Final Summary
Fiscal Year 2003
Economic Impact of the Arts
in Jacksonville Survey
Prepared for the
Cultural Council of Greater Jacksonville
Northeast Florida Center for Community Initiatives
Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Criminal Justice
University of North Florida
Jacksonville, FL
Jeffry A. Will, Director and Associate Professor of Sociology
Timothy Cheney MS, Assistant Director of Research Programs
T. Mason Brown, Research Associate
July 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................ 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................... 2
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 3
METHOD.................................................................................................................................. 7
ORGANIZATIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS .............................................................................. 8
ORGANIZATION SIZE ............................................................................................................ 9
INCOME ................................................................................................................................ 10
Contributed Income ..................................................................................................... 10
Public Funding ................................................................................................................ 10
Endowments.................................................................................................................... 11
Earned Revenue ............................................................................................................ 11
Restricted Income ......................................................................................................... 12
Other Income ................................................................................................................. 12
EMPLOYEES, VOLUNTEERS AND INTERNS...................................................................... 14
Types of Positions............................................................................................................ 14
Full and part-time Employees..................................................................................... 15
Volunteers ........................................................................................................................ 15
Interns ................................................................................................................................ 15
PERFORMANCES AND ADMISSIONS.............................................................................. 16
Performances.................................................................................................................. 16
Admissions........................................................................................................................ 16
EXPENSES .............................................................................................................................. 17
Personnel Expenses ....................................................................................................... 17
Operating Expenses...................................................................................................... 17
Marketing and Promotional Expenses ..................................................................... 19
Program Expenses ......................................................................................................... 20
Capital Expenditures/Purchases ............................................................................... 20
Other Expenses............................................................................................................... 20
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 22
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 24
APPENDIX: PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS ............................................................. 26
Page 1 of 26
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Arts and culture are powerful tools in the economic and cultural
development of public spaces. Numerous economic impact studies have
shown that the arts can have a strong positive influence on the development
and revitalization of downtown areas, as well as contributing to the tax
revenue base, the public image of an area and the business and cultural
diversity in a community. Consequently, an economic impact evaluation is
an important tool for highlighting the continued success and positive effects
of the arts in any given area. This study represents information from 36
cultural organizations located in Duval County, Florida. The results were
collected from March 2004 through May 2004 and represent each
organization’s most recently completed fiscal year.
In order to investigate the economic impact of arts and culture in the greater
Jacksonville area, the Northeast Florida Center for Community Initiatives, at
the request of the Cultural Council of Greater Jacksonville, conducted an
economic impact study of a number of cultural organizations located within
Duval County. These organizations provided data about their operations,
such as how many employees they have, how much income they generate
and how income is used. The results indicate:
¾ These organizations reported nearly 1.5 million admissions, a number
that is almost two times the number of people living in the city of
Jacksonville and its Beaches (2000 census);
¾ Nonprofit cultural organizations in Jacksonville had incomes of over
$48.7 million;
¾ Over $48.6 million of expenses were reported by cultural organizations,
most of which was spent in the local economy;
¾ Nonprofit cultural organizations in Jacksonville directly supported 364
full-time and 392 part-time jobs;
¾ 9,639 volunteers donated more than 180,500 hours to cultural
organizations;
¾ An economic impact of over $95.4 million, determined by using a final
spending multiplier of 2.0 and subtracting out funds not spent locally.
Page 2 of 26
INTRODUCTION
Museums, theaters, galleries, historic sites, and zoos in any given city enhance
the lives of residents by offering entertainment and recreation, as well as
providing educational opportunities. However, these facilities and the quality
of life enrichment they provide do not stop there, as they help their city grow
in many other ways.
By improving the quality and livability of a city for residents, the cultural arts
also increase the attractiveness of that city to companies considering
relocation of corporate headquarters or business facilities (Neiman, 1994).
When making relocation decisions, businesses investigate not only obvious
“bottom-line” considerations, such as tax incentives and availability of a
workforce, but also take into account the quality of life in a city (Wells, 2002).
For instance, when deciding between two otherwise equivalent locations, a
company is more likely to relocate in the area offering more cultural
amenities. In this way, cultural offerings in a city may attract additional
sources of revenue and contribute to the overall economic vitality of an
area. Thus, the arts have a subtle, but important, economic impact on the
development of cities.
The arts also have economic impacts beyond attracting new businesses to
an area. In the past, economic development was focused on producer
services. Today, many cities welcome the role of consumer services, such as
tourism (Williams, Shore, & Huber, 1995). Tourism helps drive many local
economies, and arts and culture are a major force for attracting out-of-town
visitors (Moses, 2001). Tourist dollars spent in a city are unlike local dollars, as
they constitute an outside source of revenue that might not have otherwise
entered the local economy. Although tourists may be compelled to visit a
city because of its cultural offerings, such as concerts or arts exhibits, their
spending is not limited to the arts. While in the area, they are likely to spend
additional money on food, lodging, and parking (Moses, 2001). These tourist
dollars help stimulate the local economy and are yet another method
through which the arts economically impact their home cities.
Further economic benefits are imparted when the arts are utilized as an asset
for spurring downtown development and revitalizing city centers (Moses,
2001). Often, it is advantageous for local governments to attract artists by
designating an art district in downtown areas. This leads to the rebuilding
and re-habitation of previously undesirable areas. These areas not only
attract visitors, both local and non-local, but also help to improve the city’s
image, increase commercial activity and stop physical decline while
stabilizing property values (Mattern, 2001). Art districts may also serve as
Page 3 of 26
transitional communities between poor and professional residents, playing a
critical role by connecting otherwise isolated areas to a metropolitan
economy (Fulton, 1999). One notable example where artists have revitalized
an economically depressed area is Peekskill, New York, where the city
government has made efforts to draw and keep artisans as residents.
Through changes in zoning laws and conversion of the city’s retail storage
lofts, the city has been able to attract highly skilled artists, as well as
computer graphics and consulting companies which draw their employees
from the pool of skilled artist-residents. In this way, not only were the city’s
spaces restored and re-inhabited, but businesses were also drawn to the
area, providing additional economic stimulus (Singer, 2000). Clearly, the
presence of art and culture can have strong positive effects on the
economic status of a community.
Beyond attracting businesses and tourists, and improving the economic
status of downtown areas, the arts have a very direct impact on the
economy of an area based on the number of jobs they create. The arts tend
to be labor intensive, requiring many full and part-time employees and
volunteers. Depending upon the organization, performers, administrators,
laborers, artists, and outside contractors may be employed. Over 250
separate occupations are dependent on the arts (Cameron, 2000). It is
estimated one percent of all full-time jobs in the U.S. are in the nonprofit arts
sector, and if the larger arts and entertainment complex industries are
included in this estimate, the number increases to 3.2 million jobs, or 2.7
percent of the American workforce (Neiman, 1994). Much of the money
paid out as employee salaries is re-spent in the local economy.
Arts organizations also stimulate the economy through local purchases that
are part of their operating expenses. For instance, an arts organization may
need to rent space or equipment, pay for maintenance work on its property,
and pay for supplies and materials. In a national study of the economic
impact of the arts, 84.3 percent of expenditures by arts organizations were
local (Neiman, 1994). This suggests that income generated by arts
organizations is generally spent again within the area, impacting the cities in
which the organizations are based.
It is important to note that spending on salaries and operating expenses by
arts organizations infuses money into the local economy in a sustained
manner that short-term events cannot replicate. Once-a-year events, such
as a golf tournament or college football bowl game, have strong, but quickly
diminishing effects on a local economy. These events have the greatest
impact soon after the event ends, and do not provide a “permanently higher
stimulus for the economy” (Perry, 1990) as year-round activities do. Arts
organizations provide salaries throughout the year, spend money locally on
Page 4 of 26
rent and operating expenses at regular intervals, and make capital
purchases from local businesses. These on-going expenditures provide a
continuing boost to the economy (Woods & Perry, 1998).
Clearly, the arts have a substantial economic impact through the taxes they
pay and the expenditures they make as well as through their ability to create
jobs and attract business to an area. This economic impact becomes even
more significant when the “multiplier,” a concept frequently used in
economic impact evaluations, is applied. According to the multiplier
concept, there are both direct and indirect economic impacts of money
spent locally. Money spent by the arts on expenses such as wages, rent, and
purchases of goods and services constitutes a direct economic impact.
However, this money is continuously redistributed in the local economy. If an
arts organization spends $100 on an employee’s salary, for example, he or
she may spend some of that money locally on items such as groceries. The
grocery store may spend a portion of that money to pay its cashier, who uses
it to pay rent or utilities (Neiman, 1994). The average dollar turns over seven
to eight times per year (Perry & Woods, 1998). This re-spending of money in
the local economy is the indirect economic impact. As money is re-spent in
the area, it actually multiplies in value (Perry & Woods, 1998), with most of the
multiplier effect felt within 12-18 months from initial expenditure (Perry, 1990).
Money that is not directly spent is said to “leak” into the larger economy
through savings, taxes, imports, and purchases made outside the area (Perry
& Woods, 1998). The multiplier concept combines both direct and indirect
impacts. Because the capital is spent and re-spent within the local
economy, the local economy grows, and a ripple effect is created. The
greatest impact occurs when leakage rates are low and money is
continuously re-spent locally. These leakage rates vary from region to region
and depend on the type of business generating the original funds.
In the past, there has been a common misconception that support for the
arts comes at the expense of the economic development in an area
(Neiman, 1994). For this reason, public funding of the arts has been at times
controversial and often given low priority.
A number of studies of the economic impact of the arts, all employing the
multiplier concept, have provided evidence to counter the old perspective
and support the economic importance of the arts. These studies suggest that
funding an area’s cultural resources is an investment rather than a giveaway
or a gift. These studies of individual states include the following:
¾ The arts have an economic impact of over $1.36 billion in Connecticut
and provide over 30,500 jobs (Economic impact of the nonprofit arts
and cultural industry in Connecticut, 1997).
Page 5 of 26
¾ In 1995, New York estimated the arts had a $13.4 billion economic
impact and provided 174,000 jobs (The economic impact of the arts
on New York City and New York State, 1997).
¾ In Florida, the arts were found to have an economic impact of $2.9
billion in 2001, while providing over 28,000 jobs (Stronge, 2004).
¾ Even areas generally not considered to be art centers, such as Oregon
and Missouri, have found that the arts contribute substantially to their
states, providing $262 million and $326 million respectively (The
economic impact of Oregon’s nonprofit arts sector, 2000; Economic
activity of Missouri’s nonprofit arts industry, 1998).
The impact of the arts on individual cities has also been studied, and the
results indicate that arts have a strong impact on local economies. Results
showed:
¾ The arts had an economic impact of $251 million in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania for 1997 (The economic and social impact of the not-forprofit arts community on Allegheny County and the city of Pittsburgh,
1998).
¾ In 2000, Tampa Bay found the arts impacted the economy to the tune
of $402 million and accounted for 7,000 jobs (PricewaterhouseCoopers,
2001).
¾ For 2001 art and scientific organizations had an economic impact of
$1.083 billion in metropolitan Denver (Culture counts, 2002).
On the national level, a study recently released by the Americans for the Arts
states that America’s nonprofit arts industry generated $134 billion in
economic activity during 2000, including $53.2 billion in spending by nonprofit
arts organizations and $80.8 billion in event-related spending by arts
audiences across the nation (Americans for the Arts, 2003).
As the economic impact of the arts is based on regional characteristics, such
as the number and size of arts organizations in a particular city, each area
must be studied on an individual basis to obtain accurate estimates. In order
to investigate the economic impact of the arts in Jacksonville, the Northeast
Florida Center for Community Initiatives conducted a similar economic
impact study of a number of arts organizations located within Duval County.
Data from the organizations was used to provide estimates of the economic
impact of the arts on the local economy1.
1 In the following discussion we report on the economic impact only of the arts organizations
responding to the survey. No estimate can be given with regard to the overall economic influences in
the Jacksonville area over the past several years.
Page 6 of 26
METHOD
The Cultural Council Economic Impact surveys were distributed in the spring
of 2004 to 51 organizations in the Jacksonville area. Distribution of the survey
was split into two parts. The Cultural Council was responsible for distributing
and receiving surveys for 28 organizations who were part of their re-granting
program. The Cultural Council was able to make the survey required for
grant compliance for these 28 organizations, resulting in all 28 returning the
survey. The Center for Community Initiatives (CCI) was then responsible for
the distribution and collection of surveys from 23 additional organizations.
Several rounds of follow-up phone calls, e-mails and even personal visits were
conducted, resulting in responses from eight additional organizations. The
extensive follow-up effort on this survey was done to ensure a representative
sample of arts and cultural organizations in Jacksonville2. In all, 36
organizations participated in the survey, compared to 34 organizations last
year.
The terms respondents and organizations are used interchangeably
throughout this report. While reading it, therefore, it is important to keep in
mind that the report summarizes data for only 36 organizations, and thus
represents only a lesser portion of the overall impact of the Arts and Culture
Community in Jacksonville. Were we able to obtain such information on all
arts agencies, galleries, special events, arts groups, guilds, outside promoters,
and organizations within Jacksonville, the overall economic and social
impact would be significantly higher than reported here.
2 Of the 15 organizations that did not complete the survey, two maintained that the survey did not
apply to them, either because they were not involved in any shows or activities during the previous
fiscal year, or because the organization was not actively involved in public arts activities. Five
organizations indicated that they were too busy to complete the four-page survey, and another
indicated that they do not disclose income and expenditure information. The remaining seven
organizations failed to respond to the survey and follow-up efforts for reasons unknown.
Page 7 of 26
ORGANIZATIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS
The respondents represent a variety of cultural organizations in the
Jacksonville area; they vary in size, number of years in operation and cultural
discipline. Some are small nonprofit organizations that have no paid
employees, whereas others are large institutions with over 100 paid
employees and many more volunteers. Of those organizations reporting an
incorporation date, nearly 47 percent are well-established within the
community and have been in business for 20 or more years, whereas others
(27.8 percent) are less than 10 years old.
The types of organizations that responded to the survey encompass many
disciplines within the arts. When asked to self-describe their primary activities,
organizations reported most often in the categories of museum, theatre,
music and presenter. These accounted for three-quarters of all organizations.
Dance and educational activities were the next most commonly reported.
Organization Primary Type
Other, 8.4%
Historical/ Natural
Science, 2.8%
Museum, 19.4%
Educational 5.6%
Presenter, 19.4%
Theatre, 16.7%
Dance, 8.3%
Music, 19.4%
Page 8 of 26
ORGANIZATION SIZE
Clearly, there is a wide assortment of the types and sizes of organizations
sampled in this survey. To facilitate meaningful discussion of the results, the
respondents were broken down according to size, based on yearly income.
Organizations with annual operating revenues of more than $750,000 were
classified as Level One; those with income between $250,000 and $750,000
were classified as Level Two; and those with income less than $250,000 in a
fiscal year were classified as Level Three. Two organizations failed to
respond to the fiscal questions of the survey and as a result are not included
in figures based on financial data or organization size.
Organization Size by Annual Operating Income
Level One
(More than
$750,000),
26.5%
Level Three
(Less than
$250,000),
58.8%
Level Two
($250,000$750,000),
14.7%
Page 9 of 26
INCOME
Contributed Income
Over 79 percent of the organizations received funding from private or
membership contributions, although the amounts varied greatly among
them. Organizations reported varying levels of private contributions ranging
from $2,800 to over $1,350,000. The total amount of private contributions for
the organizations was just over $4,700,000. In addition, 65 percent of the
organizations received funding from corporate memberships or sponsorships.
Corporate funding ranged from $1,400 to over $800,000. When totaled, the
corporate funding accounted for more than $2,400,000.
Fifty percent of organizations received foundation grants ranging from $4,225
to over $300,000. Among the respondents, the total amount received from
foundation grants was more than $980,000.
Contributed Income
Dollar Amount
Private/Membership Contributions
$4,716,848
Corporate Memberships/Sponsorships
$1,983,259
Foundation Grants
TOTAL
$681,079
$7,381,186
Public Funding
Public funding through the Cultural Services Grant Program was received by
more than 70 percent of respondents, totaling close to $2.9 million. Just
under 18 percent of organizations received public funding from the
Jacksonville Children’s Commission. Those that obtained funding from this
source received amounts ranging from $2,100 to $6,000 and totaling $24,819.
Four organizations received funding from the Duval County School Board in
amounts from $15,000 to over $260,000, totaling $468,981. Two organizations
received funds through a license plate re-grant, with each organization
receiving $1,000.
Funding by federal agencies, such as the National Endowment for the Arts
(NEA) or the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), was a significant
source of income for two of the respondents. The two organizations that did
receive funding were awarded $171,860 and $825,972 respectively. No
organizations obtained funding from the Tourist Development Council or the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) during the reporting
year.
Page 10 of 26
The State of Florida provided funding to 32.4 percent of the respondents.
Organizations received from $1,000 to over $600,000, totaling more than $1
million.
In addition to the private and public funding specified on the survey, over 32
percent of the organizations received additional public funds from other
sources, such as the City of Jacksonville. Though no direct correlation can
be drawn from the amount the City gives to arts organizations and the
amount of economic impact, it should be noted that the City of Jacksonville
allocated approximately $4 million dollars to all arts organizations.
Of those who received other funds, more than half received less than $95,000
(seven). Four respondents received much larger amounts, ranging from over
$130,000 to more than $1.5 million. Overall, the organizations received more
than $2.5 million from other public funds.
Public Funding Sources
Dollar Amount
Cultural Services Grant
$2,895,359
Children’s Commission
$24,819
License Plate Re-Grant
$2,000
Tourist Development Council
$0
School Board
$468,981
Federal (NEA, NEH, etc.)
$997,832
State of Florida
$1,045,797
Other
$2,525,921
TOTAL
$7,960,709
Endowments
Fourteen respondents reported having an established endowment. While
the combined value of these endowments was more than $40 million, the
worth of each endowment varied greatly from $2,600 to well over $20 million.
Six of these organizations indicated that they generated income from their
endowments. The amounts of generated income varied from $779 to more
than $1.1 million.
Earned Revenue
In addition to private and public funding, another source of revenue for the
organizations was admission fees. Twenty-four organizations (70.6 percent)
Page 11 of 26
generated income through admissions. Those who profited from admissions
earned from $1,500 to over $2.4 million, with two organizations reporting
admissions revenue over $1 million. The respondents earned a total of $6.6
million in admissions.
Many respondents (58.8 percent) also received revenue from contracted
services, such as rental income or performance fees. The amounts earned
from this source ranged from $828 to over $748,000. Of those which received
income from contracted services, 14 reported earning less than $100,000.
Four others earned more than $195,000. Total income earned through
contracted services was over $2.2 million, up from $1.9 million last year.
Approximately 44 percent of organizations generated revenue from tuition,
class, or workshop fees, earning between $500 and $236,949. Fifty percent of
the respondents earned revenue by auxiliary or guild fundraisers. Most of
these organizations (10) earned less than $40,000; however, five organizations
earned between $100,000 and $625,000.
Income from interest or investments was also a source of revenue for several
organizations (47.1 percent). In general, these organizations earned less than
$40,000 from investments; however, three organizations earned between
$110,000 and $1.14 million.
Restricted Income
Twenty-six percent of respondents received restricted income for capital
purchases. Nearly 78 percent of these organizations (seven) received more
than $200,000, with two organizations receiving well over $1 million each.
Overall, income for capital purchases totaled nearly than $16.7 million, an
increase from last year’s $13.5 million.
Other Income
Four respondents reported earnings through other methods. These
organizations indicated earnings ranging from more than $1,700 for souvenir
sales to over $3 million from operational income.
Page 12 of 26
Source of Income
Dollar Amount
Admissions
$6,669,462
Contracted Services
$2,206,802
Tuition, Class, or Workshop Fees
$770,667
Auxiliary or Guild Fundraisers
$1,809,847
Interest or Investments
$1,897,318
Restricted Income
$16,692,370
Other
$3,406,996
TOTAL
$33,453,462
Sources of Income
Restricted
Income,
34.2%
Contributed
Income,
15.1%
Earned
Income,
34.4%
Public
Funding,
16.3%
Page 13 of 26
EMPLOYEES, VOLUNTEERS AND INTERNS
Types of Positions
Nineteen percent of the organizations reported employing performers during
the previous year. Level Three groups with performers averaged three per
organization, whereas Level One groups averaged 14. No Level Two
organizations reported employing performers during the year.
Most organizations reported administrative positions including directors,
managers and coordinators. Only eight Level Three organizations indicated
that they employed no administrators. Level Three and Level Two
organizations tended to employ between one and five administrators,
whereas Level One organizations employed an average of 11.
Two-thirds of respondents employed support staff. Those that did not were
exclusively Level Three organizations. Of those with support staff, Level Two
and Level Three organizations reported employing seven or fewer. Level One
organizations with support staff employed significantly more, averaging 40.
More than 72 percent of organizations employed independent contractors
during the last fiscal year. The number of contractors varied according to
the size of the organization. Level Three organizations employed an average
of four independent contractors, Level Two organizations employed an
average of 16, and Level One organizations averaged 13 contractors.
About 28 percent of respondents employed other individuals, such as
journalists, laborers, docents, molders and historians. Most of these
organizations hired fewer than 20 employees in this category; however, one
Level One organization employed 47.
Employees, Volunteers and Interns
Amount
Full-time Employees
364
Part-time Employees
392
Independent Contractors
252
Volunteers
9,639
Interns
96
TOTAL
10,743
Page 14 of 26
Full and part-time Employees
Two-thirds of the respondents reported that they had paid full-time
employees. Eighty-three percent of those with paid full-time employees
reported having 25 or fewer full-time employees. The majority of Level Three
organizations had no full-time employees and all Level Two organizations
employed eight or fewer. Level One organizations tended to employ more
than 10 people and as many as 116.
Part-time employment patterns were similar to full-time employment patterns.
More than three-fourths of the respondents had part-time employees. Eightyseven percent of those with part-time staff had fewer than 25 total. Thirty-five
percent of the Level Three organizations had part-time employees and
tended to employ fewer than four of this type of employee. Level Two
organizations tended to employ four or fewer individuals on a part-time basis.
Level One organizations employed part-time individuals and the majority
employed more than 10 and as many as 151 part-time workers.
Volunteers
The number of volunteers was noticeably higher than the number of paid
employees. Ninety-four percent of the organizations reported having
volunteers. These organizations reported having from 5 to over 2,300
volunteers, with the number of volunteered hours ranging from 50 to over
30,000. Number of volunteers varied according to organization size, with
Level Three organizations reporting an average of 47 volunteers (down from
82 the previous year), Level Two organizations averaging 481 each, and
Level One organizations averaging 683 volunteers per group. The number of
board members tended to vary according to organization size. Level Three
organizations averaged 13 board members, while Level Two organizations
averaged 21, and Level One organizations averaged 28. A total of over
180,500 hours were volunteered overall.
Interns
One-third of respondents indicated that they had unpaid volunteer interns,
while only two organizations reported having a paid intern. Level One
organizations tended to utilize interns more often than Level Two and Level
Three organizations.
Page 15 of 26
PERFORMANCES AND ADMISSIONS
Performances
All of the survey respondents had events during the past year. The majority
(88.9 percent) of those reported having fewer than 60 events. Three Level
One organizations hosted more than 60 events, with one Level One hosting
as many as 2,484. Many of the respondents hosted multiple performances of
their events. Level Two and Three organizations tended to host under 100
performances, while Level One groups were more likely to host over 100.
Admissions
Sixty-nine percent of organizations had some full-price admissions within the
past year. The Level Three organizations with full-price admissions averaged
slightly less than 3,400 full-price admissions. Level Two organizations ranged
from 600 admissions to more than 100,000. Level One organizations had the
most full-price admissions, with an average of 85,000 admissions, and
reported individual totals over 300,000.
Thirty-five percent of respondents offered reduced-price admissions.
Throughout the year, Level One, Level Two and Level Three organizations
offered from six to over 37,000 reduced-price admissions.
Eighty-eight percent of respondents offered free admissions. Level Three
organizations offered an average of 910 free admissions, down from 1,745
reported last year. Level Two organizations had an average of 12,000 free
admissions, up from under 9,000 last year. Level One organizations offered
more than 40,000 free admissions, down from 54,610 reported a year ago,
but on track with the 40,000 they reported in 2001. This difference may be
due to more performances or showings with larger audiences.
Admission Type
Full-price
Reduced-price
Free
TOTAL
Attendance
1,002,210
79,391
406,927
1,488,528
Page 16 of 26
EXPENSES
Personnel Expenses
The organizations surveyed spent over $16.8 million on full and part-time
personnel. Of those with paid employees, Level Three organizations
averaged more than $85,000 per organization on personnel expenses;
whereas Level Two organizations averaged close to $180,000 and Level One
organizations averaged over $1.7 million.
A total of more than $2 million, a significant amount of money, was spent on
contracted and outsourced personnel for 79 percent of the organizations.
Of those, the amount spent varied with the size of the organization, with Level
Three organizations spending the least (approximately $31,000 per
organization) and Level One organizations spending the most (averaging
$173,000 per organization). Level Two organizations spent an average of
over $67,000 per organization.
Personnel Expenses
Full-time and Part-time
Contracted and Outsourced
TOTAL
Dollar Amount
$16,871,053
$2,012,597
$18,883,650
Operating Expenses
Rental expenses were broken down into space, equipment and other rental
expenses. Space rental was the most commonly reported rental expense,
incurred by more than 61 percent of the respondents. Forty-seven percent of
Level Three organizations reported space rental expenses, compared to all
Level Two organizations and two-thirds of the Level One organizations. Level
Three organizations tended to spend less money on space rental fees than
Level Two or Level One organizations.
Respondents spent just over $846,000 on space rental, which represents an
increase of $300,000 over 2002 figures. One-third of respondents reported
equipment rental expenses. Level One organizations were the most likely to
rent equipment (66.7 percent). Level Two organizations tended to spend less
than $1,500, whereas Level One organizations tended to spend upwards of
$3,000, and as much as $25,000. A total of over $97,000 was spent on
equipment rentals. Five organizations reported rental expenses other than
those for space or equipment, totaling over $18,000.
Page 17 of 26
Eighty percent of respondents spent money on supplies and materials,
totaling close to $1.9 million. Most Level Two and all Level Three organizations
spent less than $30,000 on supplies, whereas most Level One organizations
spent more than $30,000.
Most respondents had utilities and telephone expenses, although three Level
Three and one Level Two organization reported no expenses in this area. The
Level Three organizations that reported these expenses all spent less than
$14,000. Level Two organizations spent between $1,600 and $19,000. Level
One organizations tended to spend more than $15,000 in this area, and as
much as $447,000. Total expenses for utilities and telephone service were
over $1.2 million.
More than 85 percent of respondents had postage and shipping expenses,
totaling over $227,000. Of these, each Level Three organization paid an
average of $1,500, and Level Two and Level One organizations paid
averages of just over $3,200 and $23,000, respectively.
Over $233,000 was spent on travel expenses, mostly by Level One
organizations. Twenty-one percent of Level Three organizations had travel
expenses, whereas 80 percent of Level Two and 100 percent of Level One
organizations had expenditures in this area. Of those with travel expenses,
Level Three organizations averaged close to $5,900 (raised by the small
number of Level Three organizations that traveled and one organization that
spent upwards of $17,000), whereas Level Two and Level One organizations
averaged more than $1,700 and $22,600, respectively.
Insurance expenses constituted an important portion of the budget for 85
percent of organizations. Level Three organizations generally spent less than
$10,000 on insurance. Level Two organizations spent between $1,000 and
$13,000. Level One organizations spent significantly more, from $20,000 to as
much as $220,000. A total of more than $753,000 was spent on insurance.
Fundraising expenses were reported by one-half of the respondents, totaling
over $991,000. Level Three organizations with fundraising expenses spent an
average of $5,700. Level Two organizations reported fundraising expenses
averaging $38,000. Level One organizations with fundraising expenses spent
the most, averaging over $165,000 per organization, with one respondent
spending over $546,000.
More than half of the respondents (56 percent) had other operating
expenses, such as maintenance fees, consulting fees, printing fees,
communications, dues and subscriptions, and exhibition expenses. These
other expenses totaled $1.65 million. Of those with other operating
Page 18 of 26
expenses, Level Three organizations averaged $12,000, Level Two
organizations averaged $22,000 and Level One organizations averaged
$245,000.
Operating Expenses
Space Rental
Dollar Amount
$846,263
Equipment Rental
$97,808
Other Rental Expenses
$18,909
Supplies and Materials
$1,897,333
Utilities and Telephone
$1,270,678
Postage and Shipping
$251,840
Travel
$233,799
Insurance
$753,064
Fundraising Expenses
$991,078
Other Operating Expenses
$1,659,084
TOTAL
$8,019,856
Marketing and Promotional Expenses
The majority of the respondents (82.4 percent) had advertising expenses. Of
these, Level Three organizations spent an average of $6,000 (up from $3,300
last year) and Level Two organizations spent an average of $12,500 (down
from $22,000 last year). Level One organizations spent significantly more on
advertising, averaging $108,000 with amounts as high as $369,000. The total
spent on advertising was over $1 million.
Forty-four percent of the organizations had promotional expenses. Most
organizations with these expenses spent less than $40,000, with the exception
of two Level One organizations. These respondents spent significantly more,
approximately $145,000 and $687,000. The total spent on promotions was
over $942,000.
Page 19 of 26
One-quarter of respondents had other marketing expenses, such as food
and entertainment, totaling over $467,000. These expenses ranged greatly
from nearly $3,500 to over $350,000.
Marketing and Promotional Expenses
Dollar Amount
Advertising
$1,026,703
Promotions
$942,030
Other Marketing Expenses
$467,334
TOTAL
$2,436,067
Program Expenses
Seventy-nine percent of respondents reported having incurred program
expenses during the year. As with other categories, program expenses
varied tremendously among the organizational levels. Level Three groups
spent an average of $18,175, compared to Level Two and Level One groups
which spent an average of $80,870 and $372,681, respectively.
Capital Expenditures/Purchases
Nearly 65 percent of the organizations had capital expenditures. Nearly all
Level One organizations reported expenditures, while only four Level Two and
15 Level Three organizations reported making capital purchases. The 15
Level Three organizations averaged $10,000 in this category. The four Level
Two groups spent an average of $35,000. The eight Level One organizations
spent substantially more than the other levels (save one organization that
spent only $10,000) totaling over $14.3 million.
One Level One organization, the Jacksonville Zoo, completed the new
Range of the Jaguar exhibit, an extremely large capital construction project,
at an expense of nearly $8.5 million for the fiscal year. This level of expense
represents a one-time occurrence and may slightly over-estimate the trends
in overall financial impact when compared to previous years.
Other Expenses
Approximately two-thirds of the respondents listed additional expenses, such
as outside services and depreciation. These expenses totaled over $1.4
million, excluding re-grant funding allocated by the Cultural Council.
Page 20 of 26
Total Expenses
Dollar Amount
Personnel
$18,883,650
Capital Expenditures
$14,326,092
Operating Expenses
$8,019,856
Program Expenses
$3,577,557
Advertising/Promotions
$2,436,067
Other
$1,445,237
TOTAL
$48,688,459
Expenses
Other, 3.0%
Advertising/
Promotions, 5.0%
Program
Expenses, 7.3%
Personnel, 38.8%
Operating
Expenses, 16.5%
Capital
Expenditures,
29.4%
Page 21 of 26
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION
Within the study period, more than 1.44 million people participated in the arts
and cultural activities in Duval County. This number is almost two times the
number of people living in Jacksonville and the Jacksonville Beaches area.
Over 32 percent of these admissions were on a free or reduced price basis.
An interesting illustration of the importance of the arts in a local area is to
compare the attendance at arts activities to attendance at local sports
events. Jacksonville is home to three professional sports teams: the
Jacksonville Jaguars of the National Football League, the Jacksonville Suns
baseball team of the Southern League, and the Jacksonville Barracudas of
the World Hockey Association 23. In the past year, more people attended
arts and cultural events (1,488,528) than attended Jaguar, Suns, and
Barracuda games combined (895,236) 4. This suggests that the arts are an
attraction that draws a significant number of people and serves as an
essential local activity.
Yearly Attendance at Jacksonville Events
1,600,000
1,488,528
Number of Persons
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
428,072
400,000
359,979
107,185
200,000
0
Arts and Cultural
Events
Jaguars Games
Suns Games
Barracudas Games
3 For 2004-2005, the Barracudas will move into the World Hockey Association, a larger hockey league.
4 Figures for the Jacksonville Jaguars reflect total attendance for 2003-2004 home games. Figures for
the Jacksonville Suns reflect total attendance for 2003 home games. Figures for the Jacksonville
Barracudas reflect total attendance for 2003-2004 home games.
Page 22 of 26
In the past fiscal year, the Jacksonville cultural organizations surveyed in this
study had a total income of over $48.7 million and expenses of just over $48.6
million. Most of the $48.6 million spent was infused into the local economy,
with the exception of money spent on travel and insurance premiums. When
these costs are subtracted, a total of over $47.7 million was spent locally5.
The economic impact of money spent locally increases when the multiplier
concept is applied. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) of the U. S.
Department of Commerce has developed a method from which regional
multipliers can be estimated. Based on this system, local economists have
suggested a final spending multiplier of 2.0 for funds spent by cultural
organizations. This means that every dollar of spending in a local economy
by an arts organization would generate another dollar of spending over time.
Using this final spending multiplier of 2.0, spending by only these 36 cultural
organizations6 in Jacksonville is estimated to have had an economic impact
of over $95.4 million on the local economy in the period recorded in this
study.
The arts and culture industry in Duval County represents one of the major
economic influences within our community. As an “industry,” the arts are a
major employer; as an investment, the arts represent perhaps the best return
on the dollar. If 36 providers represent over $95.4 million in direct and indirect
economic support of the community, the impact of all of these cultural
activities must be staggering. Given this influence, Jacksonville would be well
served to increase support for the arts and culture.
5 It is important to consider that the current study did not include ancillary spending by audiences,
such as dining, lodging, parking, babysitters, and transportation in its estimate of economic impact. In
addition, the current study did not assess the tax revenue created by cultural organizations through
income and social security taxes, and state taxes collected on sales such as concessions or gift shops.
6 It is also important to note that many providers of events and services (including out-of-town concert
promoters, private galleries, City and Beaches sponsored events, etc) were not included in this survey.
Page 23 of 26
REFERENCES
Arts and Economic Prosperity. (2003). Americans for the Arts.
Cameron, B. (2000). A letter to the President. American Theatre, 17, 4.
Culture Counts: The economic and social impact of Metro Denver culture.
(2002). Colorado Business Committee for the Arts.
Economic activity of Missouri’s non-profit arts industry: Considering the ripple
effect. (1998). Missouri Arts Council.
The economic impact of the arts on New York City and New York State.
(1997). Executive Summary, Alliance for the Arts.
Economic impact of the non-profit arts and cultural industry in Connecticut.
(1997). Connecticut Commission on the Arts.
Economic impact of Oregon’s non-profit arts sector. (2000). Western States
Arts Federation.
The economic and social impact of the not-for-profit arts community on
Allegheny County and the City of Pittsburgh. (1998). The Pittsburgh
Cultural Trust.
Fulton, W. (1999). The pov-prof mystique: Neighborhoods with a mix of poor
people and professionals. Governing, 13, 62.
Giving and volunteering in the United States: Key findings. (2001).
Independent Sector.
Hansberry, J. (2000). Denver’s scientific and cultural facilities district: A case
study in regionalism. Government Finance Review, 16(6), 13.
Mattern, M. (2001). Arts and community development in Santa Ana,
California: The promise and the reality. Journal of Arts Management,
Law and Society, (30) 4, 301.
Moses, N. (2001). Have a plan, and make the most of arts and culture.
Public Management, 83 (11).
Page 24 of 26
Neiman, J. (1994). Jobs, the arts, and the economy: The Arts are a sound
investment. Public Management, September, 13-18.
Perry, J. M., & Woods, L. A. (1998). The economic impact of the Museum of
Science and History on the Jacksonville MSA.
Perry, J. M. (1990). The economic impact of a National Football League
team on the Northeast Florida economy.
PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP. (2001). The big business of the Arts: Economic
impact analysis of the Arts on the Tampa Bay Area. Tampa Bay
Business Committee for the Arts.
Singer, M. (2000). Culture works: Cultural resources as economic
development tools. Public Management, 82(8).
Stronge, W. (2004). Economic impact of Florida’s arts and cultural industry.
Florida Cultural Alliance.
Sullivan, J. J., & Wassall, G. H. (1997). The economic impact of the arts, sports
and entertainment industries on the city of Hartford. Hartford
Downtown Council.
Wells, J. (April 15, 2002). The art of business: Jacksonville’s cultural scene isn’t
forgotten when trying to lure new companies. Florida Times-Union: First
Business Section.
Page 25 of 26
APPENDIX: PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS
Atlantic Beach Experimental Theatre
Beaches Area Historical Society
Beaches Fine Arts Series
Cathedral Arts Project
City Kids Art Factory
Cultural Council of Greater Jacksonville
Cummer Museum of Art and Gardens
Downtown Vision, Inc (DVI)
First Coast Wind Ensemble
FCCJ- Wilson Center for the Arts
The Florida Ballet
Florida Theatre Performing Arts Center
Friday Musicale
Jacksonville Centre of the Arts
Jacksonville Children's Chorus
Jacksonville Masterworks Chorale
Jacksonville Museum of Modern Art
Jacksonville Symphony Association
Jacksonville Zoological Gardens
Karpeles Manuscript Library Museum
Mandarin Museum and Historical Society
Museum of Science and History (MOSH)
Players-by-the-Sea
Ritz Theatre and LaVilla Museum
River City Playhouse
Riverside Avondale Preservation
Riverside Fine Arts Association
St. Johns River City Band
Shoshannah Arts
Springfield Arts and Living
Stage Aurora
Teal Sound Youth Arts Organization
Theatre Jacksonville
Theatreworks
UNF Fine Arts Center
WJCT Public Broadcasting
Page 26 of 26