Exterior shot of the San Francisco City Hall entrance sign on April 14, 2026. Photo by Zoe Malen

San Francisco arts commissioners unanimously approved a revised grant payment policy Monday that walks back changes that artists and small-scale cultural organizations warned could force grantees to spend significant amounts of their own money, and complete extensive paperwork, before receiving city funds — a burden for those without savings, access to credit or administrative staff.

Under the revision, individual artists could receive up to 90 percent of a grant in advance, divided into two payments: 50 percent in the first year, and 40 percent in the second.

Arts organizations with annual budgets of up to $2 million could request up to 50 percent in advance, while the city’s cultural centers would receive an initial 50 percent, followed by another 25 percent, after submitting a progress report. Grantees receiving advance payments will generally be required to file quarterly reports.

The policy also eases expense-documentation rules. Grantees receiving $50,000 or less generally will not have to submit receipts, invoices or proof of payment unless they fall into a risk-based review category or are selected for a random review. Documentation will still be required for grants above $50,000, while expenses of $25 or less will be exempt.

The changes will apply retroactively beginning July 1 and be incorporated into fiscal year 2026-27 grant agreements.

The new policy represents a departure from the Commission’s previous policies, announced by the Arts Commission in September 2025, that would have provided grant recipients with no more than half of their awards up front and then required them to cover later expenses before seeking reimbursement from the city. 

Artists had organized a campaign against the reimbursement plan, proposed by the Controller’s Office to create greater oversight for public money.

During public comment, speakers continued to raise concerns about documentation requirements and the financial and administrative pressures placed on individual artists. 

Liz Cahill, a local artist and executive director of Decentered Arts in SoMa, asked the commission to vote no on the proposed changes until there could be more review of the administrative requirements. 

“We’re a two-person, full-time staff administering over 200 events a year, so we are really trying to make sure that we can manage the administrative burden of these grants,” she said. “While I think this is a good step, we really need to do better for artists. The cost of living has continued to go up, yet these grant amounts have not changed in many years.” 

Arts Commissioner JD Beltran said that most municipalities are distributing arts grants in similar ways, and that San Francisco’s policies represent an effort to balance oversight requirements with the realities facing artists and small nonprofits.

“Los Angeles is actually even more stringent. It’s strictly reimbursement-based,” she said. “It’s a dilemma, but I think if we were to measure the way that we’ve approached the problems with other large municipalities, we’re on track.”

Commissioners asked whether artists would receive enough assistance navigating reporting requirements. Arts commission staff said the agency would provide reporting templates and technical assistance. 

Matthew Goudeau, the city’s new head of arts and culture, urged approval Monday, saying a delay could hold up grant agreements and advance payments. He acknowledged that the policy might need adjustment once it is put into practice, and proposed formally reviewing it after a year to identify difficulties experienced by grantees. 

Arts commission staff agreed to reconvene artists, organizations and other stakeholders after the first year of implementation.

Shrey Purohit, a local artist who received a city grant to create paintings of low-wage workers in San Francisco, said the commission’s decision represents “a good change.” 

“Some of the fine print seems harder for smaller artists, like the financial and enhanced reporting. But since they’ve been lagging on getting it out now for more than a month, it seems like the easier path for them to approve it. I’m so excited after all of this to finally get to work making art,” he said.

Sarah Hopkins reports on SoMa, Mission Bay and other matters for Mission Local.

With a background in science writing, she has reported on environmental justice, climate change, technology and intersections between science, politics and law. She earned a master's degree from MIT's science journalism program in 2024.

Her reporting has appeared in the Guardian, Inside Climate News and Undark Magazine, among other publications. She is fluent in Spanish.

You can reach her securely on Signal @sarah.270.

Join the Conversation

2 Comments

  1. The art scam continues – here’s how they did it. So we have a project that usually requires about $10-14k worth of paint and about ~$3500 for a cherry picker lift. So the projects cost is really only about $15k, but to meet deadlines and rental return times, they need volunteers; lots of them. So they turn to art students and other college grads with large loans, and basically put those who put the most effort last time in line to next get the grant. So each one walks away with about $35k, everyone’s none the wiser and no one’s done anything wrong – right?

    0
    0
    votes. Sign in to vote
  2. Oh great — because when I look at the grift, corruption, and self dealing in how SF doles out grant money, the first thing that comes to mind is that we should really have less oversight and documentation requirements

    0
    0
    votes. Sign in to vote
Leave a comment
Please keep your comments short and civil. Do not leave multiple comments under multiple names on one article. We will zap comments that fail to adhere to these short and easy-to-follow rules.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *