As part of the recent $17 billion settlement with Meta, each of the states and territories which were part of the lawsuit will receive a share.
Organizations in some of those states have already been provided preliminary notice that a portion of the state’s share of those funds will be made available to organizations within the state to provide different type of programming. The assumption is these funds will likely to distributed in forms of grants.
Here is the language from the settlement (Section G, Payment Purposes end of page 38)
Payment Purposes. The amount paid to each Settling State shall be used for any lawful purpose consistent with the Settling State’s Attorney General’s authority, such as the following remedial or restitutive purposes:
(a) Crisis intervention services, specifically the expansion and operation of the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline and text-based youth crisis lines;
(b) After-school or summer programs, such as sports, literacy, dance, and other activities;
(c) Public health advertising credits;
d) A digital wellness public education fund;
(e) Funding outdoor activities;
(f) Youth mental health programming;
(g) Support the hiring of digital literacy counselors or implement phone-free school zones;
(h) Training for medical providers on interactive media use and body dysmorphia;
(i) Grants to school districts or other local government entities to accomplish any remedial purpose encompassed here;
(j) Any similar remedial or restitutive purposes as those described above; and
(k) Investigation, litigation, and related efforts to improve teen safety on social media.
There was a post I made in August where I wrote about Angela Meleca’s observation that an unrealized outcome of an arts organization’s programming was workforce development despite the organization’s development director’s insistence that wasn’t part of their mission.
I encourage anyone looking to apply for a grant program related to these settlement monies to evaluate the outcomes of their existing programs and identify any that achieve results that may not fall within the traditional definition of arts and cultural programs.
As I had mentioned in that post, non-profit arts and cultural entities have frequently added programs in order to meet the requirements of grants. And this has placed additional burdens on staff and resources. This is not what I am advocating for.
If you have a program that has resulted in a reduction of body dysmorphia, increased mental health, seen youth so engaged they put aside their phones –even if that wasn’t the specific intent of the program. Think about how grant funding can expand your capacity in that area or provide some sort of adjacent programming. (i.e. Can lessons learned be of value to medical and mental health professionals.)
Success in getting a grant aligned with outcomes not traditionally associated with the arts may serve as a way to change the narrative with funders about the categories of support for which your work is eligible.
