Here's something that hits close to home. Who here works/interns for an organization that receives grant money from the DC Commission on the Art and Humanities? If you don't work for one, you certainly know one. . .or 50.
I work for an organization who applies and receives around 5 or 6 grants from DCCAH each fiscal year. We just got out of the heat of grant application season for this agency, so it's just an exciting waiting game right now until we get some kind of notification about the respective grants. Our outreach programs rely heavily on this funding, and we've already planned the programs that this grant money will potentially fund.
But, I got some alarming news from my friend Rob of DC Advocates for the Arts -- he sent out a message saying this:
"On Monday October 4th, Mayor Fenty took action to prevent increased deficits ordering immediate 10% reductions in the majority of agency budgets. The DC Commission on the Arts and Humanities is one of the agencies affected. The DCCAH FY 11 budget, which was $4,940,310, has been reduced by $444,421 to $4,495,889. The Commission had budgeted for and accepted grant proposals for a majority of the FY 11 allocation already, and many of us have been waiting on those grant letters.
What does this new 10% cut mean for pending grants?
Will grant programs be cut, and/or awards reduced?"
Oh, how easily money can be taken away. That's $444,421 that DCCAH was planning on giving away to DC arts organizations that now won't be given out to us. If you were working at the DCCAH and you had to be a part of the decision-making process after this blow, what would you suggest?
Give the grants to a fewer number of applicants?
Give the grants to the same amount of applicants as you normally would, but give each a smaller amount of money?
Thoughts. . .
I guess this would depend on where they were in the stage of their decision making process when this budget cut happened. It seems like they are currently in FY11 (maybe they follow a school semester-like schedule and it began in September), and they may have already given out some grants before October 4, like the Teaching Artist, Arts Education, Cultural Facilities, Grants-in-Aid and Festivals grants. There seem to be some grants still in the evaluating process, like City Arts, Hip Hop Arts, Performing Artists, and more. I would hope that the DC Commission on the Arts would not renege on any grants they had already given out before this announcement.
ReplyDeleteDeciding to split the budget cuts evenly seems to be a little less possible now, although that tack could still be considered for any that are up in the air. I imagine that the cuts would be taken in both ways. If they had already decided on the organizations to receive grants, they could lessen their grant awards by a percentage across the board. During this process though, I could imagine they would have to evaluate some grants where the resulting award would be significantly smaller than what the organization might need, so maybe DCCAH would either turn down that grant entirely, or raise it enough to keep afloat and then have to lower some of the other grant awards.
I assume that they have some kind of evaluation tracking, so it might be an unfortunately simply affair of just going through and taking away grants off the bottom of the list until they reach their budget goal. I like to think that this is not how this would happen, hopefully.
Whatever the method, this is going to be complicated. It looks like there is an eighteen person committee and a staff that assigns the awards, and I am guessing that planning to get the committee together is a headache already. Phew, I wish them luck.
I would say that 10% cut should go across the board. Perhaps many arts organizations would be receiving less grant money than they originally expected, but are we not all seeking training in arts management to plan for this kind of funding fail? To me an across the board percentage cut is the only solution. Many arts organizations who have planned their programming around expected money will certainly have to reevaluate programming, perhaps offering less variety. I also think this is the ideal opportunity for arts organizations to show how necessary funding it. DCCAH should flip this and ask if arts organizations can submit a report on exactly who suffers the grant cut (the public we serve). How many less kids will be afforded reduced price art classes? How many theaters will have to limit their programming therefore limiting their availability to audiences. This is a blow, but arts organizations must be flexible yet still emphasize who the funding cuts. Ideally it's not those working the organizations who suffer the lessened grant, but those the organization works (one hopes) to serve.
ReplyDeleteIf I were in this situation, I would cut funds across the board. I think this would be the fairest way to go about it because this way, you wouldn't completely deny the success of a program for any arts organization. I think if an arts organization is smart enough, they will recognize that their program can exist and be carried out if they make up the difference in funding by making a bigger effort in receiving individual and corporate giving. Of course, this is a lot of pressure on the organization to make sure the difference is made up through other funding but I think in a lot of cases, this is attainable. And as Neena pointed out, the program can always be altered to reduce costs but I think this should be done only if there is no possible way to increase the amount of other funding such as individual and corporate giving (and I think there's ALWAYS a way to do this, but maybe I'm being hopelessly optimistic)
ReplyDeleteWith an 18 person team, I hope they can evaluate each organization on a case-by-case basis to determine need and merit and then reduce their funding on an appropriate scale. I think the 10% cut should go across the board, even internally in DCCAH operations budget.
ReplyDeleteAs unfortunate a situation as this is, with regards to funding from DCCAH, it is hardly unique OR surprising given the recent economic climate. Cuts such as this one, proposed by DC Democratic primary election loser Mayor Fenty, are commonplace occurrences in the realm of governmental arts funding. Even as arts organizations must plan programming well in advance and often using "potential" funding, these same organizations must be ready for cuts, changes in policy and a number of other set backs with regards to this presumed arts funding. Any good producer (whether that be in film, theatre, etc) knows that Plan A is seldom fully realized. It is therefore necessary to have Plans B and C (dare I suggest a Plan D, as well?) ready at a moment's notice. This ability to change gears, re-access and move forward with additional options is paramount to being an effective arts manager (producer, arts organization) in any economic climate.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I also feel that reduced funding for each of the selected organizations is the proper way to deal with the funding cuts. This will still allow these funded organizations to alter programming (without having to eliminate it completely) and give them the opportunity to secure the additional needed funding privately or through other means.
Finally, there is a bit of hope with regards to the proposed Fenty cuts. DCAA Chair Rob Bettmann has also informed us that, "Democratic candidate for Mayor Vincent Gray has stated that the current cuts may be replaced by a gap-closing budget, which the current mayor is in the process of drafting. A more nuanced budget would still have to make a lot of hard choices. A gap closing budget proposal -- which could eliminate this most recent cut for the arts -- is expected to be presented sometime in October, with a hearing in November. "
Fingers crossed.
Tough decisions will be made no matter which route you choose, but if I were in the position to make the decisions, I would reduce funding across the board - internally and externally. It is a tough time for everyone and as pessimistic as this sounds, budget cuts are anticipated left and right. I believe a grant-receiving arts organisation would rather have some grant reduced than the entire grant taken away because that may mean eliminating programmes they have been working on, thinking that they would get the amount of grant they were shooting for. Altering a plan is better than eliminating one.
ReplyDeleteOn another hand, this would be a good time for arts advocates and organisations to work together to produce assessments and reports on how this budget cut affects them - the organisations and their patrons. It is important to look ahead and be prepared to make a case in the future, in case there is another round of budget cuts, to be ready to say "this is why we need xxx amount of money and this is why this particular budget should not be cut". With that said, I hope the morale will not be lost within the arts community in DC despite this blow. It is important to work together through the tough times and it will only make them stronger (especially their finance/ development/ programming teams - they must get creative). It is not uncommon that a community come out stronger after a major blow (think lgbt, think women's rights etc). I'll be keeping my fingers crossed. Just hope that cutting corners do not necessarily mean cutting back in quality of programmes!
I'd vote for cuts across the board as well. What other reasonable option is there? It's not like this economic climate only affects the arts. These days, it seems naive and shortsighted on the part of an arts org to program events/exhibits under the assumption that maximum funds will be available.
ReplyDeleteI am in agreement with just about everyone here...budget cuts should go across the board. This is allows for some money to be given, even if not the full amount estimated. I feel that it is important for arts organizations to always have a "second plan" to enact when these kind of situations come up, especially in the current economic climate. To not have one could potentially set yourself up for some big problems.
ReplyDeleteLike others have said, it really is an important time for arts organizations to band together and help each other out. Passing along ideas and working together to make the best of the situation will be helpful.
I think cuts across the board is the way to go as well. The only other option, as was pointed out in the question, is to give money to fewer applicants. That is a tough situation to put some people in. I guess you could do a major analysis of which programs put the money to best use, but that would be time (and money) consuming. There is really no fair way to give less money. The most fair does seem to give everyone 10% less. Everyone has to roll with the punches...
ReplyDelete"It depends."
ReplyDeleteDeciding whether to give less to all or give to less organizations is a difficult decision. If all the organizations interest the agency, I would give less to all. If there are a few organizations that may not need the funds as greatly or are not keeping in the boundaries of their mission, etc., I may rethink giving to those. As we are learning, "it depends."
I believe a combination of less applications receiving grants and over-all less money to these applications will ease the impact of the budget decrease. Each organization should be reviewed very closely to propose grants to those who require the DCCAH for this Y11 sustainability. Organizations that have proven long term sustainability by multiple facets of revenue will be able to 'take a harder hit' than new emerging organizations striving to grow roots.
ReplyDelete