, E1, E2, E3, E4, N1, N2 A1, A4, A5, D2
IV CREATION, EXPRESSION L1, L2, L3, V7, V8 H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, I3, K1,
K2, M3, T2, T4, V3, V9, W2,
W3, X1, X4
V PROPAGATION,
EXCHANGE,
TRANSVERSALITY
F2, I3, K5, M2, O4, O5, O7, O8, P8,
R2, R7, T3, U2, V4, V5, W4, X3
F1, M1, N1, N2, O2, O3, P2,
P6, P7, R1, R3, T1, U1, V1,
V2, W1, X2
VI IDENTITY, DIVERSITY S1, S2, S4, S5 I1, I2, K3, K4, S3
VII INFRASTRUCTURE C1, C2, C3, C4 A3, H6, P9
VIII COOPERATION P5, R4, S6 E1, E2, E3, E4
The table above is the final point of the first phase of this work, through which we aim at simplifying
the system, by reducing from 24 to eight the number of actions, and connecting each one of them to
one of the objectives of the SMC. It can be concluded that all the objectives are, to a certain extent,
encompassed by the indicators of the current actions, and that many of these regard more than one
objective.
The objectives present conceptual difficulties which call for analysis, at least so as to clarify the
criteria used when distributing the indicators in the new proposal. The boundaries between objectives
III and VI are not always precise, once the terms cultural „heritage‟ and „identity‟ blend. Practically
speaking, there is a tendency to classify as III those activities concerning cultural identity under a
clear historic perspective – or heritage, whereas the others are classified as VI. The structure of SMC
somehow follows this reasoning by adopting a Division of Cultural Memory and another of Nativism
and Popular Manifestations.
Similarly, it is hard to dissociate objectives I and V in concrete actions, once publicizing actions
usually promotes access, and vice-versa. However, objective V is distinguished for focusing on local

11
contents and the transversality with other areas of knowledge. In this case, differently from the former
one, there is not the correspondent hierarchical separation in the structure of the SMC, once these
objectives are relevant to most of the divisions. Therefore, we have chosen to classify as V the
indicators focusing on internally or externally publicizing local contents, as well as multidisciplinary
actions. In the other cases, the access shall be considered as the primary objective.
In spite of the issues raised (or other that might be raised in the future) by a critical reading of the
objectives of SMC, the methodological option was that of not deepening this critique at this point,
once, among other aspects, any alteration in this legal text requires approval by the City Council. For
the same reason, indicators not related to an SMC objective have not been proposed (for instance,
regarding the economic dimension of cultural activities). Although the allocation of many indicators
to this or that objective might be arguable, this model guarantees there is a minimum of the former to
monitor each of the latter.
Conclusions and next steps
Although literature presents as common sense that there is a need for some kind of monitoring
regarding cultural public actions, the decision-making on such actions, at least in Brazil, rarely
involves data or indicators. The proposal of new projects is not usually accompanied by the
establishment of measurable goals either. Therefore, for Porto Alegre City Hall the integration of this
sector to the Portal is an undeniable gain that makes managers establish targets and design indicators,
elements that so far have not been present to their daily practice, although the design of the
Management Portal has not taken the specificities of the cultural sector into consideration.25
Another advantage gained with this integration becomes evident if we think, as Carrasco (2006) did,
that „the best designed and most sophisticated indicator will be useless if it is not integrated into a
dialog with those responsible for allocating funds to culture‟, once the information update in the
Management Portal by the leaders of the action is a requirement for releasing the budget funds, and
the Portal enables the core of the Government to monitor these actions with reasonable detailing.
Nevertheless, it is appropriate to point out, according to Duxbury (2003), „that cultural planners and
administrators are experiencing growing pressure to quickly develop indicators for a wide variety of
reasons, which may lead to launching indicators prematurely‟. Undoubtedly, adapting cultural actions
to the Portal and to the New Management Model has not occurred without distortions. Although the
Municipality has offered training activities for the action leaders to deal with the Portal, it is common
sense at the SMC that the system evaluates cultural policies superficially, by limiting itself to number
of events, participants or funds invested. However, still according to the above author, „the trend
towards a more integrative approach to indicator models‟, which is the case here, „appears to offer an
opportunity for the development of greater understanding of the roles of arts and culture within a
quality of life/community context.‟
Difficulties to adapt to the Model emerge when comparing the objectives of the cultural actions to
those of the programs. Porto of Inclusion, which encompasses 19 of the 24 cultural actions, seeks for
„citizens‟ self-sustainability, through public policies that promote social inclusion, such as
qualification, housing, social assistance and universal access to culture, sports and leisure‟ (Porto
Alegre, 2012). This program encompasses a total of 48 actions, linked to nine distinct municipal
departments. As SMC is the one with the biggest number of actions (50% of the total), it is natural to
suppose that cultural actions would play a major role in this program. However, the share of SMC
25
Before the emergence of the Management Portal, the SMC carried out scattered qualitative evaluations on
some of its programs – namely the Municipal Fund to Support Artistic and Cultural Production
(FUMPROARTE) (Lauermann, 2005) and the Scenic Arts Workshops in the Project Cultural
Decentralization (Ávila, 2004).

12
accounts for only 28.44% (US$9.7 million)26
in the total of program funds (US$34 million), making it
clear that for culture these funds are pulverized, which supports the idea of decreasing the number of
actions.
In its original version, Porto of Inclusion mentioned among its objectives that of „evolving from
welfare to emancipatory policies‟ (Porto Alegre, 2005), a concept close to the guideline of
empowerment prioritized in the cultural indicators model designed by Planas (2011). Nevertheless,
when the New Management Model was restructured in 2009, this reference was suppressed.
The use of the word „inclusion‟ within the cultural context is by itself problematic, once we consider
that the concept most widely accepted as the basis of contemporary cultural policies has been
extended to beyond the so-called „high‟ culture or the „fine arts‟ to encompass not only the set of
customs that we call „immaterial heritage‟, but also the economic activities known as cultural
industries, or more recently, creative industries, even coming to encompass fashion, advertising and
culinary. From this point of view, cultural exclusion does not differ much from social or economic
exclusions, describing the situation of individuals who cannot participate in consumer society at all,
and not only people that never went to a museum.
The word „access‟ makes more sense in a society, whose great majority of the population is not
accustomed to, or cannot afford, enjoying the arts.27
Yet, as early as 1948 the UN declaration of
human rights described this right in a more comprehensive way, as I see it: „Everyone has the right
freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific
advancement and its benefits‟, where participates implies in a more active attitude from the citizens,
not limited to consuming or enjoying the product or the service, but also covering the amateur artistic
practice or the voluntary activity in teaching arts, for instance.
The Program Integrated City, whose objective is „promoting and preserving environmental awareness,
urbanization and maintenance of public spaces, thus guaranteeing and optimizing urban mobility, as
well as intervening whenever necessary to keep the city cultural heritage‟, hosts five cultural actions,
four of which are related to the historic heritage and one to the maintenance of cultural facilities
(Porto Alegre, 2011). It is reasonable to assume that the SMC may go beyond these classic functions
with the purpose of „integrating the city‟, for example, by cooperating to environmental awareness
projects or in the long run, by planning the decentralization of the city cultural infrastructure
(nowadays too concentrated to the central region).
Furthermore, the absence of cultural actions in the program Innovative City (Economic-financial
Axis) deserves to be reflected upon, considering the not so recent studies on the economic potential of
culture. Another program to be benefited from cultural actions is Transform Porto Alegre
(Environmental Axis); one of its objectives is „revitalizing areas‟, a theme with plenty of studies and
experiments on which culture and arts play an important role.
In short, the incorporation of the actions under responsibility of SMC to the Management Portal – and
the consequent monitoring requirements – was rather imposed to, than joined by the SMC in the New
Management Model and its principles of prioritizing strategic objectives and acting transversally. This
becomes obvious with the difficulties to classify actions in the programs, as it has been seen above.
Notwithstanding, these difficulties also arose from the fact that the SMC did not rethink its actions so
as to effectively contribute to the objectives of the Axes and Programs prioritized by the Municipality
26
This amount and the following one correspond to the values for 2012 in Reais (R$) converted by the exchange
rate of 1/1/2012. Unlike the first amount mentioned at the beginning of this article, this one refers only to the
final actions, and excludes fixed expenses of administrative nature.
27
For data on the access to arts in Brazil, see (in Portuguese) Cultura em números: Anuário de estatísticas
culturais. 2a. ed. Brasília, MinC, 2010. Available at http://culturadigital.br/ecocultminc/files/2010/06/Cultura-
em-N%C3%BAmeros-web.pdf

13
Administration. Instead, the existing organizational structure was used, roughly, as a model to name
the current actions, each of them corresponding to an internal division.
This gap has at least two possible interpretations. Negatively speaking, the model construction has
disregarded not only the specificities – and consequent adaptation difficulties – of the cultural
policies, but also their potential to contribute to strategic objectives of the Government. A significant
example is provided by the last program to be created, „Porto Alegre World Cup 2014‟, whose
objective is „guaranteeing and optimizing urban mobility through revitalizing and restructuring the
road system for the Cup of 2014‟. Although this objective is quite limited, the City Hall, in
conjunction with the State Government created several theme chambers with the participation of the
civil society, that integrate the Management Committee of this event, and one of them was „Culture,
education and social action‟. Despite the huge importance of this event to the municipality, up to this
moment the SMC has not been assigned any related action (Porto Alegre, 2012).
In a more „positive‟ interpretation, one may believe that cultural policies enjoy a certain degree of
autonomy in the set of governmental policies, thus being dismissed to contribute pragmatically to the
objectives of such policies. If such autonomy seems to be a reverence from politics to culture,
supposedly above the real world of society demands, it represents at the same time an exclusion of
culture from this world, where it is considered to be of little or no use at all. An exclusion that does
not make sense unless, obviously, regarding the „high culture‟.
According to Planas (2011), as the objective of evaluating public policies is „to determine the extent
to which public intervention produces an improvement in individual and social well-being‟, cultural
policies shall forcibly be „instrumental policies, not an end in themselves, contributing to the
development of other sectors (economy, health, education, etc).‟ Therefore, there is a long way to
walk to ensure the „central place of culture in local policies‟, advocated by the Agenda 21 of Culture,
even though Porto Alegre led the process of formulation of this document last decade (UCLG, 2008).
As it is stated above, this study is the initial phase of a process whose final outcome, coming from the
discussion among action leaders and other SMC managers, as well as the community in general, shall
constitute a system of indicators – including qualitative ones, not considered at this point – in order to
monitor the efficiency of the cultural actions in this Municipality. In this phase, besides the present
study, some models of indicators systems will be taken as reference, as the ones proposed by Jackson
(2006), FEMP (2009), CDN (2010), Finland (2011) and Planas (2011).
Acknowledgements:
To the Culture Assistant Secretary of Porto Alegre, Vinícius Brum, for suggesting the theme; to the
Manager of the Program Porto for Inclusion, Márcia Boeckel, for the information provided; to the
team of the Cultural Observatory of Porto Alegre for their support, especially to the Intern Ananda
Pinto Cardoso, for her cooperation in this work; to Ingrid Schroeder for the translation of this text.
References
Ávila, F. (2004), “Avaliação das oficinas de artes cênicas realizadas no projeto Descentralização da
Cultura em Porto Alegre: 1993-2003”, Prefeitura de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre. Electronic file.
Barros, J. M. (2007), “Para uma cultura da avaliação da cultura”. Paper presented at Seminário
Indicadores Culturais, São Paulo SP. Available at www.itaucultural.org.br/bcodemidias/000704.pdf
(accessed 9 mai 2012)
Bonet, L. (2004), “Reflexiones a propósito de indicadores y estadísticas culturales”, Boletín GC-
Gestión Cultural: Indicadores y estadísticas culturales, n. 7, apr. 2004, pp. 1-13. Available at
www.gestioncultural.org/ficheros/1_1316772114_LBonet-Indicadores.pdf (accessed 9 mai 2012)
Carrasco, S. (2006), “Medir la Cultura: una tarea inacabada”, Periférica, n. 7, pp. 140-168.

14
CDN-Cultural Development Network (2010a), “Arts indicators for local government: valuing,
planning for and measuring the contribution of the arts in local government in Australia, Part A:
Literature review”, available at www.culturaldevelopment.net.au/downloads/ArtsIndicators-
literaturereview.pdf (accessed 9 mai 2012)
CDN-Cultural Development Network (2010b), “Arts indicators for local government: valuing,
planning for and measuring the contribution of the arts in local government in Australia, Part 2: A
framework for arts indicators for local government”. Available at
www.culturaldevelopment.net.au/downloads/ArtsIndicators-PartB1.pdf (accessed 9 mai 2012)
Duxbury, N. (2003), “Cultural indicators and benchmarks in community indicators projects:
performance measures for cultural investment?”, paper presented at Accounting for Culture
Colloquium, 13-15 nov. 2003. Available at www.cultureandcommunities.ca/downloads/Duxbury-
TextualStudies-2005.pdf (accessed 9 mai 2012)
FEMP-Federación Española de Municipios y Provincias (2009), Guía para la evaluación de las
políticas culturales locales: Sistema de indicadores para la evaluación de las políticas culturales
locales en el marco de la Agenda 21 de la Cultura, FEMP, Spain.
Finland (2011), Effectiveness indicators to strengthen the knowledge base for cultural policy,
Ministry of Education and Culture, Helsinki.
Hawkes, J. (2001), The fourth pillar of sustainability: Culture‟s essential role in public planning.
Melbourne: Common Ground / Cultural Development Network.
Jackson, M. R.; Kabwasa-Green, F.; Herrenz, J. (2006), Cultural vitality in communities:
interpretation and indicators. Washington DC: The Urban Institute.
Lauermann, M.; Derosso, S. (2005), “FUMPROARTE: A Visão da Comunidade Cultural de Porto
Alegre”, Boletín GC-Gestión Cultural: Participación ciudadana, n. 11, apr. 2005, pp. 1-36. Available
at www.gestioncultural.org/ficheros/1_1317503299_bgc11-Fumproarte.pdf (accessed 9 mai 2012)
Madden, C. (2004), “Cross-Country Comparisons of Cultural Statistics: Issues and good practice”.
Cultural Trends. Vol. 14(4), n. 56, dec. 2005, pp. 299–316.
Madden, C. (2005), “Indicators for Arts and Cultural Policy: A Global Perspective”. Cultural Trends,
v. 14(3), n. 55, 2005, pp. 217-247.
Planas, A.; Soler, P. (2011), “Design and application of a system of evaluation indicators for
municipal cultural policies”. Evaluation. n. 17, 2011, pp. 277-291.
Porto Alegre (2005), [Manual do] Portal de Gestão, Prefeitura Municipal de Porto Alegre, Porto
Alegre RS. Electronic document.
Porto Alegre (2012). Gabinete de Planejamento Estratégico (GPE) website. Available at
www2.portoalegre.rs.gov.br/gpe/default.php?p_secao=19 (accessed 30 apr. 2012)
Porto Alegre. (1988). Lei 6099. Diário Oficial de Porto Alegre, 4 feb. 1988, p. 12.
Porto Alegre (2012), Portal de Gestão. Available at www1.prefpoa.com.br/portalgestao (accessed 2
mai 2012).
UCLG-United Cities and Local Governments (2008), Agenda 21 for culture. Barcelona: UCLG.
Available at www.agenda21culture.net

Towards a system of cultural indicators for Porto Alegre public policies

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Similar a Towards a system of cultural indicators for Porto Alegre public policies

Similar a Towards a system of cultural indicators for Porto Alegre public policies (20)

Más de Alvaro Santi

Más de Alvaro Santi (20)

Último

Último (20)

Towards a system of cultural indicators for Porto Alegre public policies