It appears our arts community stands once more at the bedside of our sickly federal arts agency, the National Endowment for the Arts.  And her sad dependent children, our State Arts Councils, are lined up down the hallway outside, starting to catch intense  fevers themselves.  Financially and politically, this is one sick family year after year.

Yes, the NEA has arrived back in the ICU of the federal appropriations system yet again, sucking on its thready stream of financial oxygen, while the surgeons in Congress decide just how much more can be cut away.  There’s also the possibility that our elected federal ’family’ will pull the plug on this battered old girl and let her go once and for all, if not this year, maybe next. No doubt, arts organizations will feel the impact of the proposed drastic cut.  Jobs will be lost if these arts agencies fold.  But I’m not certain the damage will be as dire as some think it will be if we start to act now to change course.

Naturally, Americans for the Arts has sprung into action to lead advocacy efforts for the system’s survival. The fight seems even more dire this year due to the severe recession and our November elections.  Several state governors have already proposed killing off their state arts agencies, more than we’ve seen in several years.  There’s a real groundswell of danger this year.

So what’s new? We shouldn’t be surprised our public arts agencies are back on the chopping block.  This threat has become an annual tradition for so many years, that so many people in the arts are just exhausted. I don’t understand why, after so many years of advocacy about the cultural, educational, and economic benefits that the arts bring to our communities, that legislators still don’t get it.  Because the NEA feeds substantial funding to the state arts agencies, we know that without it most state battles are toast.

Perhaps it is time to think about the possibility that the legislature might succeed in eliminating public funding for the arts.  We need to consider the worst case scenario if the plug is finally pulled.  Will there never be another play, symphony, opera, film, dance, or exhibit?  Of course not. Losing the public funding system would force the arts industry to seriously rally together and develop a Plan B.  I think that there are options, and we need to start putting more ideas together.

I’m not shouting “Kill the NEA” yet.  My top reason is that the majority of these grants produce precious dollars for general operating support, the hardest dollars for nonprofit arts groups to replace if lost. But someone else is shouting “Kill the NEA,” loud and clear!  Someone within the arts community has finally called a spade a spade and said what many of us have been too terrified to stand up and shout for years. That someone is Bill Eddins, a conductor and very brave blogger.  He wrote two posts, Kill the NEA, back in November, and his most recent, Kill The NEA (Redux)!!! on January 26th.  I’m not going to let him stand out there alone in the cold, but let me point out that Mr. Eddins’ current major gig is in Edmonton, CANADA.  Their funding can’t be slashed by the NEA for his gutsy outburst. But it is time to ask ”WHAT IF” our legislature does kill the NEA and talk about other options.

As Mr. Eddins reminds us in his post, it’s worth remembering that National Endowment for the Arts really isn’t an endowment at all.  It’s also worth remembering that the annual budget of the NEA is hardly a drop in the overall federal budget (.046% in 2010).  Tax-supported arts grants are a very small portion of most arts budgets.  I estimate that most arts organizations receive far less than 10% of their annual budget from tax-supported grants.  Still, the number of major donors who fund a full percentage of an organization’s budget are few. The situation isn’t pretty, but it could be worse.  If the arts were funded more substantially in our nation, we’d really be in a serious crisis, such as what is happening in the UK.  Is this not the ideal time to just deal with it while the funding levels are so small? I would ratherbe proactive and say let’s get this over with while the sting is minimized.

The core argument behind saving our arts agencies for years has been, and maybe still is, that these grants produce leverage for private dollars.  Therefore, these grants by nature are really challenge grants.  But does the fact that these challenge grants come from a government agency give them more meaning? Or is it that donors are motivated by any challenge grant by its very nature? We know that in philanthropy challenge grants work. I think that private challenge grants might actually out-perform a tax-based challenge grant in any contest because of inherent values that drive philanthropy: people give to people (especially people they know well), and money begets more money.

It is true that an NEA grant is a prestigious, public stamp of recognition. This stamp can help arts groups score points among other elite funders. What other systems exist to elevate vitality and artistic excellence in public concsciousness if this system of support and recognition goes away? Arts organizations already face the battle to remain vital and relevant in modern culture. 

Also, is the tax-supported funding we recieve worth all it takes to secure, administrate, and advocate for these miserly awards? If you add up the time and expense for grant writing, administration of a grant contract, advocacy time and effort, plus factor in the odds of winning an award in certain competitions, and then calculate the return on investment. How many arts grant programs actually produce enough reward to recoup the effort from soup to nuts? There’s an awful lot of work involved for this small puddle of funds.

There are many pros and cons to the public funding system in the US.  I believe that dedicated arts organizations would survive the demise of the NEA, though it might not be easy short term.  I believe the arts are resilient by nature, and are not without a respectable support system. But I think we need to act now to develop a real Plan B.  As Mr. Eddins began to creatively suggest, there are other options that could replace this beaten and bloody public system. I applaud his bravery for pushing the conversation in a new direction.

There’s lots of ideas to explore.  It’s time to start looking at other options before the NEA gasps its dying breath.