AGENCY

The following is a LinkedIn post from an American arts consultant I stumbled upon. I’m sorry I didn’t copy the name but the argument is universal even if the context is different.

We are making funding arguments for the arts using data that is not persuasive in funding decisions. Not because the data is wrong. Because it does not answer the question decision-makers are actually making decisions on. And we are doing this in 2026 using data that reflects activity from years ago. The last national arts economic impact study was released in 2023. The next one will likely not come until 2028. That means the case we are making today is built on information that is already outdated. So what are we doing in between?  Waiting?

This is not a timing issue. It is a structural failure in how we have built the case for the arts. We have anchored our value in data that measures activity, not impact. Attendance, dollars spent, and events hosted can demonstrate that something happened, but they do not answer the only question that matters in a funding decision: What changed because of this investment? We are showing what we did. They are deciding based on what changed.

Every other sector has aligned around that question. Healthcare reports patient outcomes. Education measures learning gains. Workforce programs track job placement and retention. Their funding depends on their ability to show results in real time. The arts have not made that shift. I had a conversation this week with a city arts leader who said it plainly: “We have a really hard time telling the story of our impact in a strong way.”

That is not a local issue.  It is not a messaging problem. It is the system we have built. Meanwhile, cities are facing immediate and compounding pressure. Budget cuts, mental health crises, workforce gaps, downtown decline, public safety concerns. Every one of these issues is funded based on what can be demonstrated, compared, and justified. This is the reality: what gets measured gets funded. And right now, we are not measuring what matters.

The arts are producing outcomes every single day. Increased empathy, stronger communication and collaboration, greater sense of belonging, improved mental well-being, and workforce-ready thinking. But we are not measuring these outcomes in a way that matters in a funding decision. As a result, they are not counted when decisions are made. This is why the arts continue to be positioned as “enrichment.” Not because the work lacks value. Because the value is not legible within the system that determines funding. So, what do we need to do to change this? We need to align how we measure the arts with how decisions are actually made. Because funding is not driven by intention. It is driven by evidence that can be compared, prioritized, and justified. Right now, the arts are producing meaningful outcomes every day. But we are not measuring them in a way that allows them to compete.

Until we do, the sector will remain undervalued within the very system that determines its future. The path forward is not better advocacy. It is better evidence. And that shift is already underway.

April 12, 2026