From the Field

Americans Overwhelmingly Support Public Funding for the Arts

The results of a national public opinion survey conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs on behalf of Americans for the Arts—Americans Speak Out About the Arts—shows that Americans understand the public value of the arts to their lives and communities. This large public opinion poll, with a representative sample of Americans across political perspectives, provides evidence that 66% of Americans support state government investments in nonprofit arts organizations and community based arts programs. Additionally, 92% of Americans believe every student should have access to a quality arts education, and 81% believe that the arts help people deal with mental health issues such as loneliness, isolation, depression and anxiety. These findings come from Americans Speak Out About the Arts in 2023, a study that examines Americans’ perceptions and attitudes toward arts and culture.

The First Economic Impact Study of the Independent Live Sector

The National Independent Venue Association has announced a new research project launching this week: The State of Live is the first national economic research study of independent live entertainment venues, promoters, performing arts centers and festivals. The research will quantify the economic contributions of the live sector, including its impact on jobs, tax revenues and local economies, while also addressing the challenges threatening its sustainability.

New Survey Sheds Light on Grantee’s Experiences with Regranters

The number of intermediary funders—also known as regranters—has increased significantly over the past decade. However, most of the research on regranting organizations uses data collected from either regranters themselves or originating funders. Bridging the Gap: Grantee Perspectives on Intermediary Funders, released by the Center for Effective Philanthropy, analyzes a key underexamined perspective, that is, grantees themselves. The center’s analysis of more than 62,000 grantees finds that grantees of regranters do not report having an overall substantially more positive or negative experience than grantees of originating funders. For instance, grantees indicated regranters provide a similar level of impact on the grantees’ fields. While the report does find some statistically significant differences—regranters provided slightly more open and frequent communication, and slightly lower levels of trust and understanding of grantees’ work compared with originating funders—the differences were modest. Though more research is needed, this report helps to introduce insights into the ways grantees experience regranters and navigate the funding landscape.