Hope and Hard Work: Government Support of the Arts in the U.S.

During campaign season, "government support" comes up often as a discussion topic. As the U.S. approaches its November election, it feels like an appropriate time to remind ourselves about how government support applies to the arts. Here are some thoughts from Chorus America to get you started.

When we speak of “government support” for the arts many of us automatically think of direct funding in the form of grants. An organization fills out an application and sends it to an agency, where it is reviewed by a committee and accepted or rejected. An amount is determined, a check is written. And then next year we go back to the beginning and start all over again.

But this direct funding by the government is minor compared to the enormous benefits to the arts included in the United States tax code. In 1917, Congress set up a charitable gift deduction to encourage individuals to support philanthropic organizations, including the arts. The formula is simple: the more you donate to a qualifying charitable organization, the less you pay in taxes. This policy led to an enormous flourishing of performing and visual arts in America at the beginning of the 20th century. Major orchestras, opera companies, museums, and, yes, choruses, were established and expanded.

Americans invest $290 billion a year in charitable institutions and causes they support—health, education, arts, social services—and most of it is from individuals. By comparison, the Federal government’s direct support of the arts is $146 million. If you do the math, that’s about one half of one percent.

HHW1

Sources of Revenue for a Typical Nonprofit Arts Organization (Estimated); Source: Americans for the Arts

The tax-deductible gifts of individuals and corporations are what sustain us. And it’s not often the super-wealthy making multi-million dollar donations; it’s the millions of individuals who write small checks year after year to support the organizations they cherish.

That’s why restricting the favorable tax treatment for charitable donations, a topic that has come up in this current climate of economic austerity, would be potentially catastrophic for arts organizations. We hope that people give from the bottom of their hearts, but we need them to give from the bottom of their bank accounts as well.

Some Background on the National Endowment for the Arts

The United States government supported the arts in many ways throughout the 19th and 20th centuries—grants to create memorials and historical societies, funding for dozens of military bands and choruses—but the 1960s were a golden age of arts funding. The nation was enjoying economic prosperity and the First Lady of the United States, Jacqueline Kennedy, put the performing arts at the top of her agenda. In 1965 Congress established the National Endowment for the Arts as an independent agency funded each year to make grants to arts organizations. Waves of public funding initiatives ensued with the establishment of state and local arts agencies.

While private philanthropy remains the cornerstone of arts funding in the U.S., the NEA and other public funding organizations played a huge role in expanding the presence of the arts in public life and education. The actual dollar amounts that come from these agencies may not be a significant part of operating expenses, but they signify a level of achievement that can be leveraged to attract new donors.
 
Like many aspects of government spending, arts funding in the United States has been a dialogue—and that’s putting it politely. Funding for the National Endowment for the Arts is subject to annual legislation and thus rises and falls with political and economic winds. There is often contention between those with different interpretations of what arts and artists the government should be promoting. There are those who shout that there should be no government funding of the arts, and there are others who shout that the funding situation in the U.S. is an embarrassment compared to other great nations.
 

Government Support from 1994-2012; Source: Americans for the Arts

The NEA budget reached its historical peak in the early 90s with a Congressional appropriation of $176 million and went as low as $98 million in 1999. Since approximately 40% of Federal arts funds are re-granted by state and local agencies, the trickle-down effect is significant. Some states and cities have the resources and public support to enhance their support of the arts, others do not.
 
It’s also important to note that applying for public funding is a long and often tedious process, one that requires considerable staff time, paperwork, advocacy and waiting, waiting, waiting to learn what the eventual dollar amount will be. For small organizations with limited staff, the process requires considerable ingenuity and hard work.

Fighting the Good Fight for Public Funding

So why do we continue to fight the good fight for three cents on the dollar? First of all, it’s the arts, and we need every single penny. That three cents adds up: if you are a chorus with an annual budget of $100,000, that $3,000 can make a big difference, especially when it serves to attract other gifts.

But the reason that performers, performing arts organizations, and national associations advocate so strongly is not just because it’s good for us, but because we know it’s good for the nation as well.

The arts have a profound economic impact. They create jobs and generate dollars for local businesses.  When people go out to a performance they hire a baby sitter, go for a meal, visit a gift shop, park their car or take a taxi. The arts encourage tourism. Each year more and more foreign visitors visit an art gallery or attend a live performance.

The arts also foster educational excellence. Students with high arts involvement are less like to drop out of high school and perform better on standardized testing. A 2009 research study commissioned by Chorus America found that children who sing in choruses were more self-confident and self-disciplined, and developed better memory skills. Parents and educators attribute a significant part of a child's academic success to singing in a choir.

That same study also revealed that adults who sing in choruses demonstrate characteristics that make them remarkably good citizens. Adults who sing are much more likely to be generous by volunteering in their communities and contributing money to philanthropic causes. They’re far more likely to take on community leadership roles and—especially important during campaign season—more likely to vote in local and national elections.

2009 Chorus Impact Study; Source: Chorus America

Democracy is an ongoing process, and it is our responsibility as citizens and as arts organizations to advocate for funding. We must respect that we do that in an environment of economic austerity. But we must all—artists and politicians alike—remember that nourishment of the arts is not a luxury: it is a fundamental American value. Culture enriches our souls, but it stimulates our economy and society as well.