[Dixielandjazz] Economic Impact of "The Arts"

[Stephen Barbone]

While not specifically OKOM, and suited more towards US "arts
providers", the below article offers advice on how and what to present
to your State Arts Council when seeking grants. It would also apply to
County Arts Councils and other sponsor organizations. The message is
"Show the economic benefit of your proposed program".

Note that the State of Pennsylvania has increased it's budget for the
State Art's Council. This in spite of the fact that PA has had to
increase State Taxes and has similar monetary problems to other states.
Better yet, I can vouch for the fact that the PA Council For The Arts
sponsors a portion of the Berk's Jazz Festival, along with the Berk's
Arts Council.

So make your case and get grant money for your Festival, or other
event.  Barbone Street plays at least 20 gigs a year that include grants
from the PA Council For The Arts, and/or local county Arts Councils as
well as grants from "Visitor's Bureaus". This results in lower
admissions charges, and in some cases, free concerts. Bottom line, LARGE
AUDIENCES 500 to 5000 to hear the music.

Play where the younger generations are. Play where the money is. Play
for THE audience.

Cheers,
Steve Barbone




January 8, 2004 - New York Times

Many State Arts Councils Make Their Case and Survive Budget Cuts

By STEPHEN KINZER

      CHICAGO, Jan. 7 — At the beginning of last year, a legislative
committee in Arizona looking for ways to cut that state's budget
recommended eliminating the state's arts council. In New Jersey, Gov.
James E. McGreevey made the same suggestion: if some agencies must be
abolished, maybe one should be the arts council.

But in a remarkable turnaround that has been replicated in statehouses
across the country, the councils not only survived budget tightening but
endured less painful cuts — 12.4 percent in Arizona, for instance, and
23.7 percent in New Jersey. They were among many cultural agencies that
are in much better financial shape today than some had feared a year
ago.

Only three states — California, Michigan and Florida — reduced their
arts budgets by more than $10 million in 2003. Those reductions alone
represented two-thirds of all cuts absorbed by state arts agencies.

Most of the other 47 states made substantially smaller reductions in
their arts budgets than were proposed at the beginning of 2003. Arts
administrators consider that a major victory, because in recent years
their programs have been among the first to suffer.

"There is a realization that the arts are a major, major economic
contributor," said Richard J. Schwartz, chairman of the New York State
Council on the Arts. "At some point maybe that point wasn't being made
as well, but it's certainly being made now. Governmental leaders are
very much aware of the contribution that arts spending makes to the
well-being of a state, and how detrimental it can be to riddle these
budgets with cuts."

David Wilson, executive director of the Kansas Arts Commission, said
state organizations, often advised by national groups, "have gotten much
more savvy, much better at making their case."

"They aren't just saying arts are nice and good," Mr. Wilson said. "Now
they're using numbers and hard facts to show how much of an economic
impact the arts have and how important they are for kids."

In California, where a fiscal crisis helped lead to the recall of Gov.
Gray Davis and the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger, the arts budget
was cut by 90 percent this year, falling from more than $20 million to
less than $2 million, according to the National Assembly of State Arts
Agencies. In Florida a $30 million arts budget was cut to $6.7 million,
and in Michigan, the arts budget fell from $22.5 million to $11.8
million.

Many other state arts agencies were expected to suffer comparable
reductions this year, but did not. Sixteen states kept their cuts to
less than 10 percent, and in 18 other states the arts budget actually
increased or stayed the same.

"Those early predictions were wrong because people made them too soon,
at the very beginning of the legislative process," said Jonathan Katz,
chief executive of the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies. "Some
people underestimated the ability of the arts community to make its case
to public officials, and it's a very compelling case."

"When state governments make up their budgets, they naturally want to
support programs that produce jobs, tax revenue, increases in tourism,
stronger local communities and other concrete benefits," Mr. Katz said.
"I think we've turned the corner in our ability to show that the arts
does all that."

State arts budgets for the current fiscal year total $272.4 million,
down substantially from their peak of $446.8 million in 2001. Also this
year, annual per capita state spending on arts programs dipped below the
$1 level for the first time since 1996. Closer study of state budgets,
however, shows that many of these cuts have been concentrated in only a
few states.

More typical is the experience in Kansas, where the state arts
commission took a cut of only 1 percent. The commission has worked with
citizens and an advocacy group based in Washington, Americans for the
Arts, to prepare studies showing the effects of arts spending in
specific communities. One study concluded that in Lawrence in 2001,
cultural programs generated $33 million in economic activity, provided
full-time jobs for 1,200 people and produced $1.5 million in state-tax
revenue.

The successes in Kansas can be attributed partly to the use of more
sophisticated lobbying techniques, Mr. Wilson said. "The Internet has
had a big impact on our ability to tell our people what's happening in
the Legislature, and to mobilize them to contact their own legislators,"
he said. "We've been able to reframe the argument, and that has really
turned things around for us here in Kansas and, I believe, in other
states as well."

The National Assembly of State Arts Agencies is one of several groups
that gave local arts advocates advice on lobbying last year. In one
mailing to members it provided tips on speaking to legislators. "Don't
focus too much on the intangible benefits of your issue," the mailing
said. "Understand what matters most to that politician and how the arts
relate to their agenda. It may be the arts' role in promoting tourism or
improving education or reducing crime. Experience has proven that the
arts win attention when they are part of a broad agenda of public-policy
concerns. Offer concrete information about the reach of the arts in your
state and the impact of public funding."

Arts councils, like other public agencies, have been severely affected
by fiscal crises that have reduced budgets in almost every state. Arts
budgets have been under pressure for several years. In Massachusetts,
for example, this year's arts council budget was the same as last
year's, which was down 62 percent from the year before.

Alarmed by budget cuts like that in recent years, arts organizations
waged intense campaigns in many state capitals during 2003. Although
arts councils receive an average of only 0.048 percent of total state
spending from general funds, according to the assembly of arts agencies,
they have been easy targets for legislators looking for places to trim
budgets.

Many arts agencies have won over legislators by assuring them that their
grants are not concentrated in big cities but spread statewide. Some,
like the Pennsylvania Council on the Arts, have even invited local
legislators to pass out grant checks in public ceremonies.

"In the past most of our support was focused on Philadelphia and
Pittsburgh," said Philip Horn, executive director of the Pennsylvania
council. "That didn't give legislators from other areas much reason to
be supportive, and it fed the impression that spending money on the arts
is charity for the rich. Having these legislators hand out the checks
might have seemed crass at first, but it's had a great impact in showing
them how much these grants can do for local communities. It begins to
change the image."

The budget for the Pennsylvania Council on the Arts increased by 1.9
percent this year, from $13.7 million to $14 million. One reason that
many Pennsylvania politicians support the arts, Mr. Horn said, was
because that state lacks term limits for legislators and governors.

"When you're coming in new, you have so much stuff coming at you that
arts seems like a very low priority," he said. "People who have been
around a while are more likely to see the benefits of these programs."

States with acute fiscal crises are still most likely to make deep cuts
in arts budgets. "We were decimated — the literal use of the word
applies," said Adam Gottlieb, spokesman for the California Arts Council.
"Every agency has had to tighten its belt, but we lost our belt. We were
unable to make our case. The silver lining is that we're still here,
which is something, since we were threatened with elimination. But
still, California now has the dubious dishonor of being the state with
the lowest per capita spending on the arts."

Robert L. Lynch, president of Americans for the Arts, said that arts
budgets tend to follow the rise and fall of state economies.

"Not all economies are as bad as California or Michigan or Florida, and
that's why you aren't seeing such big slashes," Mr. Lynch said. "Arts
funding went down in the last few years because of Sept. 11, the
economic downturn and the dot-com fallout. Now, with economies starting
to recover and the stock market rising, arts budgets are better able to
hold their own."

"My optimism is not a Pollyanna optimism," Mr. Lynch said. "Every vote
to appropriate money is a hard vote for state legislators. But when I
look at discussions about this issue, whether it's at the federal, state
or local level, I see a lot more people, legislative leaders, articulate
and positive about the value of the arts. The arts are seen not as being
an impediment to economic growth, but as part of the solution. Not
everyone feels that way, but I see that attitude as being on the
increase."