There are a number of reasons for this…one reason is that many organizations are statewide and find it hard to collect information and reach out to a significant number of advocates on a community-by-community basis. Another is that it is challenging to navigate through the different political dynamics in each area. Then there’s the reason that is always prevalent in a majority of nonprofit organizations…they don’t have the capacity to cover everything.

Well, it appears from reading through The Future of the Public Voice in Arts Advocacy Green Paper that, “…plans are in place to develop a local capacity in the Capwiz on-line tool which is currently used at the state and federal levels.” I am pleased to read this and find that the Capwiz system will, at some point in the near future, be updated to include local elected officials.

For me, linking local information into the Capwiz system couldn’t come soon enough. Not only does advocating at the local level help develop relationships with possible future candidates for higher office and allow us to have an impact in local arts and arts education policy, but it offers arts organizations the opportunity to grow their memberships as they connect with new individual supporters not typically reachable through statewide communications.

While we await the Capwiz changes, I’m interested in knowing how you currently advocate at the local level. Do you utilize Capwiz to send out messages? How are you notified of local issues? How much of an emphasis do you place on local advocacy?

To listen to the full interview please click here – http://beta.wnyc.org/shows/soundcheck/2010/apr/27/

While I’ll spare you all from my personal opinions on the interview, I will say that it sparked some interest about messaging. In the interview you hear Nina talk about the national economic impact, how grant dollars leverage increased investment, as well as how grant funding helps provide affordable access to the arts for citizens.

Nina did a great job of putting forth the national argument but, my question to all of you is: What is your argument in support of arts funding? If you were in an elevator with the chair of your state’s appropriations committee, what would you say?

In Michigan we talk about the economic importance of the arts, restating the states own data showing the arts, culture and history tourism accounts for $1.8 billion in tourism spending each year.

Further, we compare grants to nonprofit arts organizations to tax credits given to businesses. Asking them to consider that grant funding operates in similar fashion to a tax credit offered to attract and retain businesses. These credits are offered to entice companies to reside in Michigan, hire and retain employees and contribute to the state and local economies. Companies in turn are required to make certain investments and achieve certain levels of employment.   In much the same way, arts and cultural organizations are required to leverage grants with local matching funds and achieve certain project goals while serving the communities they reside in – yet while passing on incentives to for-profit businesses is considered a necessity, passing on incentives to nonprofit businesses is considered a luxury.

While we all know that there’s no silver bullet to messaging, I’m interested in hearing the different approaches to messaging that arts advocates around the country are taking when speaking with their legislators.

But that got me thinking. What is our point, how do we back it up and do they get it?

I believe that there are two key elements to making our case for increased and sustainable funding for the arts. We need to have a compelling story that is backed up with reliable and comprehensive data.

We have the stories down pat. We know how to talk about John Q Student who was saved by the arts or how Organization B and Artist X contributed to the revitalization of a community’s downtown development. We are great story tellers, but for the most part cannot back up our stories with data.

It’s a common theme that I’ve seen come out of many meetings, interviews and conversations over the past couple of years. Elected officials, and the public in general, understand what we are doing but they need the numbers to back it up. They want to know exactly how many jobs we create, how much money is contributed to the local and regional economy, etc. Until we are able to provide them with reliable data, they will hear what we’re saying/doing but will never “get it”.

While there are numerous economic impact calculators and studies conducted throughout the country, there has never been a uniform study that is 100% reliable and reputable for all states to utilize. For example, some states have entities that provide studies to a certain region of the state while another entity conducts a similar study on the other side of the state with different parameters. How are we to utilize the two studies when the data collected and the ways in which they calculate the data fluctuate?

One solution to this issue that I am familiar with is the Cultural Data Project (CDP) developed and operated by The Pew Charitable Trusts. The CDP helps arts and cultural organizations improve their financial management and services to their communities; enables researchers, advocates and policy makers to better tell the story of the sector’s assets, contributions and needs; and helps funders more effectively plan for and evaluate their individual and collective grant-making activities. The Pew Charitable Trusts oversees and operates the Cultural Data Project (CDP) nationally.  The CDP is active in 7 states – PA, CA, MD, MA, NY, IL, OH and launches in MI on May 3 – with a goal of operating in 22 states by 2014

Full disclosure…the organization I work for will serve as the intermediary for the CDP in Michigan when it is rolled out at the beginning of May thanks to support from Michigan’s foundation leadership. Having said that, while I don’t know if the CDP is the silver bullet to comprehensive and reliable data nationwide I do know that it is something that needs to be experimented with and discussed at the national level.

This presentation showed a slide demonstrating the total state appropriations for state arts agencies over the past eighteen years. As we were told, funding has gone up and down consistently over stretches of time, consider the visual of a roller coaster. We were told that when state resources and revenues go down, so too do the funding of the state arts agencies. However, when revenues come back elected officials understand the importance of arts funding and the economic impact that it holds, thus increasing funding.

I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t make sense to me. How can the arts only be seen as important in good times? How can the economic impact of the arts only be realized in times of surpluses? I think that there is a fundamental problem if most across the country subscribe to this reasoning. Now, some may say that cuts are being made across the board and therefore fair. But are those cuts truly equitable? Consider a 10% cut from a department budget of $500 million and a 10% cut of that of the $5 million budget of the state arts council. It’s not just about the size of the cut, but what the cut will cost that program or agency.

In the overview of the green paper it states that we have “participated in important and substantial efforts to educate and inform elected officials and the public about the economic impact, educational opportunities, and cultural heritage that the arts provide to individuals and to communities across the nation.” My question to you is: what has all of this work gotten us if we have continued on this roller coaster of funding? We experience success only in times of prosperity and see only a few states succeed even when revenues are low. Can surviving in bad times and succeeding in the good be considered progress?

In my opinion, we must do all of what the green paper stated and more. We must invest early in the campaigns of candidates at both the local and state level. We must begin to prove that our vote matters, because only then will the arts cease to be considered a fringe issue across the country.

As my year of shepherding this blog begins, I look forward to questioning much of what is in the green paper. Not to criticize what has been done in the past or what is planned for the future, but to generate conversation to figure out what it is, as a sector, we are doing right and what are the things we need to change if we hope to ever get off this roller coaster ride.