Home Page

New Compliance Requirements For NEA Grants

February 17, 2025

by:

Joe Patti

There appear to be some significant changes in the grant procedures for the National Endowment for the Arts. In addition to the end of the Challenge America grant program American Theatre Magazine reported changes in the compliance rules that have been recently added.

After listing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination Act, and Title IX, the page includes the following new requirements:

The applicant understands that federal funds shall not be used to promote gender ideology, pursuant to Executive Order No. 14168, Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.

The applicant will comply with all applicable Executive Orders while the award is being administered. Executive orders are posted at whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions.

The applicant’s compliance in all respects with all applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws is material to the U.S. Government’s payment decisions for purposes of section 3729(b)(4) of title 31, United States Code, pursuant to Executive Order No. 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, dated January 21, 2025.

The applicant will not operate any programs promoting “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws, in accordance with Executive Order No. 14173.

Source

The National Endowment for the Arts will be holding a seminar to discuss these changes and answer questions from 2 pm- 3 pm EST on Tuesday, February 18, 2025. The link to the Microsoft Teams Meeting may be found on the webinar page. If you miss the meeting, a link to the recording will be available on that page as well.

While it is for a different program, news sources are reporting a list of words that will trigger a manual review of papers and other documents submitted to the National Science Foundation and Centers of Disease Control.

Many of the words are ones that arts and cultural organizations have been using regularly for years like advocacy, barrier, biases, community diversity, cultural differences, cultural heritage, disabilities, diverse communities, equity, female, gender, inclusivity, historically, marginalize, sense of belonging, underserved, women.. That’s about 1/10 of the words on the list.

Fundraising, Government Relations, State of the Arts

No Comments

What To Say About Your DEI Efforts

February 12, 2025

by:

Joe Patti

Yesterday someone posted a Harvard Business Review article on LinkedIn dealing with the topic of corporate DEI programs. The authors, Kenji Yoshino, David Glasgow, and Christina Joseph, state that such training programs hold a low legal risk provided they aren’t targeted at a specific group in a manner that creates a hostile work environment.

Public relations-wise it can be a different story depending on the community and customers you serve.

HOWEVER, statements about diversity, equity, and inclusion can carry legal risk if the say too much.

DEI communications create legal risk when a statement suggests that the organization engages in what we call the “three Ps” by conferring a preference on a protected group with respect to a palpable benefit.

Source

They caution against statements like: ““DEI uplifts historically disadvantaged groups to ensure equal outcomes,” because it suggests that some protected groups might be getting preferential treatment.

As alternatives, they suggest:

“DEI removes unfair barriers that prevent disadvantaged groups from competing on a level playing field.”

“Talent is everywhere but opportunity is not. DEI closes the gap.”

“DEI enables people of all identities and backgrounds to feel welcome and do their best work.”

Source

In respect to hiring and promotion, they write:

Another risky statement is “We use diversity hiring to recruit people from underrepresented racial and ethnic backgrounds.” This one could suggest the organization considers race or ethnicity in employment decisions …Alternatives include:

“We conduct outreach at diverse colleges to strive for a diverse applicant pool.”
“While we strive for a diverse mix of candidates, all employment decisions are made without regard to race, sex, or other protected characteristics.”
“We look for candidates of any background who will advance our culture of diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

Source

They also advise staying away from any language that identifies concrete hiring targets and instead use aspirational language referencing terms like aspire, strive, aim, and hope.

Much more specific detail on these and other topics in the article, including how to engage your communications team, if any of this is of concern.

Legal Topics, Management Philosophy, Marketing/PR, Working In The Arts

No Comments

More Room For Customer Focused Info On Book Covers?

February 11, 2025

by:

Joe Patti

In a case of insiders recognizing that stuff they think is important isn’t really viewed as valuable to consumers, the publisher of Simon and Schuster books announced their writers will no longer be required to solicit blurbs from other writers.

If you are wondering what blurbs are, you aren’t alone. In a totally non-scientific survey at a book seller the NY Times article writer conducted, 18 out of 20 people responded they didn’t know what it was. Once they were told, they said blurbs didn’t impact their buying choices as much as the summary of the story on the book jacket/cover. Those that buy books online said they place more importance on what other buyers have written about the book.

And in fact, there is no data that the blurbs help to sell books at all. Like their customers, shop owners interviewed for the story said that other than some really recognizable names, they hadn’t seen customers pay attention to blurbs.

Blurbs are basically words of praise that other authors have given to a book. Most authors don’t like soliciting those blurbs because it is time consuming and potentially humiliating if someone you admire refuses you. Not to mention the whole process cultivates a bit of an incestuous quid pro quo environment.

In his statement, Sean Manning, the publisher of Simon & Schuster said:

Trying to get blurbs is not a good use of anyone’s time,” Manning wrote. He commended “the collegiality of authors,” but pointed out that “favor trading creates an incestuous and unmeritocratic literary ecosystem that often rewards connections over talent.”

Source

A number of authors are issuing sighs of relief while others are hoping this practice becomes more widespread.

This story resonated with me because about six hours before I saw it I had picked up a book related to arts management and after scanning the nearly two dozen blurbs, muttered that none of those giving blurbs really had any relevance for me. If I was thinking that as an arts insider, it was a lesson to me to consider how little things I did think were important might mean to audience members.

Audience Relations, Building Public Will For Arts And Culture, Marketing/PR

No Comments

Why You Should Be Expanding Your Audience, By The Numbers

February 10, 2025

by:

Joe Patti

Colleen Dilenschneider and the folks at IMPACTS Experience laid out some interesting data about audience sustainability for different types of cultural organizations. (subscription required) They look at negative substitution trends as well as the engagement cycle for different types of cultural entitites.

If you are asking, “Okay, so what is negative substitution,” IMPACTS explains it like this:

Negative substitution is a phenomenon wherein the number of people who profile as active visitors leaving the market (i.e., by way of death, relocation, or migration) outpaces the number of people who profile as active visitors entering the market (i.e., by way of birth, relocation, or immigration). Essentially, people who fit the profile of a cultural visitor are leaving the market faster than cultural entities have been able to replace them by expanding their audiences. The result is a shrinking visitor base.

Source

Engagement cycle is how the average time between when a person first visits an organization and when they return. For exhibit based organizations, this is an average of 24.7 months. However broken down by different disciplines it varies. For aquariums it is 23.8 months; art museums it is 24.1; Children’s museums it is 29.7 months.

Similarly, for performing arts organizations the engagement cycle is 28.5 months, but for symphonies it is 28.7 months and for theaters it is 25.8 months.

They break down these rates for 11 different organization types in the article. These examples are just a sample.

Negative substitution rates vary for each of the 11 types as well. For aquariums the substitution rate is .991; art museums is .955, children’s museums is .92; symphonies is .907 and theater is .946.

As an example of how these two numbers come together in a relevant way, here is an example using the general exhibit based substitution rate of .982 and engagement cycle of 24.7 months:

An organization welcoming 1,000,000 visitors per year may be engaging their current audiences effectively (via marketing, exhibits, etc.) and yet they could reasonably expect to engage only 982,000 visitors 24.7 months after that, and 964,300 visitors 24.7 months after that. Every visitation cycle leads to progressively fewer visitors, even though our hypothetical organization is doing everything right by their current audiences!

Because this organization is not actively working to expand its audience profile, it is losing attendance over time simply due to shifts in the population.

Source

They provide a similar breakdown for each of the 11 organizations if you want to see the trends for your particular corner of the cultural landscape. Some of the numbers become a little sobering. For example, an orchestra serving 1 million people in 2025 might expect to be serving 822,600 people at the end of the second cycle in 66.2 months.

Audience Relations, Building Public Will For Arts And Culture, Marketing/PR

No Comments