Berkeley City Council
December 2, 2025

PUBLIC ART PROGRAM AND PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY GRANTS In addition to its Civic Arts Grants program, the City of Berkeley provides substantial support for the local creative economy through its Public Art Program. Unlike the Civic Arts Grants, which are allocated annually from the City’s General Fund, Public Art funding is generated primarily through Berkeley’s Public Art ordinances, which dedicate a portion of capital project budgets to commissioning,
installing, and maintaining public artworks, as well as through in-lieu fees paid by private developers who opt to contribute funds rather than install art on their buildings.

This structure means that funding levels are driven by
the scale and timing of both municipal capital projects and private development activity, both of which can
be cyclical, rather than a fixed appropriation. Because these allocations are tied to specific artworks and capital improvements—rather than to flexible operating support— they are not included in the ROI analysis, which focuses on General Fund dollars that flow directly into organizational capacity and community programming.

Public Art Program expenditures nevertheless represent
a meaningful municipal investment in Berkeley’s cultural landscape. Over the past five fiscal years, annual expenses have ranged from $276,656 in FY21 to nearly $923,475 in FY23. The spike in FY23 reflects one-time allocations from the City’s T1 Infrastructure and Facilities Bond,
15 which
funded new public art commissions and conservation
projects in conjunction with broader civic improvements.

More recent spending totaled $407,212 in FY24 and
$624,035 in FY25.
16 The City maintains a digital catalog of
its public art collection, including an interactive map that allows residents and visitors to explore artworks across the community.
17 Furthermore, in rapid response to the widespread impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the local arts and culture
sector, the City of Berkeley awarded more than $3
million in emergency relief and recovery grants
between 2020 and 2022. This included $2.5 million
to 88 arts and culture organizations and over $520,000
to 193 individual artists. Although these were one-time allocations, they were extraordinary in scale and helped many organizations withstand the most difficult periods of pandemic shutdowns. Every $1 of the City’s emergency
investments spurred by the pandemic leveraged at
least $5.64 in sustained arts and culture economic
activity that might otherwise have been lost entirely.
18 The impacts of these investments are detailed in the companion report (published concurrently), entitled
Assessment of Berkeley Arts & Culture Pandemic Relief
and Recovery Funding.
15 City of Berkeley, Measure T1: Infrastructure and Facilities Bond, https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/our-work/bond-revenue-measures/measure-t1. 16 Jennifer Lovvorn, Chief Cultural Affairs Officer at City of Berkeley, email to CVL Economics, September 26, 2025. 17 City of Berkeley, City of Berkeley Public Art Collection, https://www.artworkarchive.com/profile/civicartscollection/portfolio. 18 City of Berkeley, Assessment of Berkeley Arts & Culture Pandemic Relief and Recovery Funding, prepared by CVL Economics, October 2025. 33 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

34 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

PRE-PANDEMIC MOMENTUM LOST
While the creative economy in Berkeley delivers
significant impacts today, it is important to
recognize the strength and momentum the sector
had prior to the pandemic. In 2018, creative
employment in Berkeley had climbed to a peak of
nearly 9,850 jobs—growth that not only outpaced
overall citywide employment, but also exceeded
the expansion of creative sectors in neighboring
regions. That momentum was abruptly halted
when the pandemic hit. The shutdown of 2020
erased all of the gains built over the previous
decade; today, Berkeley’s creative sector sits
17% below its 2018 peak and is aligned with
employment levels experienced in 2013.

What had long been one of Berkeley’s greatest
cultural strengths—its concentration of live
performance venues and nonprofit arts
organizations—quickly became a vulnerability
when in-person gatherings were deemed unsafe.

Live theater, music, and dance were among
the first to close and the last to return, severing
both earned and ancillary revenue streams. This
challenge was compounded by Berkeley’s high
proportion of nonprofit organizations, which made
the sector particularly reliant on philanthropic and
public funding sources. As emergency relief and
federal grant programs have wound down, many
of these funding streams have diminished, leaving
organizations with fewer resources to sustain
operations.

FINAL

CONSIDERATIONS
35 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

Unlike other industries that have since rebounded,
Berkeley’s creative economy has continued to decline
year after year, leaving a widening gap between its current scale and the trajectory it was once on. Its strength in live performance—one of the sectors hardest hit by shutdowns and slowest to recover—made the creative economy
especially vulnerable, while reliance on gig work, high local costs, and cautious audiences further compound the challenges.

The divergence between actual outcomes and the
projected pre-pandemic trend highlights what has been
lost, including nearly 1,800 more jobs than what was
observed in 2024 (Figure 23). Those unrealized jobs
represent more than just employment—they translate into lost wages, reduced household spending, and diminished
tax revenues. If the pre-pandemic trajectory had held,
Berkeley’s creative economy would not only employ more
people, but also generate higher levels of labor income and value added (contributions to the City’s gross regional product) than currently measured citywide.

FIGURE 23: ACTUAL CREATIVE ECONOMY EMPLOYMENT VS. PRE-PANDEMIC TRENDLINE IN BERKELEY Source: U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Lightcast, CVL Economics. 2005
2010
2015
2020
7 ,000
7, 5 0 0
8,000
8,500
9,000
9,500
6,500
10,000
8,186
9964
Actual Employment
Pre-Pandemic Trendline Employment
Number of Jobs
36 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

ARTS AND CULTURE AS ENGINES OF ECONOMIC VITALITY
Beyond the numbers, the creative economy plays a central role in shaping Berkeley’s identity, quality of life, and appeal as a place to live and work. A strong creative sector enriches the city with performances, festivals, cultural institutions, and design-driven businesses that make Berkeley distinctive within the Bay Area and attractive to both residents and employers.

This connection between creativity and community wellbeing is not unique to Berkeley—it reflects a broader national understanding of the arts’ role in civic life. A 2023 nationwide survey conducted by Americans for the Arts reveals that a vast majority of Americans share this view: 86% agreed that arts and culture are important to their community’s overall quality of life and livability, and 79% affirmed the importance of arts and culture to supporting local businesses, the economy, and jobs (Figure 24).
19 19 Americans for the Arts, Americans Speak Out About the Arts: An In-Depth Look at Public Perceptions and Attitudes About Arts & Culture in America in 2023, December 2024. https://www.americansforthearts.org/sites/default/files/AFTA_2023_Public%20Opinion%20Study_FINAL_12.4.24.pdf How important, if at all, do you think having arts and culture are to… FIGURE 24: PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF THE ROLE OF ARTS AND CULTURE IN COMMUNITY WELLBEING IN THE U.S.

Source: Americans for the Arts.
0 %
20 %
40 %
60 %
80 %
100
%
Your community's quality of life and livability
Your community's business, economy, and local jobs
43 %
36 %
43 %
43 %
6 %
12 %
Very Important
Somewhat Important
Not Very Important
Share of Respondents
37 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

The significance of arts and culture extends directly to the vitality of downtowns and commercial districts. Cultural venues—such as theaters, galleries, and music spaces—
serve as anchors that drive foot traffic, activate public spaces, and generate demand for nearby restaurants,
bars, and retail establishments. These dynamics not
only support small businesses but also contribute to
perceptions of safety and livability by ensuring that public areas remain active and inviting across a range of hours and days of the week. Investments in arts and culture have proven to be catalysts for broader downtown revitalization, sparking further private investment and creating a
multiplier effect that benefits the entire local economy.

Berkeley itself has long recognized this connection.

The establishment of the Downtown Arts District
along Addison Street in the 1990s and early 2000s was
a deliberate recognition of arts and culture’s role in
economic development as the city faced an 18% ground-
floor vacancy rate downtown.
20 By clustering cultural
venues along Addison Street and leveraging relatively
modest public investment into tens of millions in private dollars, Berkeley transformed a struggling downtown
corridor into a vibrant destination that continues to anchor the city’s economic and cultural identity.

Berkeley’s recent downward trends underscore what is
at stake, threatening to erode the progress built from the 1990s through 2020. Visitor spending in the city fell from over $1 billion in 2019 to just $174 million in 2024 (Figure 25), while the Downtown Berkeley commercial vacancy
rate (including office and retail spaces) sat at nearly 11% in 2024, more than double pre-pandemic levels in 2019
(Figure 26). Office vacancies have driven much of this
increase as remote work has become more prevalent,
but ground floor retail and restaurant spaces have also struggled.
20 City of Berkeley, Arts as Economic Development, presented by M. Caplan at the U.S. Mayors Innovation Conference, August 2016. Available online: https:// berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/ArtsDistrict_Panel_CoB_8.27.2016.pdf.

FIGURE 25: TOTAL SPENDING BY VISITORS TO BERKELEY | 2019–2024 Source: Visit Berkeley, Placer.ai, CVL Economics.
$
0 M
$
200
M
$
400
M
$
600
M
$
800
M
$
1000
M
$
1200
M
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
$
1,050
M
$
61 M
$
121
M
$
184
M
$
187
M
$
174
M
Total Visitor Spending
38 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

FIGURE 26: DOWNTOWN BERKELEY GROUNDFLOOR COMMERCIAL VACANCY RATE | 2016–2024 Note: Includes office and retail properties.

Source: City of Berkeley Office of Economic Development, CVL Economics. 2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
4 %
6 %
8 %
10 %
12 %
14 %
2 %
16 %

4.7 %

4.6 %

3.1 %

5.1 %

9.9 %

15.7 %

11.9 %

10.8 %

10.9 %
Vacancy Rate
These findings can help shape practical solutions for
Berkeley’s long-term recovery and the resilience of
its diverse economy. As work continues to shift from
traditional 9 to 5 office schedules to flexible, remote arrangements, the daytime worker presence that once
sustained downtown retail, hospitality, and cultural activity has diminished. The outmigration of higher-wage workers to places with lower costs of living has left central business districts in Bay Area downtowns more vulnerable to
shrinking audiences and weaker engagement with arts
and culture.

Revitalizing downtown does not mean reverting to pre-
pandemic models. T o counter falling visitor spending and rising vacancies, Berkeley must reimagine how investment in the creative economy can drive renewal. Orienting
economic development around the creative and nighttime
economies is one of the most effective strategies for
sparking new energy, with efforts focused on leveraging existing arts, culture, and entertainment amenities to
attract residents and visitors alike. Sustaining and growing Berkeley’s creative economy—especially its artists, arts organizations, and festivals—is essential to preserving the qualities that make the city a place where people want to live, work, and visit.
39 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

FIGURE A.1 CREATIVE ECONOMY INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION CODES

APPENDIX
To ensure clarity and comparability, the definition of the creative economy is grounded in the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), the federal standard used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bureau of Economic Analysis. Using NAICS codes allows us to map creative industries consistently across geographies over time, and to model their economic contributions. While no single code fully captures the breadth of the creative economy, assembling a curated set of codes provides a robust picture of the industry.

A.1: CREATIVE ECONOMY INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION CODES

INDUSTRY CATEGORY AND DESCRIPTION NAICS
ARCH

ITECTURE & DESIGN
Ornamental and Architectural Metal Work Manufacturing 332323 Architectural Services 541310
Landscape Architectural Services 541320
Drafting Services 541340
Interior Design Services 541410
Industrial Design Services 541420

COMMUNICATION DESIGN
Graphic Design Services 541430
Advertising Agencies 541810
Photography Studios, Portrait 541921
Commercial Photography 541922

ENTERTAINMENT & DIGITAL MEDIA
Motion Picture and Video Production 512110
Motion Picture and Video Distribution 512120
Teleproduction and Other Postproduction Services 512191 Sound Recording Studios 512240
Software Publishers 513210
Radio Broadcasting Stations 516110
Television Broadcasting Stations 516120
Media Streaming Distribution Services, Social Networks, Other Media Networks and Content Providers 516210 40 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

INDUSTRY CATEGORY AND DESCRIPTION NAICS

FASHION
Fiber, Yarn, and Thread Mills 313110
Broadwoven Fabric Mills 313210
Narrow Fabric Mills and Schiffli Machine Embroidery 313220 Nonwoven Fabric Mills 313230
Knit Fabric Mills 313240
Textile and Fabric Finishing Mills 313310
Fabric Coating Mills 313320
Apparel Knitting Mills 315120
Cut and Sew Apparel Contractors 315210
Cut and Sew Apparel Manufacturing (except Contractors) 315250 Apparel Accessories and Other Apparel Manufacturing 315990 Footwear Manufacturing 316210
Other Leather and Allied Product Manufacturing 316990
Toilet Preparation Manufacturing 325620
Jewelry and Silverware Manufacturing 339910
Jewelry, Watch, Precious Stone, and Precious Metal Merchant Wholesalers 423940 Piece Goods, Notions, and Other Dry Goods Merchant Wholesalers 424310 Footwear Merchant Wholesalers 424340
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Merchant Wholesalers 424350 Other Specialized Design Services 541490

FINE ARTS SCHOOLS
Fine Arts Schools 611610

FURNITURE, TOYS & DECORATIVE ARTS
Carpet and Rug Mills 314110
Curtain and Linen Mills 314120
Textile Bag and Canvas Mills 314910
Rope, Cordage, Twine, Tire Cord, and Tire Fabric Mills 314994 All Other Miscellaneous Textile Product Mills 314999
Pottery, Ceramics, and Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing 327110 Other Pressed and Blown Glass and Glassware Manufacturing 327212 All Other Miscellaneous Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing 327999 Wood Kitchen Cabinet and Countertop Manufacturing 337110 Upholstered Household Furniture Manufacturing 337121
Nonupholstered Wood Household Furniture Manufacturing 337122 Household Furniture (except Wood and Upholstered) Manufacturing 337126 Institutional Furniture Manufacturing 337127
41 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

INDUSTRY CATEGORY AND DESCRIPTION NAICS
Wood Office Furniture Manufacturing 337211
Custom Architectural Woodwork and Millwork Manufacturing 337212 Office Furniture (except Wood) Manufacturing 337214
Showcase, Partition, Shelving, and Locker Manufacturing 337215 Mattress Manufacturing 337910
Blind and Shade Manufacturing 337920
Doll, Toy, and Game Manufacturing 339930
Furniture Merchant Wholesalers 423210
Home Furnishing Merchant Wholesalers 423220
Toy and Hobby Goods and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 423920

PUBLISHING & PRINTING
Commercial Printing (except Screen and Books) 323111
Commercial Screen Printing 323113
Books Printing 323117
Support Activities for Printing 323120
Book, Periodical, and Newspaper Merchant Wholesalers 424920 Newspaper Publishers 513110
Periodical Publishers 513120
Book Publishers 513130
Directory and Mailing List Publishers 513140
Greeting Card Publishers 513191
All Other Publishers 513199
Libraries and Archives 519210

VISUAL & PERFORMING ARTS
Musical Instrument Manufacturing 339992
Art Dealers 459920
Theater Companies and Dinner Theaters 711110
Dance Companies 711120
Musical Groups and Artists 711130
Other Performing Arts Companies 711190
Agents and Managers for Artists, Athletes, Entertainers, and Other Public Figures 711410 Independent Artists, Writers, and Performers 711510
Museums 712110
*Note: In addition to the NAICS codes used to define Visual & Performing Arts, employment figures were adjusted to include three major arts and culture institutions at University of California, Berkeley, that would otherwise fall under the broader “colleges and universities” classification: Cal Performances, the Greek Theatre, and the Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive. Employment data was provided by these entities directly.
42 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

Data on Total Businesses is sourced from the City of Berkeley Active Business License (BL) dataset. Total Nonprofit data is sourced from the Internal Revenue Service Tax-Exempt Organizations Business Masterfile (IRS EO BMF).

A.2: BERKELEY BUSINESS COUNT METHODOLOGY
Total Business Count
The BL file provides the most comprehensive and locally specific inventory of business establishments available, capturing sole proprietorships, small enterprises, and other entities that are often excluded from federal datasets. While we know the BL file omits some arts organizations noted above, the reported total of 12,783 businesses is likely only a modest undercount. Even with this limitation, the BL dataset remains the most robust and locally accurate source for understanding the full scope of business activity in the city.

We benchmark the BL dataset against two other common sources for business counts: the U.S. Census Bureau County Business Patterns (CBP), which captures only employer establishments with payroll (and thus undercounts small nonprofits) and carries a 2-year reporting lag; and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), which provides establishment counts for payroll businesses at the county, metropolitan statistical area (MSA), and state levels (Figure A.2.2).

Nonprofit Organization Count
The IRS EO BMF is a national database of organizations recognized as tax-exempt under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code. This dataset is updated monthly and serves as the most comprehensive listing of nonprofit entities in the U.S. It includes key information such as Employer Identification Number (EIN), ruling date, subsection designation, filing status, and industry. For analytic purposes, the IRS dataset is widely used to benchmark the size and scope of the nonprofit sector because it applies consistent classification standards across jurisdictions and time periods. For this analysis, arts- related nonprofits were identified using National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities (NTEE) codes in the “A” category (Arts, Culture, and Humanities), which map onto the industry NAICS codes used to define the creative economy.

CVL Economics uses the IRS file for nonprofit counts. The Berkeley BL dataset lists only 63 arts and culture nonprofits, which is a smaller number than what is present in the IRS findings. For example, several organizations known to be operational in Berkeley are not listed in the BL spreadsheet. In addition, the 2017 Arts and Culture Plan Update 2018–2027 indicates 152 arts nonprofits in Berkeley. In this context, the IRS count of 193 arts and culture nonprofits appears most consistent with the broader evidence presented in the table below (Figure A.2.2).

FIGURE A.2.1 TOTAL BUSINESS COUNT CROSS-REFERENCES IN BERKELEY *For reference, Berkeley employment accounts for about 10% of total Alameda County employment.

SOURCE REGION TO TAL BUSINESSES TOTAL ARTS & CULTURE

BUSINESSES
Berkeley Active BLs (2025) Berkeley 12,783 650
CBP Establishments (2023) Berkeley 4,279 139
QCEW Establishments (2024) Alameda County* 71,737 2,335 43 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

Additional Data References on Berkeley’s Arts and Culture Nonprofit Composition Note that the methodology above estimates that 30% of creative economy businesses and 11% of total businesses (All Industries) are nonprofit organizations. To further benchmark this composition, we draw on the BLS Nonprofit Establishment Employment and Wage Estimates dataset. While that dataset is limited to state, county, or Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) geographies, offers limited NAICS detail, and the most recent data year is 2022, it supports benchmarking for the creative economy using NAICS 711 (Performing Arts)—Berkeley’s largest creative sector. When we adjust the business-count methodology above to focus on Performing Arts (NAICS 711), about 28% of Berkeley’s Performing Arts businesses are nonprofits. This is comparable to the shares shown in Figure A.2.3.

FIGURE A.2.3 BLS NONPROFIT ESTABLISHMENT EMPLOYMENT AND WAGE ESTIMATES (2022) FIGURE A.2.2 NONPROFIT COUNT CROSS-REFERENCES IN BERKELEY * An internal list of organizations compiled by the City of Berkeley that includes those listed in the City internal database (such as the Civic Arts Operating Grant program), organizations compiled by Visit Berkeley, and members of the Berkeley Cultural Trust. ** An economic impact report conducted in 2017 on the impact of Berkeley arts and culture nonprofit organizations, see section A.5 below. ***In 2020 and 2022, the City of Berkeley issued pandemic relief and recovery grants in response to the devastating toll of the COVID-19 pandemic. Grants were issued to 88 Berkeley-based nonprofit arts and culture organizations, of which 71 are still operating today.

REGION PERCENT TOTAL
BUS

INESSES NONPROFIT
PERCENT NAICS 711

BUSINESSES NONPROFIT

PERCENT TOTAL

EMPLOYMENT

NONPROFIT

PERCENT NAICS
711 EMPLOYMENT

NONPROFIT
Alameda County 4% 22% 9% 25.1%
Bay Area MSA 4% 23% 9% 36.8%
California 2% 4% 8% 15.8%

SOURCE TOTAL NONPROFITS TO TAL ARTS & CULTURE

NONPROFITS
IRS Tax-Exempt Organization Masterfile (2025) 1,407 193 City of Berkeley Active Business Licenses (2025) 634 63 City of Berkeley Internal Compiled Arts & Culture Organization List (2025)* n/a 187 Arts and Culture Plan Update - Economic Impact Report of the Arts in Berkeley (2017)** n/a 152
City of Berkeley Pandemic Relief and Recovery Grant Recipients (2025)*** n/a 71 44 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

Methodology Considerations
IRS nonprofit filings and City active business licenses are based on different reporting systems. IRS counts reflect the number of federally recognized nonprofit entities, whereas business license data reflects locally registered operations. The IRS EO BMF dataset is therefore a more standardized and comprehensive source for counting nonprofit organizations because it captures all federally recognized tax-exempt entities, regardless of local business-license status.

Some nonprofits may not appear in City records due to reporting gaps, classification issues, or exemptions from local registration requirements, yet they will still appear in the IRS file as long as their tax-exempt status is active. For measuring the nonprofit landscape—especially for standardization and comparisons across jurisdictions and time periods—the IRS dataset is the most reliable count, while City BL data remains valuable for the broader local business context. Although these measures are not perfectly interchangeable, together they provide useful benchmarks on the scale and structure of the City of Berkeley’s creative economy.

Measuring employment in the creative economy requires going beyond traditional payroll data sources. Standard datasets, such as the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), provide a solid baseline for tracking salaried jobs, but they capture only part of the picture. Creative work often falls outside of conventional salaried employer–employee arrangements, relying instead on independent contracting, self-employment, and gig labor.

To produce a more accurate account of the sector, our analysis incorporates multiple employment categories, each drawn from established federal datasets that are widely used in labor market research and economic modeling.

Salaried Jobs: QCEW is the most widely used dataset for measuring local employment. It is based on administrative records from unemployment insurance (UI) programs, which employers are legally required to file for most payroll workers.

Additional salaried employment is derived from administrative and statistical adjustments that capture payroll jobs not covered by UI programs. These include W-2 employees at organizations exempt from UI reporting requirements, such as certain small nonprofits, charitable or community-based organizations, and religious institutions. • Includes: Full- and part-time payroll jobs.

Self-Employed Jobs: Measured using IRS tax filings (Schedule C income) and Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) data on proprietorships. Represents individuals whose primary income comes from operating their own business. • Includes: Sole proprietors, freelancers, and independent contractors whose primary source of income is generated from their own enterprises.

Gig Jobs: Derived from the U.S. Census Bureau Nonemployer Statistics (NES) dataset and supplemented by BEA adjustments. Represents secondary or contingent forms of work where individuals may earn supplemental income through short-term, project-based, or part-time activities.
• Includes: Freelancers, independent contractors, and sole proprietors engaged in gig-style or occasional work. Often counted in addition to a primary payroll or self-employed job.

Together, these categories ensure that creative employment is not undercounted and that the analysis captures the full scale and impact of the creative workforce.

A.3: CREATIVE ECONOMY EMPLOYMENT DOCUMENTATION
45 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

The foundational step in quantifying the economic impact of Berkeley’s creative economy is the identification of the appropriate sectors that comprise the core—or “direct”—components of the industry (see industry classification in Appendix A.1).

Economic data are reported using the standardized North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), which allows for consistency and comparability across datasets. No single NAICS code wholly encapsulates the creative economy. As a result, a curated list of relevant sectors was assembled.

The Industry Economic Accounts produced by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) are a key foundational data source for all input-output models. The BEA’s tables provide a summary of how industries produce and consume commodities at the national level. The economic impact analysis in this report utilizes the industry-standard IMPLAN (Impact Analysis for Planning) software. IMPLAN is an input-output modeling system used to build economic models at various levels of geography. IMPLAN is widely used and recognized by government organizations, nonprofits, economic development organizations, workforce planners, education institutions, and consultants across the U.S. and Canada.

For this analysis, CVL Economics tailored the modeling framework specific to the creative economy to build an Input- Output (I-O) model to better account for market transactions, capture supply chains across regions, and more accurately estimate regional industry leakages. The impact analyses were estimated using a Multi-Regional Input-Output (MRIO) model, which expands upon the traditional I-O system to include various additional socioeconomic variables including sub-regional trade and income flows, commuting patterns, and household spending patterns between the City of Berkeley and the East Bay (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties).

Additionally, because Berkeley’s creative economy comprises a significant portion of self-employed and gig workers, we adjusted the model to reflect the differences between these job structures. Salaried jobs typically generate greater and more stable economic impacts (through higher wages, benefits, and payroll taxes) while self-employed and gig work tends to involve lower and/or variable earnings and different tax treatment. By accounting for these differences, our model avoids overstating independent work while still recognizing its importance to the sector.

Within this framework, the following impacts are generated:
• Direct effects capture the employment, labor income, and value added generated by creative economy organizations and work
ers located in Berkeley.
• Indirect effects reflect the activity supported through the supply chain. IMPLAN estimates these based on regional purch
asing patterns—how much, on average, businesses in a given sector spend on inputs from other industries within the study area.
• Induced effects reflect household spending by workers employed and supported by the creative industries. These are mo
deled from regional averages of consumer expenditure data (sourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Expenditure Survey), adjusted to the income distribution of the study region.

A.4: ECONOMIC IMPACT METHODOLOGY
46 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

A previous economic impact report, the Arts and Culture Plan Update — Economic Report of the Arts in Berkeley (2017), provided the last benchmark for understanding the role of arts and culture in Berkeley’s economy.21 It is important to note that there are key differences between the methodology used in the 2017 analysis and this report, which means direct comparisons should be approached with caution. Notably, the 2017 study examined a sample of 100 nonprofit arts and culture organizations, while the current analysis covers the broader creative economy, including nonprofits, private firms, individual artists, and other creative enterprises.

The following distinctions should be noted regarding the results reported in Table 6 (on page 18) of the 2017 study. This analysis modeled nearly $98 million in annual spending from the 100 nonprofits as the basis of its analysis. This produced estimates of 3,606 full-time equivalent (FTE) workers, $80.8 million in labor income, and $3.8 million in local tax revenue (including both City and County). By contrast, this current report captures the entire creative economy, counting 8,186 jobs (not converted to FTEs), which helps explain the larger overall economic contribution CVL Economics presents in the current report’s findings.

The methodology behind these calculations of economic and fiscal impact also differs. The 2017 study used the Arts & Economic Prosperity Calculator 5 (AEP5), developed by Americans for the Arts. AEP5 measures the economic impact of nonprofit arts and cultural activity through a standardized input–output modeling framework. It combines locally reported organizational expenditures with audience spending data collected through on-site surveys, and then applies pre-set IMPLAN multipliers to estimate jobs, income, and local and state tax revenues. While this approach ensures consistency across participating communities, the calculator does not allow for adjustments to the unique structure of each local economy.

In comparison, the current study is modeled directly within the IMPLAN system, enabling customization to Berkeley’s unique economic profile, including its composition of for-profit and non-profit organizations. This approach not only captures direct activity within Berkeley but also provides a breakout of the indirect and induced effects that ripple through the local economy and the broader East Bay as creative organizations and workers purchase goods and services and circulate income. This customization also allows for greater City-level detail on fiscal impact reporting.

Finally, the 2017 report added estimates of attendee spending on top of the modeled impact results, since they were able to capture attendee spending for their total sample of 100 organizations, using the SMU DataArts Cultural Data Profile and additional survey outreach. To ensure a process that can be standardized, we used the same approach to calculate visitor spending, but we treat these figures separately rather than folding them into the overall creative economy totals, recognizing that they represent only a sample of the wider ecosystem in this study.

A.5: DATA METHODOLOGY COMPARISONS TO 2017 ECONOMIC IMPACT REPORT 21 See the 2017 report here: https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Berkeley%20Arts%20Economic%20Impact%20Report.pdf 47 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

This report was made possible through the leadership and support of the City of Berkeley, including the Office of Economic Development and its Civic Arts Program, the Civic Arts Commission, and Berkeley City Council, whose commitment to advancing the city’s creative and cultural vitality guided this work. We also extend our appreciation to the many nonprofit arts and culture organizations, creative practitioners, and community stakeholders who generously contributed their time, insights, and experiences.

CVL Economics is an economic consulting firm that takes a data-driven, human-centric approach to equitable development and sustainable growth. Founded in 2021, CVL Economics partners with communities, municipalities, organizations, and institutions to address today’s most complex challenges and foster bold action. Coupling robust economic models with innovative research methodologies, we provide decision-makers with the actionable insights needed to effect change, expand opportunity, and improve economic well-being.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
PREPARED BY:

Berkeley Creative Economy
Economic Impact Analysis
DECEMBER 2025
48 BERKELEY CREATIVE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

Assessment of
Berkeley Arts & Culture
Pandemic Relief and
Recovery Funding
DECEMBER 2025

Context 1
Key Findings 7
Pandemic Relief and Recovery For Arts & Culture Organizations 13 Pandemic Relief and Recovery For Arts & Culture Individuals 31 Conclusion: Sustaining Berkeley’s Arts & Culture Ecosystem 39 Appendix 41

TABLE OF

CONTENTS

Between 2020 and 2022, the
City of Berkeley awarded over $3
million in emergency relief and recovery
grants to arts and culture organizations and
individual artists in Berkeley facing severe financial hardship during the COVID-19 pandemic.

CONTEXT
As one of the first municipalities to mobilize
comprehensive support for the cultural sector, Berkeley’s intervention provides a unique case study in crisis
response for arts ecosystems operating in high-cost
environments. Drawing on financial data, organizational surveys, and demographic analyses, this assessment
examines both the immediate stabilization effects and
longer-term outcomes of the City’s emergency relief and sustained recovery investments, offering evidence-based insights into the effectiveness of targeted cultural relief strategies and the fundamental challenges facing creative communities during periods of economic disruption.

When the COVID-19 pandemic brought the Bay Area to
a standstill in March 2020, the region’s vibrant arts and culture sector—from intimate theaters and galleries to
community festivals and independent artists—faced an
unprecedented crisis as venues shutdown, events were
cancelled, and revenue streams vanished overnight.

Recognizing the essential role of arts and culture in
the city’s identity and economy, the City of Berkeley
quickly mobilized a series of emergency grant programs
to support local artists, nonprofit organizations, and
cultural institutions facing acute financial strain. Over the course of three years, the City awarded $2.5 million to 88 organizations and $523,089 to 193 individual artists and cultural workers (Figure 1).
1 The City directed resources
with a focus on equity and accessibility to sustain creative work, preventing organizational closures and ensuring
underrepresented communities remained at the center of
recovery.
1 To view the original documentation for these grants, see City of Berkeley, “Business and Arts Organization Continuity Grant Awards” (Off Agenda Report), April 27, 2020, https://newspack-berkeleyside-cityside.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Business-and-Arts-Organization-Continuity- Grant-Programs-042720.docx-1.pdf; and City of Berkeley, “Civic Arts Grants Program—Improved Practices & Community Impact” (includes Berkeley Art Works Project and Berkeley Arts Recovery Grants,), March 21, 2023, https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023-03-21%20WS%20 Item%2001%20Civic%20Arts%20Grants%20Program.pdf.
1 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

These investments, totaling over $3 million, were extraordinary in scale. By comparison, the City’s annual Civic Arts Grants program distributes nearly $700,000 to arts and culture organizations, festivals, and individuals in a typical year. The pandemic-era funding programs for arts and culture organizations and individuals granted more than $1 million in 2020 and over $1.8 million in 2022, more than doubling its Civic Arts Grants investment in a typical year. For many Berkeley organizations and individual artists, the pandemic relief and recovery programs were more than simply helpful—they meant the difference between shuttering permanently and surviving long enough to rebuild.

Figure 1: Summary of Berkeley Pandemic Relief Funding Programs * The East Bay/Oakland Relief Fund was a regional grant program administered by the Center for Cultural Innovation that provided grants to 515 artists and cultural workers across Alameda and Contra Costa counties. The table includes only the portion awarded to 47 indiv
idual Berkeley artist residents leveraged with City of Berkeley funds.

Source: City of Berkeley, CVL Economics.

PROGRAM
YEAR
NUMBE
R OF

GRANTEES

AVERAGE GRANT

AWARDED

RECIPIENT
TYP
E

TOTAL AMOUNT

AWARDED

ARTS ORGANIZATION CONTINUITY
GRANTS 2020 63 $15,151
organization
Nonprofit or fiscally-
sponsored arts and culture
organizations
$954,543

EAST BAY/OAKLAND RELIEF FUND
FOR INDIVIDUALS IN THE ARTS* 2020 47 $1,372
per individual
Individual artists and arts
workers $64,500

BERKELEY ART WORKS PROJECT
(BAWP) 2021 32 $5,698
per individual
Individual artists, performers,
and community members $182,339

BERKELEY ARTS RECOVERY GRANTS
(BARG) FOR ARTS ORGANIZATIONS

AND FESTIVALS
2022 74 $20,707
per organization
Nonprofit or fiscally-
sponsored arts and culture
organizations and festivals
$1,532,345

BERKELEY ARTS RECOVERY GRANTS
(BARG) FOR ARTISTS AND CULTURAL

PRACTITIONERS
2022 114 $2,423
per individual
Individual artists, culture
bearers, teaching artists $276,250
Total Amount Awarded to Arts & Culture Individuals (2020-2022) $523,089 Total Amount Awarded to Arts & Culture Organizations (2020-2022) $2,486,888 Total Berkeley Pandemic Relief and Recovery Funding (2020-2022) $3,009,977 2 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a wave of regionally
mandated closures that reshaped daily life and severely disrupted arts and cultural activity. Berkeley is just one of three cities in California that operates its own public health department separate from the county, with an independent Health Officer who has the authority to issue local health orders.
2 During the pandemic, this meant that while
the City often issued orders in alignment with Alameda
County, it also at times acted earlier, leaving city residents and businesses subject to mandates that on occasion
differed from neighboring cities and counties.

On March 17, 2020, Berkeley joined Alameda County and
five other Bay Area counties to issue shelter-in-place
orders, two days before Governor Newsom’s statewide
order on March 19. Under these orders, residents were
required to remain in their places of residence except to perform essential activities. All non-essential business— like retail, entertainment, cultural, and recreational
facilities—had to close to the public. This marked the
beginning of what would become one of the most
disruptive periods of widespread closures and halted
activity in recent history.

In this environment of sudden and prolonged shutdowns,
the timing of Berkeley’s pandemic support for arts
organizations and individuals was especially critical (Figure 2). The first round of funding (Arts Organization Continuity Grants) for organizations distributed in May 2020 arrived at the height of shutdowns and, for many organizations, served as their first—and in some cases only—source of
external aid. In parallel, the City also contributed to the East Bay/Oakland Relief Fund for Individuals in the Arts, a regional effort launched in May 2020 to provide direct cash assistance to artists and cultural workers. These
local dollars often reached grantees before county, state, or federal relief programs such as the California Arts
Council’s Cultural Organizations Emergency Relief Fund, Shuttered Venue Operators Grants, Alameda County Arts
Relief Grants, and the Paycheck Protection Program.

It wasn’t until October 2020 that the City of Berkeley, along with Alameda County, cautiously began reopening a wider range of businesses and community spaces to the public
under strict capacity limits. New health order protocols could now allow businesses like museums, galleries,
personal care services, libraries, places of worship,
restaurants, and movie theaters to operate indoors at 25% capacity. These steps marked the first time many cultural and social gathering spaces could invite the public back, albeit in highly restricted forms.

However, this momentum was short-lived. In December,
a resurgence of COVID-19 cases strained intensive care
unit capacity to below 15%, which in turn triggered a new regional stay-at-home order and the closure of nearly
all indoor sectors across Berkeley and Alameda County
once again. As cases eased in early 2021 and vaccines
became widely available, cultural and recreational facilities were gradually permitted to return in stages: first at 25% capacity, then 50%, and by the spring of 2021 up to 75%.

By May 2021, many museums, galleries, and other indoor
spaces were operating under these expanded limits. It
was not until June 15, 2021—fifteen months after the first shutdown—that nearly all restrictions were finally lifted, and businesses across California could fully reopen.

Recognizing the toll of lost work opportunities on local SCALE OF COVID-19 DISRUPTION
2 Sara Kassabian, “Berkeley is unusual in having its own public health division. How does that work during a pandemic?, ” Berkeleyside, April 15, 2020, https://www.berkeleyside.org/2020/04/15/berkeley-is-unusual-in-having-its-own-public-health-division-how-does-that-work-during-a-pandemic. 3 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

artists throughout this period, the City of Berkeley
launched the Berkeley Arts Works Project
(BAWP) in 2021, funded through the City’s Cultural
Trust Fund (Fund 148).
3 Modeled in spirit after the
New Deal–era Works Progress Administration, which
employed artists during the Great Depression to create
public works, the program provided paid opportunities
for artists, performers, and community members to
produce temporary public artworks. These projects not only offered much needed income, but also fostered community healing by addressing themes of public health, resilience, and belonging at a time when many cultural venues were only beginning to reopen.

While the statewide June 2021 reopening marked a turning point for most cultural and recreational facilities, performing arts venues had endured some of the longest closures.

Classified as among the highest-risk settings, they were the last to reopen, allowed to return only when the rest of the economy was cleared to resume operations. The Berkeley Repertory Theatre offers a vivid example of just how long the road back was for performing arts institutions. Despite the state’s reopening in June, Berkeley Rep remained dark until November 12, 2021, when it finally welcomed audiences back with its production of Wintertime—a nearly 20-month closure from March 2020.

The City’s next major rounds of recovery funding came through the Berkeley Arts Recovery Grants (BARG) two years later in 2022 (funded with American Rescue Plan Act dollars). 4 This program was available to both arts and culture
organizations and individuals. The BARG program arrived at a moment when federal and state programs wound down and organizations were confronting new pressures: inflation, workforce shortages, and lower levels of consumer engagement that had not fully recovered since the pandemic.

Together, the launch of these programs over three years created a phased response that moved from emergency relief to longer-term recovery. This approach helped preserve Berkeley’s cultural ecosystem and sustain its creative workforce during one of the most disruptive periods in recent history. 3 The Cultural Trust Fund is a dedicated pool of City revenues that supports Berkeley’s arts ecosystem through grants, public art, and cultural programming. 4 The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), a $1.9 trillion federal stimulus package enacted in March 2021, provided local governments with flexible State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) to address public health and economic impacts of the pandemic, with a focus on disproportionately impacted communities. The City of Berkeley allocated a portion of these funds to support arts and culture organizations and individual cultural practitioners. 4 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Figure 2: Timeline of COVID-19 Pandemic Relief & Recovery Grant Distribution Source: CVL Economics.
2020
2021
15 months of
mandated
closures and
restrictions
2022
April–May 2020
February–June 2021
October 2020
April 2021
September 2021
May 2020
April–October 2021
Feb 2022
May 2022
May–June 2020
Dec 2020–Jan 2021
March 2020
Original COVID-19 strain.

Berkeley issues shelter-in-place order on March 17.

California issues its statewide order two days later on March 19. All arts and culture venues close immediately and events are cancelled.

March 2021
Berkeley rolls out mass vaccination efforts.

Berkeley begins easing restrictions again; some
indoor activities are allowed at limited capacity
(e.g., gyms, restaurants, movie theatres).

June 2021
Delta strain becomes the dominant variant.

California formally lifts most statewide restrictions.

Indoor capacity limits and social distancing
requirements largely removed.

December 2021
Omicron strain becomes the dominant variant.

Holiday programming resumes in modified form, but
attendance levels remain well below pre-pandemic
norms. Rising case counts and the arrival of the Omicron variant once again create uncertainty.

June 2020
December 2020
California allows limited outdoor activities and businesses (e.g., outdoor dining, retail pickup), but performance
venues and most cultural institutions remain closed.

Rising COVID-19 cases trigger a new stay-at-home order
across much of California. Businesses close again.

Paycheck Protection Program
begins issuing loans.

Shuttered Venue Operators
Grants issued.

Berkeley starts easing restrictions and
begins reopening businesses with capacity
restrictions. Some museums and galleries
reopen with reduced hours and timed entry.

Performance venues largely remain closed,
though small-scale outdoor or drive-in style
events begin to appear.

Outdoor live events permitted
with capacity limits; museums and
galleries reopen under state health
guidelines. Some Berkeley arts
organizations experiment with small
outdoor or hybrid performances.

Larger theaters and music venues reopen with
vaccination or negative-test requirements.

Restaurants and retail in cultural districts return
to more regular service, though many still face
staffing shortages and reduced hours.

Berkeley Arts Organization
Continuity Grants
Berkeley Arts Works Project
grants issued.

Berkeley Arts Recovery Grants
for Arts Organizations and
Festivals issued.

Berkeley Arts Recovery
Grants for Artists and Cultural
Practitioners issued.

East Bay/Oakland Relief Funds
for Artists
California Arts Council Cultural
Organizations Emergency
Relief Grants issued.

Alameda County Arts Relief
Grants
Berkeley pandemic relief and recovery grants Other notable state and federal pandemic grants 5 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

At the same time, these prolonged closures exacerbated
Berkeley’s already exceptionally high-cost environment
(Figure 3). The East Bay (comprising Alameda and Contra Costa counties, also known as the Oakland-Fremont-
Berkeley metropolitan division) consistently ranks among the most expensive regions in the country—not just for
households but also for employers. Berkeley arts and
culture organizations must contend with some of the
nation’s highest commercial rents, utility costs, and taxes.

For nonprofit cultural organizations, the in-person
experience is central to their survival. Earned income
streams—such as ticket sales, performances, classes,
festivals, gallery admissions, and space rentals—depend almost entirely on people gathering in shared physical
spaces. When COVID-19 forced those spaces to close,
the entire business model of many arts groups collapsed overnight. Unlike some industries that could pivot to
remote operations, much of Berkeley’s arts and culture
sector remained tied to in-person engagement. While
many organizations worked hard to provide online content and cultural experiences, virtual substitutes could not replicate the community connection of live experiences
nor meaningfully make up for revenue shortfalls. Moreover, many organizations continued to shoulder fixed costs,
such as leases, insurance, and baseline staffing. The
inability to shed these expenses during more than a year of shutdown meant reserves were rapidly depleted, forcing some organizations to suspend operations entirely.

Figure 3: Cost of Doing Business Index by Metropolitan Division | 2022 Note: The Cost of Doing Business Index is a Moody’s Analytics calculation factoring in labor costs, energy costs, office rent, and tax burden in a given metropolitan division.

Source: Moody’s Analytics, CVL Economics.
0 % 50 % 100 % 150 % 200 %
San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City, CA
New York-Jersey City-White Plains, NY-NJ
Oakland-Fremont-Berkeley, CA
Cambridge-Newton-Framingham, MA
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA
Anaheim-Santa Ana-Irvine, CA
Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall, FL
Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA
Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX
Denver-Aurora-Centennial, CO
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA
202
151
127
121
120
118
116
112
106
105
94 Cost of Doing Business Index
6 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

KEY FINDINGS
IMPACT OF BERKELEY’S PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING FOR ARTS &

CULTURE ORGANIZATIONS
The two rounds were the Arts Organization Continuity Grants ($954,543) in 2020 and the Berkeley Arts Recovery Grants (BARG) for Arts Organizations and Festivals ($1.5 million) in 2022.

Two rounds of Berkeley pandemic relief and recovery grant programs were administered to 88 arts and culture organizations, totaling almost $2.5 million.

Nearly 83% of Arts Organization Continuity Grant (2020) and 90% of BARG (2022) recipients rated their Berkeley pandemic relief and recovery grant(s) as either “very helpful” or “essential. ” The remaining organizations, which were lar
ger in size, described the funding as “moderately helpful. ” Importantly, the vast majority of grantees (up to 84%) credited the grants with preventing both organizational shutdowns and employee layoffs during the most acute months of the pandemic.

Relief and recovery funding was broadly seen as critical, helping most organizations avoid layoffs and business closure entirely.

At the onset of the pandemic, organizations with annual budgets of $500,000 or less saw their revenues drop by nearly 50% on average, compared to a 30% decline among mid-sized organizations ($500k–$1M) and about a 40% decline among l
arge organizations (over $1M). This sharper decline highlights how limited reserves and thinner margins left smaller organizations far more vulnerable to the initial shock.

Smaller organizations were the most vulnerable to initial pandemic disruptions. 7 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

A majority of grantees (49 of 88) benefited from receiving both the 2020 Arts Organization Continuity Grant and the 2022 BARG. This sequencing mattered: the first round provided a lifeline in the immediate aftermath of shutdowns, while the second arrived during a difficult reopening phase marked by inflation, workforce shifts, and lagging consumer engagement. Taken together, the two rounds of support compounded one another, allowing organizations not only to survive the immediate crisis but also to weather the prolonged and unpredictable recovery period. In this way, limited local dollars stretched across multiple years of disruption, amplifying their effect far beyond what a single grant cycle could have achieved.

Many arts & culture organizations received both rounds of funding, which extended impact beyond any single cycle.

Issued at the height of uncertainty in May 2020, these grants kept doors open during the first wave of shutdowns.

Arts Organization Continuity Grants reached organizations before many other federal, state, and local relief pro
grams. However, their impact tended to be short-term: most grantees (84%) stated funds sustained operations for less than six months, 11% said funds lasted 6-12 months, and just 5% stated funds lasted a year or more. Even so, the immediacy of this funding was critical; more organizations attributed the Arts Organization Continuity Grant as helping them avoid layoffs (85%) and closures (84%) than the BARG (2022) program. Over half of the recipients stated the grants helped them survive the pandemic period but left no lasting impact.

Arts Organization Continuity Grants (2020) served as an immediate lifeline.

Distributed in a more stable but still challenging environment in 2022, BARG enabled longer-term planning and adaptation. 22% of recipients stated the funding lasted 6–12 months, and 11% reported funding lasting a year or more
. Nearly one in five (19%) described the grants as transformative—compared to just 5% of Arts Organization Continuity grantees—and almost half (48%) credited the funds with helping them stabilize and make strategic changes. 70% of BARG recipients credited the grant for avoiding layoffs and 74% for avoiding business closure.

Berkeley Arts Recovery Grants (2022) offered stabilization and transformation. 8 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

IMPACT OF BERKELEY’S PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY
FUNDING FOR ARTS & CULTURE INDIVIDUALS5
5 While pandemic relief funding supported both organizations and individuals, this assessment focuses primarily on organizations. Relief to individual artists in Berkeley was important, and a high-level assessment is included, however the anonymity of individual grant awards limited the availability of detailed data. In addition, organizations serve as anchors for artists and the community and are more deeply established within communities, making their stability a clearer lens into the overall health of the creative ecosystem.

The three programs were the East Bay/Oakland Relief Fund ($64,500 to Berkeley residents) in 2020, the Berkeley Art Works Project (BAWP; $182,339) in 2021, and the BARG for Artists and Cultural Practitioners ($276,250) in 2022.

While the East Bay/Oakland Relief Fund (2020) and BARG (2022) programs provided unrestricted funds to Berkeley’s arts and culture workers, BAWP (2021) supported paid temporary visual and performing arts projects in public spaces. Instead of serving as direct stimulus assistance, BAWP (inspired by the Depression-era Works Progress Administration) functioned more like traditional income, employing artists who might otherwise have been working locally in theaters or other cultural venues, and redirecting their talents into community-based creative projects.

Three Berkeley pandemic relief and recovery grant programs were administered to arts and culture individuals residing and practicing in Berkeley, totaling over $520,000.

Grants provided immediate relief for artists facing significant reductions in income, often covering essential living costs like rent, groceries, and medical bills. When measured against the median individual housing cost in Berkeley ($1,
100/month), the impact becomes clear: East Bay/Oakland Relief Fund awards covered over one month of housing, BARG awards covered more than two months, and BAWP awards stretched nearly four months. Even this short-term coverage of basic living expenses mattered enormously for artists, and in some cases represented the difference between staying in Berkeley or being displaced.

Individual grants covered the equivalent of up to nearly four months of housing costs.

Grants were mostly awarded to historically underrepresented artists, including Black, Latinx, Indigenous, and multi- racial cultural workers. More than half of grantees reported losing at least 50% of their arts-related income in 2020, wi
th nearly one-quarter losing 90–100%, showing funding reached those in greatest need.

Relief and recovery programs advanced equity and reached those most impacted. 9 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

10 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Nine of the 28 grantee organizations with operating budgets under $100,000 closed, the highest number of any group.

But large organizations were also not immune; two of the 13 institutions with revenues between $1M-$2M also shut down, as did two of the 11 organizations with operating budgets over $2 million. This pattern shows that while scale and resources provided some resilience, no segment of the sector was fully insulated. The loss of larger organizations— typically those with the broadest audiences or consumer base, most extensive programming, and greatest fundraising capacity—underscore the vulnerability of even the city’s established cultural institutions. 17 of the 88 grantee organizations or 19% (of both relief and recovery programs to arts and culture organizations) closed permanently between 2020–2024, the majority of which were very small organizations.

In 2024, grantee median revenue sat 9% below the 2019 benchmark. That said, smaller grantee organizations that are still operational have fared relatively better over time than their larger peers. For many of these groups, Berkeley’s relief and re
covery funds represented a substantial share of their annual budgets—sometimes covering the bulk of operating revenue in a given year. This scale of support often made the difference between survival and closure, allowing small organizations not only to stay afloat but also to begin rebuilding sooner than larger institutions, which in some cases remain more deeply destabilized.

Revenue for the 71 surviving grantees sits 9% below pre-pandemic levels, though the 62 smaller surviving organizations, with budgets less than $2 million, fared relatively better over time.

The City’s $2.5 million investment in arts and culture organizations during the years spanning 2020 to 2022 helped safeguard more than $12.9 million in arts and culture revenue that otherwise would have been lost. This translates to ever
y $1 of City pandemic emergency funding having leveraged at least $5.64 in arts and culture economic activity. This return captures not only the direct operations of arts and culture organizations, but also the ripple effects through local suppliers, contractors, and service providers.

Every $1 in City funding leveraged at least $5.64 in ongoing arts and culture economic activity.

LONG-TERM OUTCOMES FOR ARTS & CULTURE ORGANIZATIONS
11 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Together, these findings illustrate that while the pandemic-era grants were not sufficient in resolving every financial challenge for Berkeley’s artists and arts organizations, they served as a lifeline. For many organizations, relief and recovery funding was the difference between survival and closure during unprecedented times, ensuring that Berkeley’s arts and culture ecosystem remained intact long enough to begin navigating the long road to recovery.

For larger organizations, City relief and recovery grants accounted for a smaller share of overall budgets, limiting their ability to offset the steep financial shocks of the pandemic. As a result, for organizations with operating budgets over $1 million, funding was often described as moderately helpful rather than transformative. By 2024, revenues at these larger organizations remained one-third below 2019 benchmarks—far below the average 9% decline across all grantees.

The 9 larger organizations with budgets over $2 million that received grant funding faced deeper structural challenges, with current revenues sitting 33% below pre-pandemic levels.

Expenses have risen much faster than income, and earned revenue has been slow to rebound, leaving organizations more reliant on contributed income. Additionally, performing arts venues in particular continue to struggle with reduced at
tendance and shrinking subscriber bases. As a result of both of these factors, and a changed federal funding for the arts landscape, competition for public sector and philanthropic support has intensified, making recovery uneven, precarious, and difficult for arts organizations. Compounding these challenges, downtown revitalization struggles— including empty storefronts, reduced foot traffic, and heightened safety and transportation concerns—have made it more difficult for some arts venues to fully reestablish themselves as hubs of community life.

Broader economic challenges are compounding strain across Berkeley arts organizations of all sizes.
12 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Eighty-eight arts and culture
organizations received at least
one of the two pandemic relief
and recovery grants, with
49 organizations receiving
both the Arts Organization
Continuity Grant in 2020
and BARG in 2022 (Figure 4).

Together, these programs
directed nearly $2.5 million
in emergency support to
the sector, which provided
targeted financial assistance
to help organizations weather
immediate losses, retain staff,
and adapt to rapidly changing
conditions.

PANDEMIC

RELIEF AND

RECOVERY FOR

ARTS & CULTURE

ORGANIZATIONS
13 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

In response to the immediate financial crisis faced by arts organizations during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the City of Berkeley launched the Arts Organization
Continuity Grants program in March 2020. This program
was funded directly by the City of Berkeley’s General Fund Catastrophic Reserve. The program ultimately awarded
$954,53 in emergency funding to 63 local nonprofit arts organizations. Grants of up to $25,000 (with an average award of approximately $15,150) were distributed in May 2020 to organizations that demonstrated a loss of at least 25% in earned revenue, such as ticket sales, class fees, or venue rentals.

The program was designed as emergency gap funding
to stabilize organizations experiencing acute financial hardship. Eligibility was limited to Berkeley-based
organizations with a mission focused on the development or presentation of arts and culture, including fiscally sponsored entities. In keeping with the City’s 2018 Arts & Culture Plan and commitment to cultural equity,
applications were evaluated not only on financial need
but also on equity-centered criteria, such as whether the organization worked primarily with artists from historically marginalized communities, served underrepresented
audiences, operated in geographically underserved parts of Berkeley, or had a staff and board composition reflective of diverse communities.

ARTS ORGANIZATION CONTINUITY GRANTS (2020)
In 2022, the City of Berkeley distributed over $1.5 million in one-time Berkeley Arts Recovery Grants (BARG) to
74 nonprofit arts organizations and recurring festivals as part of its broader pandemic recovery strategy. Funded
by American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) dollars, the BARG
program was designed to support sustainable recovery for Berkeley’s arts sector after nearly two years of widespread disruption in the sector as a result of the COVID-19
pandemic. Award amounts ranged from $3,000 to $33,000,
with an average award of approximately $20,700 per
organization.

Eligible applicants included Berkeley-based nonprofit or fiscally sponsored arts organizations and recurring festivals that had experienced a decline in revenue between 2019
and 2020. Awards were determined through a scoring
system that prioritized organizations serving or led by historically marginalized communities, with 70% of the
evaluation focused on cultural equity factors such as
programming by or for BIPOC, LGBTQIA+, low-income,
disabled, senior, or unhoused populations. Funds could be used to offset lost revenue, support safe reopening efforts, or invest in long-term sustainability through marketing, consulting, or business planning.

BERKELEY ARTS RECOVERY GRANTS FOR ARTS ORGANIZATIONS AND FESTIVALS (2022)
Figure 4: Summary of Berkeley Pandemic Relief and Recovery Grants for Arts & Culture Organizations Source: City of Berkeley, CVL Economics.

PROGRAM
YEAR
RE

CIPIENT
TYP
E

NUMBER OF

GRANTEES

TOTAL AMOUNT

AWARDED

AVERAGE GRANT

AWARDED

ARTS ORGANIZATION CONTINUITY
GRANTS 2020
Nonprofit or fiscally-
sponsored arts and culture
organizations
63 $954,543 $15,151

BERKELEY ARTS RECOVERY GRANTS
(BARG) FOR ARTS ORGANIZATIONS

AND FESTIVALS
2022
Nonprofit or fiscally-
sponsored arts and culture
organizations and festivals
74 $1,532,345 $20,707
14 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Although grantees varied in focus, size, and diversity, all Berkeley organizations faced acute financial hardships
resulting from the pandemic, and for many, this persists into the present day. The scale of these challenges is underscored by the grantees themselves, who reported widespread disruptions to programming, facilities, and core revenue streams as the pandemic unfolded.

To better understand how Berkeley’s pandemic relief and recovery funding shaped the local arts ecosystem, CVL Economics surveyed grantee organizations. Of the 88 organizations that received support through the Arts Organization Continuity Grant (2020) or the Berkeley Arts Recovery Grant (BARG; 2022), 30 completed the survey, providing valuable insights into both the immediate and lasting effects of the City’s investment.6
COVID-19 Disruptions
At the onset of the pandemic in mid-March 2020, every grantee organization had to cancel or postpone performances, exhibitions, or events. In a survey of grant recipients conducted five years later, in June 2025, 80% reported suspended education or community programs; and more than 73% were forced to close their physical facilities, resulting in the reduction or elimination of key earned revenue activities (Figure 5). Another 70% reported having to delay or cancel critical fundraising campaigns, cutting off vital revenue streams at a moment when operational expenses remained constant or, in some cases, increased due to safety measures.

Community connection was also severely disrupted by the pandemic in Berkeley. Nearly 77% of respondents reported difficulties reaching audiences or community members, a challenge compounded by the digital divide and the learning curve associated with pivoting to online programming. Limited access to artists, collaborators, and essential partners was cited by 70% of organizations, underscoring how the pandemic fractured the networks that sustain creative production.

The employment landscape in Berkeley in this sector shifted dramatically as well (Figure 6). Forty-three percent (43%) of arts organizations implemented temporary layoffs or furloughs, 40% imposed hiring freezes, and 13% faced permanent position eliminations. These staffing impacts not only affected the livelihoods of arts workers but also reduced organizational capacity, making recovery more difficult even after restrictions eased.

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY

GRANT IMPACT FOR ARTS & CULTURE

ORGANIZATIONS
6 See Appendix A.1 for more details on survey methodology. 15 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Figure 5: Immediate COVID-19 Disruptions Experienced by Berkeley Arts Organizations Figure 6: Immediate COVID-19 Employment Disruptions Experienced by Berkeley Arts Organizations N=30
Source: CVL Economics Survey (2025).

N=30
Source: CVL Economics Survey (2025).
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Cancellation or postponement of performances, exhibitions, or events Reduction or elimination of earned revenue activities
Suspension of education or community programs
Difficulty reaching audiences or community members
Closure of physical facilities
Limited access to artists or collaborators
Delay or cancellation of fundraising campaigns or events 100%
93%
80%
77%
73%
70%
70%
Share of Grantee Survey Respondents
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Reduction in hours or wages
Temporary layoffs or furloughs
Hiring freeze or delayed hires
Other
Permanent layoffs or position eliminations
No employment disruptions
77%
43%
40%
23%
13%
7%
Share of Grantee Survey Respondents
16 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

The financial toll of these disruptions is reflected in the immediate revenue loss experienced by grantee organizations (Figure 7). Across the 74 BARG grantees, average revenue fell by 44% between 2019 and 2020. The depth of these losses varied significantly by organization size. The smallest organizations—those with annual budgets under $100,000—were hit the hardest, with revenues dropping nearly 50% on average. Mid-sized organizations with budgets between $500,000 and $1 million saw the least severe declines, though they still averaged a 30% loss. Large organizations with budgets over $2 million were not immune either, facing an average revenue reduction of 40% at the onset of the pandemic.

Figure 7: Grantee Revenue Loss by Organization Size | 2019–2020 Source: City of Berkeley, CVL Economics.
−40%
−30%
−20%
−10%
0%
−50%
<$100k $100k-$499k $500k-$1M $1M-$2M >$2M
−49% −48%
−30%
−38%
−40%
Percent Change in Revenue
Berkeley’s pandemic relief and recovery grants for arts and cultural organizations were not just helpful but essential for many grantees (Figure 8). Nearly half of Arts Organization Continuity Grant recipients (47%) and more than a third of BARG recipients (37%) said they could not have
sustained operations without the grant. Another 37% of
Arts Organization Continuity Grant recipients and 48% of BARG grantees reported that the funding was very helpful, significantly supporting their ability to continue operating.

The grants played a pivotal role in preventing widespread layoffs and closures. Eighty-four percent (84%) of Arts Organization Continuity Grant recipients and 70% of
BARG recipients said the grants helped them avoid
workforce reductions, protecting jobs during the most
precarious months of the pandemic (Figure 9). Similarly, 84% of Arts Organization Continuity Grant recipients and 74% of BARG recipients said the funding prevented them
from permanently shutting down (Figure 10).

IMMEDIATE IMPACTS:

ROLE OF PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING
17 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Figure 8: Extent to Which Pandemic Relief and Recovery Funding Was Essential Among Berkeley’s Grant Recipients Figure 9: Share of Grantees That Avoided
Layoffs Due to the Grants
Figure 10: Share of Grantees That Avoided
Closure Due to the Grants
N=30
Note: Responses were measured on a five-point scale from “Not at all helpful” to “Essential.” No respondents selected either of the two ratings below “Moderately helpful.”
Source: CVL Economics Survey (2025).

N=30
Source: CVL Economics Survey (2025).
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Arts Organization Continuity Grant (2020)
BARG (2022)
47%
37%
37%
48%
16%
11%
Essential: We could not have sustained
operations without it
Very helpful: It significantly supported
our ability to operate
Moderately helpful: It helped, but we still
faced major challenges
Share of Grantee Survey Respondents
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100 %
Arts Organization
Continuity Grant (2020)
BARG (2022)
84%
70%
Share of Grantee Survey Respondents
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100 %
Arts Organization
Continuity Grant (2020)
BARG (2022)
84%
74%
Share of Grantee Survey Respondents
18 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Given their distribution in the earliest stages of the
pandemic, the Arts Organization Continuity Grants
provided critical short-term relief, serving as a bridge during the early days of the pandemic and sustaining arts organizations until other assistance programs became
available. For many organizations, the funding was the
difference between survival and immediate closure. That said, the support tended to last for a shorter duration and left fewer long-term organizational changes in place than the BARG program. Most (84%) Arts Organization
Continuity Grant recipients said the funding lasted
less than 6 months (Figure 11). More than half (53%) of recipients reported that the funds helped them survive the pandemic but did not generate lasting impact, and only
5% described the funding as transformative (Figure 12).

By contrast, BARG—issued at a time when most
organizations had transitioned from response to recovery phases— tended to have a broader effect. The grants were generally larger, conditions had shifted toward reopening, the “new normal” was settling in, and organizations were positioned to leverage fiscal support for longer-term
stability. Reflecting this, nearly half of BARG recipients (48%) said the grants helped them stabilize and make
strategic changes, and almost one in five (19%) reported transformative, lasting impacts. Even in terms of duration, BARG funding stretched further: a third of recipients
reported that it sustained operations for six months or more.

Figure 11: Length of Time Grants Sustained Operations in Berkeley Figure 12: Scale of Grant Impact on Berkeley Arts and Culture Organizations N=30
Source: CVL Economics Survey (2025).

N=30
Source: CVL Economics Survey (2025).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Less than 3 months 3-6 months 6-12 months One year or more 37%
47%
11%
5%
30%
33%
22%
11%
Arts Organization Continuity Grant (2020) BARG (2022)
Share of Grantee Survey Respondents
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
It made a transformative, lasting
impact on our organization
It helped us stabilize and make
some strategic changes
It helped us survive the pandemic
period but left no lasting impact
5%
42%
53%
19%
48%
26%
Arts Organization Continuity Grant (2020) BARG (2022)
Share of Grantee Survey Respondents
19 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Organizations reported that relief and recovery funding helped them retain staff and leadership (67% of Arts
Organization Continuity Grant recipients and 68% of
BARG recipients) (Figure 13). More than half credited
the grants with enabling them to maintain or expand
relationships with their audiences and communities
(58% and 53%, respectively), and nearly half of grantees noted that the funding allowed them to sustain access to physical spaces.

Arts Organization Continuity Grant recipients were more likely than BARG recipients to report developing new or enhanced programming (42% vs. 37%). This difference
likely reflects the urgent pivot many organizations were forced to make at the height of the pandemic crisis—
rapidly adapting to online or hybrid formats, experimenting with digital content, and reimagining community
engagement in a socially distanced world. In other
words, the Arts Organization Continuity Grant helped
seed immediate programmatic adjustments that allowed
organizations to stay connected with their audiences
under extraordinary circumstances.

By contrast, the BARG program in 2022 was more
about strengthening internal systems, fundraising, and
longer-term stabilization as organizations adjusted to
a new operating environment. Nearly half of BARG
recipients (47%) reported using funds to improve internal systems and operations, compared to just a third of Arts Organization Continuity Grant recipients. Additionally, 16% of BARG grantees said the funds helped increase
fundraising capacity or visibility, compared to 8% of Arts Organization Continuity Grant recipients.

The distinction between the two grant programs points to a critical shift in focus of the City’s approach to pandemic relief and recovery across the arts and culture sector. While the earlier Arts Continuity Grant program was more focused on immediate survival, the BARG program was better positioned to help organizations adapt to a new normal by strengthening infrastructure and building capacity to generate new revenue. Notably, most organizations (49 out of the 88 grantees) were able to benefit from both rounds of relief and recovery funding. This compounded support allowed grantees not only to weather the initial crisis but also to remain afloat during the prolonged and unpredictable recovery period, extending the effect of the funding well beyond a single grant cycle.

Figure 13: Detailed Impact of Relief and Recovery Grants for Berkeley Arts and Culture Organizations N=30
Source: CVL Economics Survey (2025).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Retention of key staff
or leadership
Maintained or
expanded
relationships with
audiences/community
Maintained access to
physical space
Improved internal
systems or
operations
Developed new or
enhanced
programming
Laid groundwork for
future growth or
partnerships
Increased
fundraising capacity
or visibility
67%
58%
50%
33%
42%
33%
8%
68 %
53%
47% 47%
37%
26%
16%
Arts Organization Continuity Grant (2020) BARG (2022)
Share of Grantee Survey Respondents
20 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Five years since the onset of the pandemic, we can begin to see the longer-term impacts on Berkeley’s arts and
culture ecosystem. The initial shock was compounded
by rising costs for labor, rent, and production; challenges rebuilding and retaining staff; slower-than-expected
audience and consumer engagement recovery; and
changes in the funding landscape.

LONG-TERM OUTCOMES:

WHERE GRANTEE
ORGANIZATIONS STAND IN 2025
Organizational Closures
Despite the critical role of relief and recovery funding, not all grantee organizations were able to withstand the prolonged pressures of the pandemic and its aftermath. Between 2020 and 2024, 17 grantee organizations ultimately closed. Of those 17 organizations, the vast majority were small (Figure 14). The steepest losses were among grantees with annual budgets under $100,000: nine organizations of this size were unable to continue operating. Mid-sized organizations fared better, with only one organization closing with a budget between $500,000 and $1 million. Larger organizations also experienced notable losses: five organizations with budgets over $1 million closed during this period. Among the closures were two of Berkeley’s established and well-known institutions: the Bay Area Children’s Theatre in 2023 (which had an operating budget exceeding $3 million) and the Aurora Theatre Company in 2025. 7 This pattern shows that while scale and resources provided some resilience, no segment of the sector was fully insulated.

For larger organizations—typically those with the broadest audiences or consumer base, most extensive programming, and greatest fundraising capacity—such losses underscore the vulnerability of even the city’s most established cultural institutions.
7 At the time of writing, Aurora Theatre Company has not officially announced a permanent closure, but it has announced staff layoffs and the closure of its venue; for the purposes of this analysis, we are considering it closed. See: Lily Janiak, “Bay Area Theater Moves to Lay Off Staff, Vacate Downtown Berkeley Venue, ” August 12, 2025, San Francisco Chronicle, https://www.sfchronicle.com/entertainment/article/aurora-theatre-layoffs-venue-vacate-20813096.php. 21 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

8 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds: Interim Final Rule, Federal Register, 86(93), 26786–26861 (2021), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/05/17/2021-10283/coronavirus-state-and-local-fiscal-recovery-funds.

Figure 14: Closures Among Berkeley Arts Relief and Recovery Grantee Organizations by Revenue Size Source: City of Berkeley, CVL Economics.
0 2
4 6
8 10
<$100k $100k-$499k $500k-$1M $1M-$2M >$2M
9 2
1 3
2 Number of Grantee Organizations
While small organizations were more likely than larger
ones to face permanent closure, those that survived often reported that pandemic relief and recovery funding was
especially critical to their survival. For organizations with annual budgets under $100,000, the grants represented a larger share of their total operating revenue (Figure 15).

By contrast, larger organizations tended to view the
grants as moderately helpful—providing short-term relief without fundamentally altering their financial trajectory.

For institutions with budgets exceeding $2 million,
the grants made up less than 1% of annual revenue.

Notably, because award criteria emphasized equity and
demonstrated revenue loss rather than organizational
size, some of the smallest organizations received equal or even greater funding amounts than their much larger
counterparts. This approach magnified the impact of relief and recovery funds for smaller organizations, and it aligned with the intent of the American Rescue Plan Act (the
BARG program leveraged ARPA State and Local Fiscal
Recovery Funds dollars), which explicitly recognized the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on communities
of color and sought to direct resources toward advancing equity in recovery.
8 The significance of this support comes in light of the fact that more than one-quarter (28%) of grantee organizations reported receiving no other forms of pandemic-related
financial assistance (Figure 16). For these organizations, the City of Berkeley’s grants meant the difference between survival and closure, particularly for smaller organizations that may have lacked the capacity or access to other
federal, state, or county-level programs.
22 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Figure 15: Average Size of Grant in Proportion to Total Operating Budget by Organization Size Figure 16: Share of Respondents that Received Other Pandemic Relief Support Source: City of Berkeley, Internal Revenue Service, CVL Economics.

N=30
Source: CVL Economics Survey (2025).
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100 %
<$100k $100k-$499k $500k-$1M $1M-$2M >$2M
18%
7%
4% 3% 1%
83%
10%
4% 2% 1%
Arts Organization Continuity Grant (2020) BARG (2022)
Share of Grantee Organizations
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Did not receive other
pandemic relief funding
Received other pandemic
relief funding
28%
72%
Share of Survey Respondents
23 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Evolving Revenue Streams and Rising Costs
By 2024, the median revenue across all surviving grantees was still 9% below pre-pandemic levels—although this was still an improvement from the sector’s low point in 2021, when the median revenue had fallen 15% from 2019 (Figure 17). While smaller organizations were far more likely to close their doors permanently, those that survived fared relatively better than the largest organizations over time; the median revenue for grantee organizations with budgets above $2 million, on the other hand, is still one-third below 2019 benchmarks.

Figure 17: Percent Change in Median Surviving Berkeley Grantee Revenue Since 2019 Note: Based on the median inflation-adjusted (2024 dollars) revenue across the 71 surviving grantee organizations.

Source: Internal Revenue Service, CVL Economics.
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
−30%
−20%
−10%
0%
10%
20%
−40%
30%
−9%
−33%
All Grantees >$2M Grantees
Percent Change in Median Revenue
24 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

These patterns map onto broader regional trends: smaller organizations tended to show greater resiliency in recovery than their larger counterparts. A 2024 report on the
sustainability of Bay Area performing arts organizations post-pandemic found that micro-organizations (defined
as very small organizations, often characterized as those with fewer than 10 employees)—despite being largely
excluded from federal relief programs—remained nimble
by expanding programs and attendance, maintaining
or growing their artistic workforce, and prioritizing
community engagement and mission-focused recovery,
even as expenses outpaced revenue growth.
9 By contrast,
while larger organizations experienced the highest
increase in government funding during the pandemic and
exceptional federal relief programs kept many of these
institutions afloat, those temporary funds are now waning, leaving structural financial gaps behind.

Across the Bay Area, arts organization expenses have
risen much faster than income. Between 2022 and 2023,
total expenses for regional arts organizations increased by 21% while revenues fell 12%. Earned revenue rebounded
by 42% in 2023 but remained 26% below pre-pandemic
levels after adjusting for inflation. In-person attendance more than doubled between 2022 and 2023, yet still sat
42% below 2019 levels. As a result, organizations have
grown increasingly dependent on contributed income.
10 These local trends reflect broader national patterns in the nonprofit performing arts sector. Nationwide, total income dropped sharply during the pandemic and, while
it has begun to recover, expenses have risen at a much
faster pace since 2021 (Figure 18). Regional theaters also report losing 20–30% of subscribers since 2019, eroding a dependable source of earned revenue and compounding
these financial pressures.
11 At the same time, the funding mix has shifted: as earned income has struggled to rebound, contributed income
now accounts for a larger share of organizational budgets (Figure 19). Even so, recent budget cycles have become
more challenging, with heightened competition for
contributed dollars. Many foundations are shifting priorities away from the arts, while federal uncertainty has created a chilling effect nationwide. Proposals from the executive branch to eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, to condition or cancel awarded grants, and to impose new ideological restrictions on future eligibility have further undermined confidence for arts organizations across the country.

Locally, these trends are echoed by the experiences of the grantee organizations in Berkeley. Over 81% reported that financial stability remains their most pressing challenge today, followed closely by rising costs (74%) (Figure 20).

Nearly half cited the intensifying competition for limited public and private funding as a major barrier and 30%
reported access to affordable space as a top challenge.

Some organizations also included rebuilding audience
engagement and attendance, difficulty retaining or hiring qualified staff, and limited capacity for grant writing or fundraising as top challenges. Understanding these
specific challenges helps inform local grantmaking by
highlighting where support is most urgently needed—not
only in covering rising operating costs, but also in building organizational capacity, sustaining workforce pipelines, and ensuring that cultural offerings remain accessible in Berkeley.

Feedback from stakeholder outreach reinforced these
findings. As one organization leader put it, “It’s more expensive than ever to operate in the Bay Area. Meanwhile, federal and state support is drying up and audiences have not returned to pre-pandemic levels.” This illustrates the compounding pressures organizations now face: not only
are operating costs escalating, but audience behavior has shifted in ways that directly affect earned revenue and long-term sustainability.

For many, this includes challenges rebuilding traditional subscriber bases. While theatre subscribers had already been in steady decline over a long horizon, the pandemic accelerated this trend—leaving older and more risk-averse audiences slower to return and making it increasingly
difficult to rely on subscription revenue as a notable
income stream. Berkeley Rep illustrates this shift: at its 9 Kenneth Rainin Foundation & SMU DataArts at Southern Methodist University, Bay Area Arts and Culture Organizational Sustainability Survey Report:

Top line findings, 2019–2023 (2024), https://culturaldata.org/learn/data-at-work/2025/kenneth-rainin-foundation-smu-dataarts-bay-area-sustainability- assessment
10 Ibid.
11 Michael Paulson, “A Crisis in America’s Theaters Leaves Prestigious Stages Dark, ” The New York Times, July 23, 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/ 23/theater/regional-theater-crisis.html.
25 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Figure 18: Percent Change in Total Income and Expenses of Nationwide Nonprofit Performing Arts Organizations Since 2019
Figure 19: Percent Change in Income Type of Nonprofit Performing Arts Organizations Nationwide since 2019 Source: Theatre Communications Group, CVL Economics.

Source: Theatre Communications Group, CVL Economics.
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
−30%
−20%
−10%
0%
−40%
10%
−2%
8%
Total Income Expenses
Percent Change
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
−60%
−50%
−40%
−30%
−20%
−10%
0%
−70%
10%
−11%
−25%
Contributed Earned
Percent Change
26 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

peak the theatre had about 22,000 season ticket holders, compared to roughly 12,000 just before the pandemic; today subscriptions hover closer to 9,000, with the goal of stabilizing around 10,000—acknowledging it is unlikely to return to pre- pandemic levels. While subscriptions rarely make up the majority of a theatre company’s revenue, they serve as a critical pipeline for cultivating individual donors—a major source of contributed income. A shrinking subscriber base not only reduces reliable ticket revenue but also weakens the sense of loyalty that often leads patrons to become long-term donors, making fundraising even more difficult.
12 12 Lily Janiak. “Can Bay Area Theaters Make Subscriptions Sexy Again? A Quick Survey Shows Subscription Declines of 23% to 61% Since the Pandemic.” Datebook/San Francisco Chronicle, July 26, 2023. https://datebook.sfchronicle.com/theater/bay-area-theater-subscription-18197863.

Figure 20: Top Challenges Berkeley Art and Culture Organization Grantees Face Today N=30
Source: CVL Economics Survey (2025).
0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 %
Financial sustainability
Rising costs
Competition for limited public/private funding
Access to affordable space
Audience engagement and attendance
Retaining or hiring qualified staff
Limited capacity for grant writing or fundraising
Mental health and burnout among staff and leaders
Customer traffic or sales
Uncertainty about future disruptions
81%
74%
48%
30%
19%
19%
15%
7%
7%
4%
Share of Grantee Survey Respondents
27 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

13 Lily Janiak, “Bay Area theater moves to lay off staff, vacate downtown Berkeley venue, ” San Francisco Chronicle, August 12, 2025, https://www.sfchronicle. com/entertainment/article/aurora-theatre-layoffs-venue-vacate-20813096.php 14 Stakeholder interviews.

Figure 21: Downtown Berkeley Groundfloor Commercial Vacancy Rate | 2016–2024 Note: Includes office and retail properties.

Source: City of Berkeley Office of Economic Development, CVL Economics. 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
2%
16%

4.7% 4.6%

3.1%

5.1%

9.9%

15.7%

11.9%

10.8% 10.9%
Vacancy Rate
Ecosystem Challenges
These financial and audience pressures are compounded by the broader struggles facing Berkeley’s urban environment.

Empty storefronts, shuttered restaurants, and declining foot traffic have weakened the vibrancy that cultural districts depend on t
o attract and sustain audiences. As one stakeholder noted, “The Downtown area, like many downtown areas, is visibly struggling to retain tenants and drive foot traffic, which is concerning.” “In 2024, Downtown Berkeley’s ground floor commercial vacancy rate sat well above pre-pandemic levels (Figure 21). At 10.9%, the vacancy rate was more than double its 3.1% rate in 2019 — driven in large part by the enduring shift to remote and hybrid work, which has sharply reduced demand for traditional office space across the Bay Area. Fewer daily office workers have also meant fewer customers to nearby restaurants, cafés, and shops, which has in turn contributed to a rise in retail vacancies. These economic pressures are compounded by heightened safety concerns and ongoing transportation limitations, which have further reduced accessibility. The result is a more difficult operating environment for cultural organizations: even well-resourced institutions face added headwinds, while smaller and midsize groups struggle most to regain stability.

Across all of these challenges, the recent suspension of Aurora Theatre Company activities in mid-2025 exemplifies how these pressures converge: leadership has pointed to attendance never fully recovering from the pandemic, skyrocketing costs, and shifting philanthropic priorities as factors threatening its future. 13 The theatre joins a growing list of Berkeley
organizations that have already closed or gone dormant—including the Bay Area Children’s Theatre, TheatreFirst, and the Youth Musical Theatre Company. The precarity extends to the city’s remaining flagship organizations as well: Berkeley Repertory Theatre faces a $5 million deficit, Berkeley Symphony is operating with a reported $500,000 structural deficit, and Freight & Salvage has a $200,000 deficit—illustrating how fragile the ecosystem remains. 14 28

ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

While revenues across Berkeley’s arts and culture
ecosystem remain below pre-pandemic levels, it is
important to consider not only what was lost but also
what was preserved. Every organization that received
Arts Organization Continuity Grant or BARG funding
was required to demonstrate clear financial hardship as a condition of eligibility. In the case of Arts Organization Continuity Grants, for example, applicants had to show at least a 25% decline in earned revenue. Half of the grantee organizations experienced revenue loss of over 40%, and some organizations experienced a 100% decline in earned revenue.

Survey results highlight the critical role of the City of Berkeley’s funding intervention. More than one-quarter of grantees (28%) reported receiving no other pandemic relief. For these organizations, the City’s programs were their only source of external support. Without this funding, it is reasonable to assume that many would have been unable to sustain operations in Berkeley—likely joining the 17 organizations that ultimately closed between 2020 and 2024.

Over a five-year period (2020–2024), the absence of City relief and recovery support would have resulted in an estimated additional $12.9 million in revenue losses across the local arts and culture ecosystem by 2024. 15 As
such, the preservation effect of the City of Berkeley’s $2.5 million investment in pandemic relief and recovery support to arts and culture organizations in Berkeley extended far beyond the immediate crisis.

THE CITY OF BERKELEY’S RETURN

ON INVESTMENT IN THE CREATIVE

ECONOMY DURING THE PANDEMIC
(2020–2022)
13 CVL Economics quantified the value of organizations preserved by City funding using organizational operating revenue as the basis, drawing from a master grantee revenue dataset compiled by our firm. This dataset integrates IRS Form 990 filings for each organization and supplementing with revenue data from the City of Berkeley’s grant application database and grantee survey responses to fill in gaps. Applying the 28% figure of Berkeley grantees who reported receiving no other pandemic relief to the revenue data as a baseline, and weighting by organizational size (since smaller groups found Berkeley’s funds more impactful), $12.9 million is the estimated total revenue value of the at-risk organizations. 29 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

When taking into account direct and ripple
effects across the local supply chain, every $1 in
City funding leveraged at least $5.64 in ongoing arts
and culture economic activity. This figure was derived
using IMPLAN (Impact Analysis for Planning) input–output modeling, which captures not only the direct impacts
on grantee organizations and their employees, but also
the supply chain effects on local vendors, contractors, and service providers, as well as the induced effects of household spending by arts and related workers.
16 In
this way, the estimate reflects the broader ecosystem
value preserved by the City’s relief and recovery efforts— extending beyond the prevention of immediate closures
to safeguarding a network of organizations that continue to generate jobs, sustain community programming, and
contribute to local tax revenues today.

While emergency relief and recovery support alone cannot address the sector’s long-term structural challenges—
particularly around rising costs and audience recovery—the City of Berkeley’s intervention illustrates how targeted municipal support can serve as an effective bridge during periods of acute disruption, maintaining cultural capacity that might otherwise be permanently lost.
16 See Appendix A.2 for more details on return on investment methodology. 30 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

In addition to pandemic relief and recovery grants awarded to arts and culture organizations, the City of Berkeley awarded $523,089 across three grant programs between 2020 and 2022 for Berkeley- based individuals engaged in the arts (Figure 22).

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND

RECOVERY FOR ARTS &

CULTURE INDIVIDUALS
These programs aimed to sustain the livelihoods of artists, performers, and cultural practitioners who faced significant income loss due to COVID-19 disruptions. In particular, they prioritized support for lower-income individuals and those from historically underrepresented communities, providing direct financial assistance at a time when creative work opportunities were severely limited.
31 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

This program was a regional emergency grant launched in May 2020 to support artists and cultural workers in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Administered by the Center for Cultural Innovation (CCI), the fund included $49,000 directly from the City of Berkeley, which ultimately leveraged a total of $64,500 in awards to Berkeley artists. The additional dollars came from unrestricted contributions by local foundations,
17 meaning Berkeley’s participation drew in more resources to benefit the local community than the City invested directly. In total, 515 individuals received grants of up to $1,500—including 47 Berkeley artists. The program prioritized BIPOC, immigrant, disabled, and trans individuals and was designed to provide fast, non-taxable relief without requiring tax or citizenship documentation.

THE EAST BAY/OAKLAND RELIEF FUND FOR INDIVIDUALS IN THE ARTS (2020)
First launched in 2021 by the City’s Civic Arts Program, the Berkeley Art Works Projects (BAWP) grants awarded nearly $182,339 in grants to 32 Berkeley-based artists, performers, and community members to create temporary public art projects. These works addressed themes of public health, economic resilience, and community belonging. The program’s name was a deliberate play on the Works Progress Administration (WPA), the New Deal–era initiative that employed artists to create public works during the Great Depression. In a similar spirit, BAWP was designed not simply as relief funding but as an employment initiative—providing income to artists while generating public benefit through new creative works.

Funded through the City’s Cultural Trust Fund (Fund 148) BAWP supported creative responses to the emotional and social toll of the pandemic and produced public artworks across the city. Unlike the other pandemic grant programs for individual artists and cultural workers, these awards functioned more like compensation for services rendered, including related material costs—ensuring that artists were paid to create projects that directly engaged and benefitted the Berkeley community.

THE BERKELEY ART WORKS PROJECTS GRANTS (2021)
Aimed at supporting individual artists and cultural practitioners impacted by the pandemic, this program was administered in partnership with the CCI and funded through ARPA. In 2022, it awarded $276,250 to 114 Berkeley-based recipients, with grant amounts ranging from $1,250 to $8,000. Priority was given to those experiencing significant financial hardship, particularly from historically marginalized communities, and applicants were evaluated based on income loss from arts-related work, geographic distribution, and residence in underserved neighborhoods. Grants were unrestricted and designed to sustain creative practitioners during a period of prolonged economic instability.

BERKELEY ARTS RECOVERY GRANTS (BARG) FOR ARTISTS AND
CULTURAL PRACTITIONERS (2022)
17 Berkeley Relief Fund, “About the Berkeley Relief Fund, ” https://berkeleyrelieffund.org/about/. 32 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Figure 22: Summary of Berkeley Pandemic Relief and Recovery Grants for Individuals in Berkeley *Table includes only the program’s Berkeley allocations.

Source: City of Berkeley, CVL Economics.

PROGRAM
YEAR
RE

CIPIENT
TYP
E

NUMBER OF

GRANTEES

TOTAL AMOUNT

AWARDED

AVERAGE GRANT

AWARDED

EAST BAY/OAKLAND RELIEF FUND
FOR INDIVIDUALS IN THE ARTS* 2020 Individual artists and arts workers 47 $64,500 $1,372

BERKELEY ART WORKS PROJECT
(BAWP) 2021 Individual artists, performers,
and community members 32 $182,339 $5,698

BERKELEY ARTS RECOVERY GRANTS
(BARG) FOR ARTISTS AND CULTURAL

PRACTITIONERS
2022 Individual artists, culture
bearers, teaching artists 114 $276,250 $2,423
Pandemic Relief and Recovery Grant Impact for Arts & Culture Individuals in Berkeley These awards reached artists across a wide range of creative disciplines spanning visual and performing arts, literary arts, design, digital media, education, and folk/traditional practices. This diversity highlights how the relief and recovery programs not only sustained individual incomes, but also helped preserve the city’s rich and multifaceted cultural landscape during a time of widespread disruption.

Direct-to-artist pandemic support played a vital role in stabilizing household budgets during an unprecedented crisis. The awards—ranging from an average of $1,372 through the East Bay/Oakland Relief Fund to $5,698 through the Berkeley Art Works Projects—provided a critical bridge for individual artists, teaching artists, and culture bearers to cover essential living costs. For many, this meant helping to cover essential household expenses, such as rent or mortgage payments, groceries, utilities, or medical bills, at a time when other income sources had collapsed. In this way, relief and recovery dollars not only stabilized artists and their families but also circulated quickly back into Berkeley’s local economy, sustaining neighborhood grocery stores, restaurants, landlords, and service providers during a broader period of contraction.

To put their value into context, the scale of the grants becomes especially clear when measured against local housing costs. The median monthly individual housing payment (including renters and owners) for Berkeley arts and culture workers is $1,100.
18 Housing is often the single largest expense
for artists and cultural workers, and in the context of widespread income loss, even short-term support provided critical stability.

In May 2020, the East Bay/Oakland Relief Fund arrived during the immediate aftermath of shutdowns when uncertainty was at its peak. The average $1,372 awarded to each individual 18 This is the median per capita housing payment for Berkeley arts and culture workers, which adjusts for household size. This figure is calculated from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2023 5-Year Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS), which averages data collected between 2019 and 2023.
33 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

represented the equivalent of just over one month of
rent (Figure 23). Although smaller in size than the other individual grants, this was a meaningful bridge for artists facing a sudden collapse of earned income, helping them cover essential living expenses when opportunities were limited.

The Berkeley Art Works Projects (2021) provided the most substantial lifeline for awarded individuals, with average grants of $5,698. Assuming 25% of each grant was
allocated toward material costs, the BAWP grant covered nearly four months of average individual housing costs.

At a moment when the sector was still struggling with
extended closures, this level of support allowed artists to stabilize their personal circumstances while working on their creative practice and benefiting the general Berkeley public by improving the public realm with works of art and performances.

Finally, the Berkeley Arts Recovery Grants (2022) offered average awards of $2,423, or the equivalent of more than two months of rent. While smaller than the BAWP program, this support was still critical in providing paid opportunities for artists at a time when many venues remained closed
and other sources of work were scarce.

Figure 23: Average Grant Value in Terms of Individual Housing Costs * Based on the median monthly per capita housing payment for Berkeley arts and culture workers, averaged across 2019–2023. **Table includes only the program’s Berkeley allocations. *** Since BAWP grants covered paid public art projects, this reflects the assumption that 25% of the grant covered material costs for the project.

Source: City of Berkeley, U.S. Census Bureau 5-Year American Community Survey Public-Use Microdata Sample (2023), CVL Economics.

AVERAGE
GR

ANT AWARD

EQUIVALENT MONTHS OF

INDIVIDU
AL HOUSING COSTS *

EAST BAY/OAKLAND RELIEF FUND FOR
INDIVIDUALS IN THE ARTS** $1,372 1.3 Months
BERKELEY ART WORKS PROJECTS (BAWP) $5,698 3.9 Months***

BERKELEY ARTS RECOVERY GRANTS (BARG) FOR
ARTISTS AND CULTURAL PRACTITIONERS $2,423 2.2 Months
34 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

The demographic makeup of individual artist grantees in Berkeley reflects the City of Berkeley’s commitment to
cultural equity and inclusion in its pandemic relief and recovery efforts. In terms of race and ethnicity distribution, while African American or Black residents make up just
2% of Berkeley’s artist population,
19 they represented 14%
of BARG grantees and 34% of East Bay/Oakland Relief
Fund grantees (Figure 24). Similarly, individuals identifying as Latinx, Indigenous or Native, and those of two or more racial identities were represented at significantly higher rates than their proportions in the general population, suggesting that relief and recovery funds were effectively prioritized for historically marginalized communities.

Although Asian residents comprised only 5% of BARG
and 4% of East Bay/Oakland grantees while accounting
for 26% of Berkeley’s general population, this disparity reflects the composition of the applicant pool, and awards largely mirrored the share of Asian-identifying applicants.

Additionally, foreign-born individuals made up 28% of
East Bay/Oakland grantees and 20% of BARG grantees,
compared to 22% of Berkeley’s artist population.

These trends highlight how the City of Berkeley’s cultural relief and recovery programs for individual artists during the pandemic not only addressed economic precarity,
but also advanced racial and cultural equity by investing in artists who have been historically excluded from
opportunities and in communities disproportionately
impacted by the pandemic.

AN EQUITABLE FUNDING APPROACH
Figure 24: Demographic Distribution of Pandemic-Era Grantees Compared to Berkeley’s Total Artist Population | 2019–2023
Note: Includes grantee data for the BARG and East Bay/Oakland programs; these were the two largest programs in terms of number of grant recipients. See Appendix A.3 for detailed methodology on defining the Berkeley artist population.

Source: City of Berkeley, U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 5-Year Public Use Microdata Sample (2023), CVL Economics. 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
African
American/Black
Asian Indigenous, Native
Alaskan, Native
American; Native
Hawaiian, Pacific
Islander
Latin American,
Latino/a, Latinx
White Two or More
Identities
Other Race/Ethnicity Foreign Born
2%
26%
0% 0%
62%
7%
3%
22%
34%
4%
9%
15%
19%
15%
4%
28%
14%
5%
0%
10%
32%
22%
14%
20%
Berkeley Artist Population (2019-2023 Avg.) East Bay/Oakland Grantees (2020) BARG Grantees (2022) Share of Group
18 The Berkeley artist population is defined as individuals working in selected occupations identified by the federal Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes, which includes jobs in visual arts and design; media and communications; performing arts; film, television, and digital media; and other creative technical roles. See Appendix A.3 for a detailed methodology and list of SOC codes. 35 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Understanding Artist Needs
Creative work is often characterized by freelance, gig-based, or self-directed employment—forms of labor that typically fall outside traditional systems of worker protections and public benefits. During the pandemic, federal programs like Pandemic U
nemployment Assistance (PUA) were created to extend eligibility to independent contractors and self- employed workers, offering critical relief for many in the arts. Yet in the earliest months of the shutdown, PUA was slow to roll out and many applicants faced delays or administrative hurdles before receiving payments.

This made the City of Berkeley’s early intervention in funding this population all the more vital. Nearly 85% of East Bay/ Oakland Relief Fund grantees reported they had not yet received PUA at the time of their City of Berkeley grant application (Figure 25). By moving quickly, Berkeley’s contribution to this regional relief effort ensured that artists received immediate support when other aid was not yet available. These local grants filled a critical gap, helping to cover housing, food, and other essentials at the peak of uncertainty, and allowing many artists to remain in Berkeley when displacement was a real risk.
36 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Berkeley’s pandemic relief and recovery grants reached artists who were among the hardest hit by the crisis. More than half of all grantees experienced a loss of 50% or more in their arts-related income between 2019 and 2020, including nearly one-quarter who lost 90% to 100% of their income during that period (Figure 26). Indeed, two-thirds of grantees reported making less than $10,000 in arts-related income in 2020, and over 90% earned under $30,000 that year (Figure 27).

Figure 25: Share of Grantees Receiving Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) Benefits at Time of Grant Application | May–June 2020
Note: Includes grantee data for the East Bay/Oakland Relief Fund program.

Source: City of Berkeley, CVL Economics.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100 %
Receiving PUA Not receiving PUA Not sure
11%
85%
4%
Share of East Bay/Oakland Relief Fund Grantees
37 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Figure 26: Number of BARG Grantees by Percentage of Arts-Related Income Lost between 2019–2020 Figure 27: Number of BARG Grantees by 2020 Arts-Related Income Bracket Source: City of Berkeley, CVL Economics.

Source: City of Berkeley, CVL Economics.
0 5
10 15
20 25
Less than 10% 10%-19% 20%-29% 30%-39% 40%-49% 50%-59% 60%-69% 70%-79% 80%-89% 90%-100% 1 4 4
8 12 12
7 11
18 23
Number of BARG Grantees
0 20
40 60
80 Less than $10k $10k-$19k $20k-$29k $30k-$49k $50k-$79k $80k or Greater 76 16
13 6
1 0
Number of BARG Grantees
38 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Arts and culture form a
vital part of Berkeley’s
community life—shaping
the city’s identity, enriching
public spaces, and
providing opportunities for
connection, creativity, and
expression.

CONCLUSION:

SUSTAINING BERKELEY’S

ARTS & CULTURE ECOSYSTEM
A thriving cultural ecosystem depends on many interlocking parts from individual artists and small collectives to established organizations and major venues. When this ecosystem is under strain, the effects ripple outward, limiting opportunities for participation, weakening creative networks, and eroding the cultural vibrancy that defines the city.

The stability of cornerstone cultural institutions is critical not just for their own survival, but for the vitality of the entire artistic ecosystem. When even established organizations are at risk, it threatens Berkeley’s identity as a cultural center and sends discouraging signals to smaller companies and emerging
artists working to establish themselves. Protecting these institutions is therefore about more than sustaining current programming—it is about safeguarding pathways for future generations and ensuring that the region continues to foster creativity, innovation, and community engagement.

Berkeley’s pandemic relief and recovery efforts were
extraordinary in both scale and impact. By mobilizing more than $3 million for both individuals and organizations in emergency grants, the City provided lifelines to dozens of arts and culture organizations and nearly 200 individual artists during one of the most disruptive crises in modern history.

These funds helped prevent permanent closures, sustained creative practices, and ultimately enabled Berkeley to prevent its creative fabric from completely fraying.

CONCLUSION:

SUSTAINING BERKELEY’S

ARTS & CULTURE ECOSYSTEM
A thriving cultural ecosystem depends on many interlocking parts from individual artists and small collectives to established organizations and major venues. When this ecosystem is under strain, the effects ripple outward, limiting opportunities for participation, weakening creative networks, and eroding the cultural vibrancy that defines the city.

The stability of cornerstone cultural institutions is critical not just for their own survival, but for the vitality of the entire artistic ecosystem. When even established organizations are at risk, it threatens Berkeley’s identity as a cultural center and sends discouraging signals to smaller companies and emerging
artists working to establish themselves. Protecting these institutions is therefore about more than sustaining current programming—it is about safeguarding pathways for future generations and ensuring that the region continues to foster creativity, innovation, and community engagement.

Berkeley’s pandemic relief and recovery efforts were
extraordinary in both scale and impact. By mobilizing more than $3 million for both individuals and organizations in emergency grants, the City provided lifelines to dozens of arts and culture organizations and nearly 200 individual artists during one of the most disruptive crises in modern history.

These funds helped prevent permanent closures, sustained creative practices, and ultimately enabled Berkeley to prevent its creative fabric from completely fraying.
39 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Yet the road ahead remains uncertain. One-time relief and recovery funding helped many organizations and artists
survive the immediate crisis, but long-term sustainability will require ongoing attention and investment. High
operating costs—commercial rents, wages, utilities,
insurance—remain a persistent burden. At the same time, philanthropic support is tightening and public funding
sources remain limited and highly competitive.

Survey responses reflect both resilience and fragility on the outlook of Berkeley’s arts & culture sector (Figure 28 and Figure 29). Many see renewed energy, community
demand, and resilience across Berkeley’s cultural
landscape. At the same time, others remain deeply
concerned about financial sustainability, affordability, and the slow pace of recovery from the COVID-19 Pandemic
of 2020. This split outlook underscores the importance of funding continuity: without sustained support, hard-won gains may erode, but with targeted continued investment, the City of Berkeley can solidify its reputation as a cultural hub while ensuring equitable access to arts for future
generations.

Figure 28: Outlook on Berkeley’s Arts & Culture Sector from Grant Recipients | June 2025 N = 30
Source: CVL Economics Survey (2025).
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
28% 38% 21% 7%
Somewhat optimistic Neutral Somewhat pessimistic Very pessimistic Share of Grantee Survey Respondents
Figure 29: Detailed Outlook on Berkeley’s Arts & Culture Sector from Grant Recipients | June 2025 N = 30
Source: CVL Economics Survey (2025).

OPTIMISTIC OUTLOOKS UNCERTAIN OUTLOOKS
Str
ong interest and engagement in the arts; hopeful audiences are returning. Many feel it’s “too early to tell” which direction things are headed.

Community demand and momentum despite challenges. Concerned about long-term sustainability, closures, and diminished philanthropy.

Commitment from City of Berkeley and collaborative spirit cited as positive drivers.

Rising Bay Area costs, lack of viable performance space, and drying up of public support noted as major risks.

Seeing demand for mid-size venues and opportunities for new spaces. Downtown struggles (e.g., reduced foot traffic, empty storefronts, crime) hurting recovery.

Confidence in sector resilience, innovation, and interdependence. Audiences slower to return; uncertain policy environment and ongoing affordability crisis.
40 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

APPENDIX
To better understand how Berkeley’s pandemic relief and recovery funding shaped the local arts ecosystem, CVL Economics surveyed grantee organizations. Of the 88 organizations that received support through the Arts Organization Continuity Grants (2020) or the Berkeley Arts Recovery Grants (BARG, 2022), 30 (34%) completed the survey, providing valuable insights into both the immediate and lasting effects of the City’s investment.

The survey captured a diverse mix of organizations in terms of size, discipline, and leadership demographics. Respondents ranged from very small, community-based nonprofits with annual budgets under $100,000 to larger institutions with multimillion-dollar operations. Disciplines represented included performing arts, visual arts, festivals, and educational organizations, reflecting the broad spectrum of Berkeley’s creative ecosystem. Responses also included organizations led by people of color, LGBTQ+ leaders, and women, ensuring that a range of perspectives and experiences were reflected in the findings.

Additional survey responses can be found below.

A.1: SURVEY OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE ORGANIZATION GRANT RECIPIENTS Figure A.1.1 Share of Respondents by Leadership Demographics N = 30
Source: CVL Economics Survey (2025).
0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 %
Women-led
LGBTQ+ led
Latinx-led
Other historically underrepresented group
Black-led
Not historically underrepresented
Asian or Pacific Islander-led
77%
27%
20%
20%
20%
10%
10%
Share of Grantee Survey Respondents
41 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Figure A.1.2 Share of Respondents by Arts & Culture Discipline (Multi-Choice) N = 30
Source: CVL Economics Survey (2025).
0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 %
Performing Arts
Humanities/Literary Arts
Folk/Traditional Arts
Festivals
Visual Arts
Media Arts
Education
Design
83%
27%
27%
13%
13%
10%
10%
3%
Share of Grantee Survey Respondents
Figure A.1.3 Share of Respondents by Organization Size
N = 30
Source: CVL Economics Survey (2025).
0 10
20 30
40 50
Under $100k $100k-$499k $500k-$1M $1M-$2M Over $2M
23 40
13 10
13 Share of Grantee Survey Respondents
42 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Figure A.1.5 Degree of Satisfaction with Administration of Pandemic Relief and Recovery Grants in Berkeley | 2020–2022
N = 30
Source: CVL Economics Survey (2025).
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100 %
66% 14% 17% 3%
Extremely satisfied Somewhat satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Share of Grantee Survey Respondents
Figure A.1.4 Top Organizational Support Needs Beyond Funding for 2025–2030 N = 30
Source: CVL Economics Survey (2025).
0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 %
Networking opportunities
Professional development
Access to affordable space
Technical assistance
Other
Mental health or staff wellness resources
52%
52%
41%
31%
17%
14%
Share of Grantee Survey Respondents
43 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

The City of Berkeley’s relief and recovery funding for arts and culture organizations was evaluated through a return on investment (ROI) framework, designed to measure not
only immediate stabilization but also the longer-term value preserved in the local economy.

The first step was to define the scope of the creative
economy in order to capture impacts across the entire
creative ecosystem. Economic data are reported using
the standardized North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), which allows for consistency and
comparability across datasets. Because no single NAICS
code fully captures this sector, CVL Economics developed a curated set of industries spanning performing arts, visual arts, film, media, design, and related support services (see below for a detailed list of NAICS codes).

We quantified the value of organizations preserved by City funding using organizational revenue as the basis, drawing from a master grantee revenue dataset compiled by CVL
Economics. This dataset integrates IRS Form 990 filings for each organization and supplementing with revenue data
from the City of Berkeley’s grant application database and grantee survey responses to fill in gaps. Grantee surveys and applications also established a baseline of financial hardship: all recipients of Arts Organization Continuity Grants and Berkeley Arts Recovery Grants (BARG)
documented significant revenue losses. Survey results
further revealed that 28% of grantees received no other pandemic relief, making the City of Berkeley’s support their sole external lifeline.

Using the master revenue dataset and the 28% figure as a baseline for the additional organizations that would have closed without funding (and weighting by organizational size to reflect the greater impact of funding on smaller groups), we estimate that the combined annual revenues
of these at-risk organizations totaled $12.9 million.

To translate these preserved revenues into economic ROI, we employed IMPLAN’s input–output modeling system.

IMPLAN is widely used by governments and researchers
to quantify the total value of an investment, capturing not only the direct benefits to grantees, but also the indirect benefits to vendors, contractors, and service providers, as well as the induced effects from household spending by
arts workers. This analysis found that these preserved arts organizations generated a total of $14 million in economic output in the City of Berkeley, reflecting the full ripple effects across the local economy.

Through this framework, we estimate that every $1
invested by the City leveraged at least $5.64 in ongoing arts and culture economic activity. This ratio represents the ROI of Berkeley’s $2.5 million in relief and recovery funding to arts and culture organizations.

A.2: BERKELEY’S RETURN ON INVESMENT ON PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY

FUNDING TO ARTS AND CULTURE ORGANIZATIONS
44 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

Figure A.2 Creative Economy Industry Classification Codes

INDUSTRY CATEGORY AND DESCRIPTION NAICS
ARCH

ITECTURE & DESIGN
Ornamental and Architectural Metal Work Manufacturing 332323 Architectural Services 541310
Landscape Architectural Services 541320
Drafting Services 541340
Interior Design Services 541410
Industrial Design Services 541420

COMMUNICATION DESIGN
Graphic Design Services 541430
Advertising Agencies 541810
Photography Studios, Portrait 541921
Commercial Photography 541922

ENTERTAINMENT & DIGITAL MEDIA
Motion Picture and Video Production 512110
Motion Picture and Video Distribution 512120
Teleproduction and Other Postproduction Services 512191 Sound Recording Studios 512240
Software Publishers 513210
Radio Broadcasting Stations 516110
Television Broadcasting Stations 516120
Media Streaming Distribution Services, Social Networks, Other Media Networks and Content Providers 516210 45 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

INDUSTRY CATEGORY AND DESCRIPTION NAICS

FASHION
Fiber, Yarn, and Thread Mills 313110
Broadwoven Fabric Mills 313210
Narrow Fabric Mills and Schiffli Machine Embroidery 313220 Nonwoven Fabric Mills 313230
Knit Fabric Mills 313240
Textile and Fabric Finishing Mills 313310
Fabric Coating Mills 313320
Apparel Knitting Mills 315120
Cut and Sew Apparel Contractors 315210
Cut and Sew Apparel Manufacturing (except Contractors) 315250 Apparel Accessories and Other Apparel Manufacturing 315990 Footwear Manufacturing 316210
Other Leather and Allied Product Manufacturing 316990
Toilet Preparation Manufacturing 325620
Jewelry and Silverware Manufacturing 339910
Jewelry, Watch, Precious Stone, and Precious Metal Merchant Wholesalers 423940 Piece Goods, Notions, and Other Dry Goods Merchant Wholesalers 424310 Footwear Merchant Wholesalers 424340
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Merchant Wholesalers 424350 Other Specialized Design Services 541490

FINE ARTS SCHOOLS
Fine Arts Schools 611610

FURNITURE, TOYS & DECORATIVE ARTS
Carpet and Rug Mills 314110
Curtain and Linen Mills 314120
Textile Bag and Canvas Mills 314910
Rope, Cordage, Twine, Tire Cord, and Tire Fabric Mills 314994 All Other Miscellaneous Textile Product Mills 314999
Pottery, Ceramics, and Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing 327110 Other Pressed and Blown Glass and Glassware Manufacturing 327212 All Other Miscellaneous Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing 327999 Wood Kitchen Cabinet and Countertop Manufacturing 337110 Upholstered Household Furniture Manufacturing 337121
Nonupholstered Wood Household Furniture Manufacturing 337122 Household Furniture (except Wood and Upholstered) Manufacturing 337126 Institutional Furniture Manufacturing 337127
46 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

INDUSTRY CATEGORY AND DESCRIPTION NAICS
Wood Office Furniture Manufacturing 337211
Custom Architectural Woodwork and Millwork Manufacturing 337212 Office Furniture (except Wood) Manufacturing 337214
Showcase, Partition, Shelving, and Locker Manufacturing 337215 Mattress Manufacturing 337910
Blind and Shade Manufacturing 337920
Doll, Toy, and Game Manufacturing 339930
Furniture Merchant Wholesalers 423210
Home Furnishing Merchant Wholesalers 423220
Toy and Hobby Goods and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 423920

PUBLISHING & PRINTING
Commercial Printing (except Screen and Books) 323111
Commercial Screen Printing 323113
Books Printing 323117
Support Activities for Printing 323120
Book, Periodical, and Newspaper Merchant Wholesalers 424920 Newspaper Publishers 513110
Periodical Publishers 513120
Book Publishers 513130
Directory and Mailing List Publishers 513140
Greeting Card Publishers 513191
All Other Publishers 513199
Libraries and Archives 519210

VISUAL & PERFORMING ARTS
Musical Instrument Manufacturing 339992
Art Dealers 459920
Theater Companies and Dinner Theaters 711110
Dance Companies 711120
Musical Groups and Artists 711130
Other Performing Arts Companies 711190
Agents and Managers for Artists, Athletes, Entertainers, and Other Public Figures 711410 Independent Artists, Writers, and Performers 711510
Museums 712110
47 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

To analyze Berkeley’s artist workforce, we defined an “artist population” within the Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) based on occupational classifications. Specifically, we restricted the dataset to individuals whose Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes align with creative, cultural, and artistic work.

The SOC codes were used to capture a wide spectrum of artistic and creative occupations, including:
• Visual arts and design fields (e.g., art directors, fine artists, designers, animators, architects) • Media and communication occupations (e.g., writers, editors, reporters, broadcasters, public relations specialists) • Performing arts and entertainment (e.g., performers, dancers, musicians) • Film, television, and digital media production (e.g., producers, directors, camera operators, sound technicians, edi
tors)
• Other creative technical roles (e.g., computer occupations in visual effects/animation, printing workers, sound engineer
ing, lighting technicians).

The following SOC codes were included in our definition:
• 112011 – Advertising and Promotions Managers
• 112021 – Marketing Managers
• 112030 – Public Relations and Fundraising Managers
• 119041 – Architectural and Engineering Managers
• 131011 – Agents and Business Managers of Artists, Performers, and Athletes • 151251 – Software Developers, Applications
• 151252 – Software Developers, Systems Software
• 151253 – Software Quality Assurance Analysts and Testers • 151254 – Web Developers
• 151255 – Web and Digital Interface Designers
• 171011 – Architects (Except Landscape and Naval)
• 171012 – Landscape Architects
• 171020 – Surveyors, Cartographers, and Photogrammetrists • 173011 – Architectural and Civil Drafters
• 254010 – Postsecondary Teachers, Art, Drama, and Music • 271010 – Artists and Related Workers
• 271021 – Animators and Special Effects Artists
• 271022 – Fine Artists, Including Painters, Sculptors, and Illustrators • 271024 – Graphic Designers
• 271025 – Industrial Designers
• 271026 – Fashion Designers
• 272011 – Actors
• 272012 – Producers and Directors
• 272030 – Dancers and Choreographers
• 272041 – Music Directors and Composers
• 272042 – Musicians and Singers
• 272099 – Entertainers and Performers, All Other
• 273011 – Broadcast Announcers and Radio Disc Jockeys
• 273031 – News Analysts, Reporters, and Journalists
• 273042 – Media and Communication Workers, All Other
• 273043 – Public Relations Specialists
A.3: DEFINING BERKELEY’S ARTIST POPULATION
48 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

• 273099 – Media and Communication Occupations, All Other • 274021 – Photographers
• 274022 – Camera Operators, Television, Video, and Film • 274023 – Film and Video Editors
• 274024 – Audio and Video Technicians
• 274025 – Lighting Technicians
• 274026 – Sound Engineering Technicians
• 274027 – Broadcast, Sound, and Lighting Technicians, All Other • 274028 – Motion Picture Projectionists
• 274029 – Media Equipment Workers, All Other
• 274030 – Television, Video, and Film Camera Operators and Editors • 393011 – Motion Picture Projectionists
• 393012 – Ushers, Lobby Attendants, and Ticket Takers
• 393013 – Entertainment Attendants and Related Workers, All Other • 393019 – Miscellaneous Entertainment Attendants and Related Workers • 515111 – News Analysts, Reporters, and Journalists
• 515112 – Editors
• 515113 – Technical Writers
• 516021 – Commercial and Industrial Designers
• 516031 – Floral Designers
• 516040 – Merchandise Displayers and Window Trimmers
• 516050 – Set and Exhibit Designers
• 516093 – Costume Attendants
• 516099 – Media and Communication Equipment Workers, All Other • 517011 – Radio Operators
• 517021 – Sound Engineering Technicians
• 517031 – Broadcast Technicians
• 517041 – Media and Communication Equipment Workers, All Other • 517099 – Media and Communication Workers, All Other
• 519071 – Jewelers and Precious Stone and Metal Workers • 519194 – Musical Instrument Repairers and Tuners
49 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

This report was made possible through the leadership and support of the City of Berkeley, including the Office of Economic Development and its Civic Arts Program, the Civic Arts Commission, and Berkeley City Council, whose commitment to advancing the city’s creative and cultural vitality guided this work. We also extend our appreciation to the many nonprofit arts and culture organizations, creative practitioners, and community stakeholders who generously contributed their time, insights, and experiences.

CVL Economics is an economic consulting firm that takes a data-driven, human-centric approach to equitable development and sustainable growth. Founded in 2021, CVL Economics partners with communities, municipalities, organizations, and institutions to address today’s most complex challenges and foster bold action. Coupling robust economic models with innovative research methodologies, we provide decision-makers with the actionable insights needed to effect change, expand opportunity, and improve economic well-being.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
PREPARED BY:

Assessment of Berkeley Arts & Culture
Pandemic Relief and Recovery Funding
DECEMBER 2025
50 ASSESSMENT OF BERKELEY ARTS & CULTURE

PANDEMIC RELIEF AND RECOVERY FUNDING

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager Office of the City Manager

INFORMATION CALENDAR
December 2, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Submitted by: Henry Oyekanmi, Director, Finance
Subject: Sanctuary City Contracting Compliance Report for FY 2024 and 2025

INTRODUCTION
City Council adopted ordinance 7,650-N.S., which is referred to as the Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance (SCCO), in 2019. The SCCO states that the City shall not enter into a new, amended, or extended contract or agreement with any entity that provides United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement with data broker or extreme vetting services.

Section 13.105.040 requires the City Manager to report annually regarding compliance with section 13.105.030 for the prior year. Section 13.105.030 of the Berkeley Municipal Code details the prohibition on the use of City resources.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance establishes the City as a leader in social responsibility. The SCCO is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing our goal to champion and demonstrate social and racial equity.

Report Requirements:
(1) detail with specificity the steps taken to ensure compliance with Section 13.105.030:

City solicitations include invitations for bids (IFB), requests for proposals (RFP), and requests for qualifications (RFQ). IFB, RFP, and RFQ public postings each contain the SCCO language. Signed compliance certificates are submitted with proposals and bid responses.

New and amended contracts and agreements include the Compliance Certificate attesting review of and compliance with the SCCO. Signed certificates are required as part of the City’s contract documents.
(2) disclose any issues with compliance, including any violations or potential violations of this Ordinance:

Sanctuary City Contracting Compliance Report FY 2024 and 2025 INFORMATION CALENDAR December 2, 2025
During the review period, staff noted that Flock Safety operated a short-term pilot program with federal agencies. That arrangement ended shortly after the close of the reporting window of this report. The City confirmed the pilot has not resumed and that Flock does not have an active relationship of that nature. Aside from this past pilot, no potential issues were detected or brought forward during FY 2024 or FY 2025.
(3) Detail actions taken to cure any deficiencies with compliance:

The vendor confirmed prior to contracting and again after the City discovered the existence of the pilot that it does not provide United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement with data broker or extreme vetting services. The City has communicated in writing with the vendor that such action would be in violation of contract terms and would be considered a breach of contract. There were no compliance deficiencies uncovered that would require curing.

BACKGROUND
This report is for FY 2024 and FY 2025 which began July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2025 and is hereby submitted on December 2, 2025. It represents compliance issues with the Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance discovered or brought forth during the 2 fiscal years.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental effects, climate impacts, or sustainability opportunities associated with the subject of this report.

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
This report will be submitted annually.

CONTACT PERSON
Aundra Richards, Contract Administrator, Finance, 510-981-7324

Housing Advisory Commission
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: https://berkeleyca.gov/

INFORMATION CALENDAR
December 2, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Housing Advisory Commission
Submitted by: Sarah Bell, Vice Chairperson, Housing Advisory Commission Subject: Housing Advisory Commission Fiscal Year 2026 Work Plan

INTRODUCTION
This report transmits the Housing Advisory Commission's (HAC) work plan for Fiscal Year 2026 (FY 2026), as required by the City Council's July 2016 direction for all commissions to submit annual work plans detailing goals and objectives.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
In July 2016, the City Council directed all commissions (with certain exceptions) to submit work plans detailing goals and objectives for the year. Plans should be submitted at the start of each fiscal year.

At its September 4, 2025, meeting, the HAC approved its FY 2026 work plan with the following vote:

Action: M/S/C (Shere/ Potter) to adopt the FY 2026 work plan.

Vote: Ayes: Bell, Haycox, Micael, Potter, Shere, Simon-Weisberg, and Twu. Noes:

None. Abstain: None. Absent: Scott.

BACKGROUND
The Housing Advisory Commission advises the City Council on housing matters, including affordable housing programs and policies and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Emergency Solutions Grant programs and their funding allocations.

The Commission also recommends Housing Trust Fund (HTF) allocations, serves as the oversight body for Measure O (the $135 million General Obligation bond for affordable housing development), and reviews items referred by the City Council, HAC members, or other commissions. When necessary, the HAC hears matters regarding abatement of substandard buildings and serves as the appeals board for relocation and correction of code violations pursuant to Chapter 19.40.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The work plan supports environmental sustainability and climate goals by promoting affordable housing development and preservation, which can reduce displacement and

Housing Advisory Commission FY 2026 Work Plan INFORMATION CALENDAR December 2, 2025

associated transportation emissions. Affordable housing projects funded through HTF allocations and CDBG programs often incorporate energy-efficient design and sustainable building practices.

POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
The Commission will implement the approved work plan activities throughout FY 2026 and report back to City Council as appropriate on policy recommendations, funding allocations, and other matters within the Commission's purview.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION
There are no direct fiscal impacts from acceptance of this work plan. Future recommendations from the Commission regarding HTF allocations, CDBG funding, and other housing programs will be presented to City Council with fiscal impact analyses as appropriate.

CONTACT PERSON
Snow Zhu, Commission Secretary, HHCS, (510) 981-7774
Attachments:
1: Housing Advisory Commission FY 2026 Work Plan

FY 2025-26 HAC WORK PLAN
Mission Statement:

The Housing Advisory Commission:
● Advises the City Council on housing matters, including affordable housing programs and policies and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Emergency Services Grant (ESG) programs and their funding allocations;
● Recommends to the City Council Housing Trust Fund (HTF) allocations; ● Serves as the oversight body for Measure O, the $135 million General Obligation bond to fund development of affordable housing; and
● Reviews and makes recommendations on items referred by the City Council, HAC members, or other commissions.

In addition, as necessary, the HAC:
● Hears matters regarding abatement of substandard buildings pursuant to Chapter 19.40; and
● Serves as the appeals board for relocation and correction of code violations as provided in Chapter 19.40.

When advising the City Council, the HAC is committed to addressing past and present racial and social inequities in housing and other community development service delivery and approaching its recommendations through a social justice and tenant-centered lens.

Goal:

Recommend affordable housing and community development programs and policies that further social justice and address systemic racism, classism, and inequity in the city of Berkeley as outlined in HAC’s FY 2025-26 work plan.

FY 2025-26 Work Plan Activities:
● Convene year-round subcommittees to work with staff on proposed HTF allocations and CDBG-funded public facilities improvements and make funding recommendations to the f
ull HAC.
● Continue working wi
th the Civic Arts Commission, via a joint subcommittee, regarding proposed artist housing initiatives and advocate for approval and implementation by City Council.
● Continue to be informed about CDBG-funded agencies and programs. ● Remain informed of and take action on any fiscal or budgetary impacts resulting from federal funding changes to funding streams that are the jurisdiction of the commission. ● Increase opportunities for more direct participation, including ensuring hybrid meeting access, with community members and groups to gather input to be included in decision- making and recommendations.

Attachment 1

● Review and make recommendations to City Council regarding various affordable housing policies including updates on passed policies changes such as the Housing Preference Program implementation.
● Seek information via presentations, subcommittee work, etc. about Citywide initiatives that impact affordable housing preservation and development and make recommendations to City Council as appropriate. Initiatives include proposed and passed amendments to the demolition ordinance, the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan, Middle Housing Ordinance and other policies that have been passed or are being considered by council. ● Continue to study, develop and support the recommendations from the Social Housing Report.

Outcomes:
● Social housing recommendations implemented.
● HTF monies pledged to affordable housing projects serving families and housing-insecure households.
● CDBG-funded public facilities in support of non-profits maintained and rehabilitated. ● Proposed initiatives to promote affordable artist housing to retain and build the city’s cultural infrastructure passed.
● A more efficient and effective CDBG-funded affordable housing preservation strategy that maximizes services that allow people to stay in their homes and thrive. ● Outcomes that are reflective of the community’s actual needs and concerns through increased consideration and inclusion of community voices. ● The city of Berkeley increases its supply of affordable housing and preserves present affordable housing stock.

Attachment 1
FY 2025-26 HAC WORK PLAN

Communications

All communications submitted to the City Council are
public record. Communications are not published directly to the City’s website. Copies of individual communications are available for viewing at the City Clerk Department and through Records Online.

City Clerk Department
2180 Milvia Street
Berkeley, CA 94704
(510) 981-6900

Records Online
https://records.cityofberkeley.info/

To search for communications associated with a particular City Council meeting using Records Online:

1. Select Search Type = “Public – Communication Query (Keywords)”

2. From Date: Enter the date of the Council meeting

3. To Date: Enter the date of the Council meeting (this may match the From Date field)

4. Click the “Search” button

5. Communication packets matching the entered criteria will be returned

6. Click the desired file in the Results column to view the document as a PDF