Denver: There are thousands upon thousands of arts organization across the country – local theatre groups, art exhibits, musical performances in great halls, school programs – all adding to the richness, diversity, vibrancy, and economic health of America. But who represents their collective interests, speaks to their importance, and advocates on their behalf? Well, that is left to a nonprofit organization called Americans for the Arts. And with us this evening is their President and CEO, Robert Lynch. Good evening, Bob, and welcome to The Business of Giving!
Robert: Hi. It’s great to be here.
Denver: Give us a brief history of Americans for the Arts and an overview of the work that you do.
Robert: Americans for the Arts was founded with a different name back in 1960, and it grew out of a movement of local arts councils, local arts agencies. There was one in 1947; that one came into being because a returning veteran from World War II wanted to see things happening in his own hometown of Quincy, Illinois. That one grew to some 100 and 4 state arts agencies in 1960, and they formed this national service organization way back then: the Associated Arts Councils of America.
It had three goals. It’s “Let’s get more local arts agencies to happen here in America!” And today, there are 5,000 of them all across the country. “What about a national arts council?” they said, and so our organization was the lobbying entity to create the National Endowment for the Arts in 1965. And then there should be more of these state arts agencies because they all fund the arts…those three levels of government. And so there was a plank put in in the middle of the night in the appropriations enabling bill for the National Endowment for the Arts that said “Any state that had a state arts agency could get matching money.” So within a year, the 4 became 50.
Denver: It’s funny how those things happen.
Robert: Yes, absolutely. So that was the beginning of our organization. And then over the years—I’ve actually been there now for 32 years, amazingly, as of two days ago—we did six mergers: a merger or two with organizations that were focused on the arts and the business world; arts and individual philanthropists; and then also state arts advocates and arts education organizations. We brought them all together, and it became Americans for the Arts back in 1996. That’s who we are.
Today, our work is to focus: one-half of the work on serving the needs of those 5,000 local arts councils who themselves fund and serve the 100,000 nonprofit arts organizations out there. And the other half of the work, with a 501(c)(4) political wing of our organization, is to lead the advocacy effort for federal, state, and local government support for the arts.
Denver: You’re sort of three organizations rolled in one. You have the 501(c)(3) with the members, and you have the lobbying piece with the 501(c)(4). But you’re also a political action committee, and you support candidates who are favourably disposed to the arts. So, let me take that last one for a moment. What do you anticipate from a Trump administration in this regard? And how do you think it’s going to differ from the last eight years under Obama?
Robert: The work that we do with the political action committee, it’s called the Arts Action Fund PAC. The work is to basically look at leadership at the government level, particularly House and Senate, and find pro-arts– either candidates or incumbents– and reward them to the extent that we can. And so we probably do in a best election cycle: a hundred gifts, which is a lot. And the gifts are simply to recognize that they have recognized that the arts are important. What we see now with the Trump administration coming in, and what’s important to realize is that there’s the presidential cabinet and the administrative part. There’s also a very different House and Senate profile, and they all have to work together. The Republicans themselves have differing points of view.
So, we have people who are not supportive of the arts for a variety of reasons. The biggest one has nothing to do with the arts. They don’t think federal government should be involved. It’s a philosophical issue. And then for other reasons, others do support the arts. We did a survey with The Washington Post of Mr. Trump’s feelings a few months before the campaign ended—we actually got all the presidential candidates to talk about their arts positions—and his position was that he likes the arts; he’s supportive of the arts; he wants to be, he said, “an advocate for the arts.” But as far as decision-making, he thought maybe that was something he would leave to Congress, so there’s that split again. And as far as decision-making for things like education, he thought that should be a state or a local issue. So it’s unformed at this point what he will actually do, but the good news is that he’s not against the arts.
And other people who he has listened to in this campaign were adversaries in the past, like Newt Gingrich, for example. But even Mr. Gingrich, we had a conversation a couple of years ago, was much more interested in the arts at that particular time as something that was good for the nation and good for communities, and maybe the government could be involved. So we’re hopeful that there will be some positive energy. We know that what the arts can do around issues like jobs, economic impact, community development, infrastructure are things that the Trump administration has already said they want to focus on early.
Denver: Talk to that a little bit, if you would. What is the economic case that you would make to potential donors and to the government on why they should support the arts?
Robert: The truth and what people know is very far apart. Because the arts are often seen as something that’s poor, that has to be subsidized, that has to be a charity. And in fact, the government itself– the Department of Commerce– pegs the nonprofit and for-profit arts in America as a $704 billion industry, 4.1% of gross domestic product.
Denver: It’s a lot bigger than many other industries that we would think were bigger.
Robert: Absolutely. Bigger than tourism itself.
Denver: Bigger than construction.
Robert: Bigger than construction. And that figure is something, I would venture to say that almost nobody knows, and certainly nobody knows the comparison that you just made to other industries. So that is important, and it’s important from both a domestic point of view, which the Trump administration is very interested in, and an international commerce point of view because we are, as a nation, exporting things that can be exported. And we’re trying to attract people here, and tourism is something to be attracted. So, it’s an interesting case.
Now, when you go to the nonprofit organizations, which is about 100,000 of about 700,000 organizations that we can see are art-centric organizations… those 100,000—we did a study five years ago (the new arts and economic impact study will come out this summer), but the last one showed that the nonprofit arts in America were a $134 billion industry– a huge chunk– and that they supported 3.1 million jobs in America, directly and indirectly. We’ve done that survey every four years, and it keeps increasing. So it’s a growth industry; it’s got big economic numbers, and it is something that mayors, for example, from an economic point of view, continually invest in. Those are the biggest government investors– local government money. The mayors have a 15 or 17 point plank for the new President of the United States, and they have taken 2 of those planks to be about the arts because they feel it’s so important for the economic and community development growth.
Denver: Digging a little deeper on that, how are the arts funded in the United States? What’s the breakdown in that source of funding?
Robert: Every arts organization is different, and they will tell you this if they hear my numbers. But when we looked at, and also the National Endowment for the Arts separately looked at, the almost 100,000 nonprofit arts organizations out there. It looked like that about 60% of the money today is from earned income. Now, that’s a big change from 25 or 30 years ago; it was much less back then. But before the National Endowment for the Arts, it was much higher because there was no money coming in. So the 60% is earned income, so that means they’re small businesses. They’re out there actually generating income from ticket sales or restaurants that they might have as part of their bigger institutions; 30% is from the private sector, mostly individuals–about 20% of them–and followed by foundations at about 5%, and corporations at about 5%.
What’s interesting about that is that that’s a lot less than people think. People think that the corporations and the foundations are doing a lot more. I’m often asked to speak in Europe about this. They want to follow the American model. They think the American model is 100% corporate because corporations have been so good on getting their logos on everything. So that’s the second chunk, the private chunk.
And then the last piece is about 9% government– mostly local government, then state government, which is almost $.5 billion in a given year, and then finally federal. And federal, if you looked at everything that the federal government invests in, it could be up close to $2 billion, but that includes the Smithsonian and the Kennedy Center and our national treasures, as well as even pieces of the military, and so on. If you just look at what is given out by the federal government to the rest of the nation, that’s under $150 Million. There’s the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for Humanities on top of that.
In my opinion, it ought to be at least $1 billion that the arts should get…we have a national treasure and a contributor to the economy here in the arts, in the nonprofit arts, and it’s proven that we ought to invest in it.
Denver: Yes and that’s about 46 cents per capita, right?
Robert: For the arts, yes.
Denver: And you’ve been looking to get it up to a buck.
Robert: A dollar per capita is something that I think is reasonable. People think of that as not too big of an investment out of their pockets, but it’s also something that our Action Fund members—we have 300,000 of the political Action Fund members—have adopted as something that they believe in and think we should be pushing for.
So, we have several different positions. Right now, when all of the national arts service organizations, we’ll go on National Arts Advocacy Day to ask for money from the new administration. They will be asking for what we already have, which is about $150 million. They will aspire to a dollar per capita, which would be more like $350 Million. And in my opinion, it ought to be at least $1 billion that the arts should get. The reason for that is the question you just asked about what’s the impact, and the impact is we have a national treasure and a contributor to the economy here in the arts, in the nonprofit arts, and it’s proven that we ought to invest in it.
The arts organizations are driven by mission and passion, which is why it’s really hard to put them out of business. They have to lose everything in order to go out of business because they will fight to survive, and I think that’s great. They’ll fight to bring what their message is… and their art form is… across to a public as long as somebody will walk in the door, and I think that’s a great strength in America, a freedom of expression strength. We have lots of opportunity to hear from these passionate people.
Denver: Yes. Nice return on investment. Well, what would you say, Bob, is the state of the arts in America today? What are the strengths? What’s going well? And what are some of your challenges that keep you up at night?
Robert: A big strength of the arts is that from 50 years ago, we have seen a lot of growth that has created more access to the arts for more Americans. Now, the good news is that that growth creates that access. The tough news, the challenge is: that that growth creates more competition. And there aren’t endless dollars coming to the arts. We think that the 100,000 nonprofits collectively are about $60 billion, if you pull all their budgets together. And the economic impact comes from those budgets and what other people spend when they come to town to see something. So, the challenge is helping those organizations do better. And what the federal money is, is not subsidy in my opinion; it’s a little bit of leverage money. It’s incentive money.
Our model in America is unlike any other in the world. The rest of the world has much bigger arts budgets and the organizations, however, in my opinion, are less entrepreneurial because they get subsidized– in some cases, up to maybe 60% – 70%. In our country, the federal subsidy is less than one-tenth of 1%. But it’s important because that money comes in, and it leverages the state money, and that collectively leverages the local government money, and that leverages the private money, and that adds up to about 40%.
Denver: Yes, it’s a lot of multipliers there.
Robert: A lot of multipliers. And then the 60% earned is people voting with their pay check. So, we have a model that’s mixed. Its growth; it’s not driven by the economy, though. We’ve been talking about economic issues. The arts organizations are driven by mission and passion, which is why it’s really hard to put them out of business. They have to lose everything in order to go out of business because they will fight to survive, and I think that’s great. They’ll fight to bring what their message is… and their art form is… across to a public as long as somebody will walk in the door, and I think that’s a great strength in America, a freedom of expression strength. We have lots of opportunity to hear from these passionate people. But the challenge for them is: eventually, they would like to have a retirement. The artists would like to have a decent income without having to work somewhere else. That’s, I think, an obligation of government– federal state and local– to help with that. Not to do it for them! But the incentive could be a little bigger.
According to the Conference Board, the arts were one of the key things in the evolution of business leaders of any kind that help them be more creative. They also said creativity is the number one thing that the business community is still looking for in America.
Denver: Yes, for sure. I think it also lends to a lot of the diversity in the sector when you have it spread across so many different people and places. Let’s turn to education for a minute. We had the President of the Siemens Foundation on the show a couple of weeks ago, and we talked about the importance of STEM – Science, Technology, Engineering and Math. But you’re an advocate of STEAM. Tell us the importance of the letter “A” and what you’re doing to advocate for that additional letter.
Robert: Great. So that’s a wonderfully catchy phrase that we came up with, and we need a lot of them. But the concept of STEAM is simply this: STEM is great. We need science, technology, engineering, math – the practical skills. We need them. At the same time, our competitive edge worldwide is the creativity of the individual American and the American education community. Dan Pink, who may have been on the show at one point… we had him as a speaker once… talked about the fact that every other large country in the world– China and India– they’re going to produce more engineers, 10 times as many engineers as we can produce. But why do people want the American engineer? Because they’re not just going to follow a pathway that’s been laid out or that’s expected. They’re going to be a little more creative. And where did that come from? Somewhere in there, according to the Conference Board, the arts were one of the key things in the evolution of business leaders of any kind that help them be more creative. And in fact, the Conference Board also said: creativity is the number one thing that the business community is still looking for in America. So we have this need, I think, for more creative workers, but we continually ignore the one thing that would be the best producer of that… the arts.
So the idea is to let people know that the arts are important for that and that STEM gets even better if you add the “A” word. It becomes powerful. It becomes STEAM. And to that end, there is now a STEAM caucus in the United States Congress, and that caucus looks at the idea of finding ways to get an arts agenda into elementary schools or high schools or colleges as really important. And the STEAM caucus was instrumental in helping the new law that President Obama signed earlier this year. It was the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, now called the Every Student Succeeds Act.
Denver: Right. That took the place of No Child Left Behind.
Robert: And it made some major changes beneficial to the arts in the new law. In the old law, the arts were considered a core subject, but they were not tested and therefore, in many cases, not rewarded with money. The schools chose not to go with the arts because they didn’t think it helped the possibilities of getting additional money coming in from feds and states. The new law removed disincentives like that and reinforced that the arts were really important. There may be a dozen points in there that are helpful to the arts today that we hope now state and local leaders will pay attention to and do some restoration or some new creative addition of the arts to curricula.
Denver: Well, congratulations on getting some of those art-friendly provisions included in the law. We always hear that students deeply engaged in the arts do better in school. What’s some of the latest research on that?
Robert: There are a lot of different studies that show, not necessarily nationally but from smaller chunks of the population, that the inclusion of the arts makes kids want to come to school, first of all, and then stay there. That when the arts are introduced into other, let’s say STEM areas as part of that learning, that kids pay attention more and learn better, and the outcomes are: better educated and more graduation rates. You take an all-arts school like the Duke Ellington School down in Washington, D.C., and it’s got a 99% graduation rate; 98% of them go on to college. So there’s evidence like that. And then SAT scores and things like that with arts added to it, we still see data that talks about—
Denver: I think I saw if you have four years of arts, your SAT scores are 100 points higher.
Robert: Exactly. So the evidence is everywhere. If somebody is completely opposed to supporting the arts, they might choose to denigrate the evidence because there isn’t necessarily one giant, hugely funded study. But any average person looking at the data would have to say the arts are a secret weapon here in America, and we just have to make that weapon a little less secret.
Denver: For sure. Let’s talk about business a little bit more. A real champion of business support for the arts has been David Rockefeller. In fact, you’ve created the David Rockefeller Lecture Series addressing this topic. What are the benefits of the arts to a company and its employees? And what are some of the outstanding examples of this?
Robert: So, let me just say a word about the Rockefellers first. Our own organization, one of the parent organizations of Americans for the Arts today, was actually the original one incubated in the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Nancy Hanks, who worked for the Rockefeller Brothers, became our chair and helped us with the lobbying efforts to create the National Endowment for the Arts, and then became the head of the National Endowment for the Arts. So there’s a history from one thread. And then, David Rockefeller also founded the Business Committee for the Arts, which we merged with Americans for the Arts. So we’ve got a long, wonderful history there.
When we look at businesses across America, we actually have a program that we created called the Partnership Movement to look at: what’s in it for business to support the arts. We know what’s in it for the arts if business supports them. The arts organizations have more resources to do good work, and we see the benefits in the community, and many businesses care a lot about the communities that they’re in. So they invest in the arts to make the community more livable, to attract people— businesses, as well as tourists.
But when we look at the businesses, we found many examples of where businesses are using the arts. Aetna, for example, has a number of employee arts programs. They have a choir; they have a jazz band; they have a number of visual arts and performing arts entities within their organization to make people want to be there and stay there and to make them feel creative and be creative. They invest continually in this because Aetna feels that it really works.
Another great example is the Kohler Corporation. They’re out in Wisconsin. We know Kohler. Every time we go into a restroom, we see their products there… the toilets and the sinks. But Herb Kohler, who runs and owns that company, took me around the plant, talked about this when I went out to visit them– that they’ve had for, I think, 40 years an Artist-in-Residence Program. They pay for an artist or two to come in over the year and to work there, right there, in the factory. What’s in it for the artist is that they get to work with big porcelain equipment and big metal equipment and make pieces of work that they wouldn’t have the capacity to do in their own studio. But what’s in it for Kohler is creativity in new product development, a joy and a pride among his workers, a lot of things that helps them with their own bottom line.
Now, there are hundreds of those kinds of stories. Electric companies using the arts to make their utilities look more palatable to the people in the community, or businesses doing and sponsoring things like arts festivals for community relations. Things that focus on employees and retention, and so on. And so, once again, it’s a very inexpensive way to help business, and it’s a great way for the arts organizations to expand their portfolios and their income.
Denver: You know, Bob, many people consider artists to be the original social entrepreneurs, but they just don’t seem to have access to the capital markets that other social entrepreneurs do. Is there anything that Americans for the Arts can do to help with this situation?
Robert: One of the things that would help with that situation is if we could find more funding sources, let’s say, foundations or corporations to invest some dollars in exactly what you’re talking about: investing some dollars that would then be granted to artists that are doing that kind of work. I know that that works because we incubated a program like that at Americans for the Arts a little over a decade ago called Animating Democracy. The idea behind Animating Democracy is “Are there artists out there (The answer is: Yes!) who can use their art to create dialogue that creates civic change, or something?” And with that program that we created– and was supported at the time by the Ford Foundation, supported for a decade– we searched and found hundreds of artists who do this kind of work really well, and funded many of them.
And what would happen is somebody—I just was with her yesterday, Liz Lerman, who is a dancer-choreographer– who takes her work and will go into a place like a factory or a prison or a conference of business leaders and will, through the work, get people to talk, to move, to think differently, and then plays it back over a period of time for them to actually make some decisions that result in change, whether it’s one person or an entire government or an entire factory. That’s the kind of thing that you’re talking about. Artists and art does that almost automatically in many cases, but there are some people that spend much more of their money on that. And what they’re doing is they’re spending their time and their energy and their own dollars on transformation as opposed to just decoration. So I’m excited about that, and I would love to see government or private sector or others take up that mantle again.
Denver: No doubt about it. I think that they can take those concepts and really connect them with the human experience like nobody else. You just wish that there was more of that being done. They’re the greatest storytellers that we have, and that is what sometimes is needed to make change. Speak a little bit to the challenges that so many artists face, and I’m not talking about the ones that have made it big. But there are so many other folks out there who are pursuing their craft; they’re honing their skills; they’re experimenting, and they’re taking risks. But they also have to survive and live. That can be pretty difficult to do, particularly around some of the big cities like San Francisco and New York and Washington where everything is so expensive, particularly housing. How do they manage? And what help is out there for them?
Robert: So, you asked me a little bit earlier about both Trump and Obama, and we talked about President-elect Trump, but not so much Obama. So interestingly with the Obama administration, the actual direct dollars, the National Endowment for the Arts funding kinds of mechanisms, did not change that much. But other things like health care for example, which is being looked at right now, there were planks in that that were to provide lower cost or affordable health care to people who had no health care and no money for health care, and that includes many artists and many people working in the arts industry. So that’s an example of some help. And whatever the new format becomes, my hope is that there will still be provisions that provide help to that kind of undercapitalized community.
Another thing that President Obama did was a jobs bill. There’s talk of a new jobs bill. And in that jobs bill, we were able to successfully push for $50 million that was used for job creation with artists in the arts industry. It should be $1 billion, but it was $50 million. It was something. Moving from that to the state and local levels, there’s more money there and particularly at the local levels. You see mayors paying attention to things like—this is boring to an artist’s ears—but zoning, through things that city government can do. Zoning, as an example, can make it easier for an artist to set up a live/ workspace someplace. Different kinds of tax incentives are being put in at the local level. Providence, Rhode Island did a great job of creating some tax incentives that attracted the arts community and artists to downtown Providence to be able to more efficiently and inexpensively do their art. And then the people in the city benefited from that.
So we see examples of this, whether it is something that puts more money in their pockets or helps make them more safe… these arts organizations, these entrepreneurial start-ups all around the country… and local government is paying a lot of attention to that.
Denver: Yes, I’ve always looked at art as sort of being an incubator for the gig economy. We’re all headed there eventually, and I think in paying close attention to it and getting the right programs in place, I think it’s going to inform everybody as the years go by. Are the traditional ways of delivering the arts, Bob, let’s say: buying a ticket to a concert hall for an 8:00 p.m. performance… are those declining? And if they are, what are some of the newer ways that the arts are being consumed?
Robert: One of the things that’s important to realize is that data often is for the aggregate arts, but when you break out different pieces of the arts, they deal with it differently. So, if you look at big data from the National Endowment for the Arts, it shows that people sitting in seats to consume music, theatre, dance– that number is going down, I think, every year and has for the last, I think, last decade. However, and you may take away from that that, let’s say, people are less interested in something like classical music. But then, if you go over and take a look at downloads of classical music, you see that it’s soaring.
Denver: Yes, all time high.
Robert: All-time high. And so, it’s really a marketing question versus a content question. People love the arts; they want more of the arts. Now, arts organizations themselves are looking at a variety of ways to deal with consumers getting that art, making it easier to sit in those seats at different times of day, for example, or less expensive opportunities. Or taking the art out to places, something like an orchestra playing in a baseball field. There are examples of that all across the country.
Denver: Yes, like watching an opera… Opera in the outfield, right?
Robert: Opera in the outfield, yes. And those kinds of opportunities create more of what I think the artists crave, which is human one-on-one contact. They want that. But at the same time, you are seeing different kinds of electronic—Metropolitan Opera putting a film of opera out across the country, and other kinds of variations of that out there. And I think we’re into a very creative phase right now where people are coming up with multiple platforms. Multiple platforms is the key. And I think what’s going to happen is that it’s not only going to make—it starts off by trying to take what the arts organization already has and finding ways to make it more accessible. What’s now going to happen is that the delivery mechanisms themselves are going to affect the art, and we’ll have new ideas and new different ways of delivery. So it’s an exciting time. Unfortunately, some organizations will be caught in that transition, and that’s unfortunate.
Denver: Yes. That’s true with every industry right now. Technology is really changing everything. Are Americans’ taste in the arts changing, whereby some art forms are gaining in popularity, while others are slipping a bit?
Robert: Yes. I think that happens all the time. We just did a study of 3,020 individuals, a consumer public poll with the Ipsos Company. We did it just around Christmas time, and several things fascinated me about it. One is that about 50% of the American public now says that they get a large part of their enjoyment by actually making art, by doing it themselves– whether that’s quality or not. That’s kind of a return to the old parlor pianos of the 1880s. So that’s an example. Another example is that for the first time, we are seeing more people engaging art outside of a traditional platform and in places like parks, on subways– public art in public spaces in the cities. And that data was much larger than I had expected, actually. And we’re seeing sort of a different way of consuming going on there. As far as different specific art forms – music, theatre, dance – that changes all the time, so one year, it’s one thing; one year, it’s another.
But one of the things I’m hearing in New York, because there’s a conference that goes on here by a colleague organization called Arts Presenters, that has all of the people or many of the people who present the arts – music, theatre, dance – anything that performs, anything that moves, anything that sounds like something, they present it…. And then all of the people who are the agents and the artists who produce that. And I’ve gone to this for 42 years, and this was the biggest and most exciting one ever. So I think that there’s a lot of hope out there for what’s happening. But what was also great was to see all of the different multiple platforms that they were offering. They were not just performance, but teaching and electronic delivery… just different, creative ways of having the arts come into people’s lives. I found it exciting.
Denver: I bet you did. Well, let me close with this, and you’ve already touched on this. But one of the most important days for you and the arts community every year is Arts Advocacy Day, and this year, it’s going to be held on March 20 and 21– which actually sounds more like two days to me, Bob. What happens that day? And how can people get involved?
Robert: You know, it’s funny. Arts Advocacy Day used to be just one day. Now, it’s four days. So the two days before the 20th, we have all of the arts education leaders together in one. And then a really wonderful thing: all of the emerging leaders. We do a partnership thing with the American University, so young leaders and people in college programs come into town.
And then on the 20th, we have what’s called the Nancy Hanks Lecture. Darren Walker from the Ford Foundation will be our speaker this year, so we’re very excited about that. We’ll get a couple of thousand people in the Kennedy Center. It’s an inspirational and informative moment. The next day, the 21st,, some 500 people go to Capitol Hill. We will kick it off in the morning with a rally with artists and messages and many Congress people. And then the 500 will fan out and hit every congressional office and bring an arts message and some specific voting requests to members of Congress and the Senate. And it’s very exciting. I greatly appreciate the time and the energy of those people who actually come on behalf of everybody else in the nation to make that ask.
Denver: Fantastic. Well, Robert Lynch, the President and CEO of the Americans for the Arts, I want to thank you for being out with us this evening. If listeners want to learn more about Americans for the Arts, or become a member or an advocate for the arts in the United States, what would you have them do?
Robert: I would have them go to our website, americansforthearts.org. There’s a lot of information that we’ve talked about tonight in the research area. But I would specifically ask them to then look at the Arts Action Fund part of that website. It brings you to another whole website where you can join for free. And everything that we’ve talked about related to advocacy and what’s happening with the government, and the action that you can take, you can do at no cost by clicking that and getting on the mailing list as a member for information and action alerts.
Denver: Fantastic. Well, it was real pleasure, Bob, to have you on the program.
Robert: A pleasure for me, too.
Denver: I’ll be back with more of The Business of Giving right after this.
The Business of Giving can be heard every Sunday evening between 6 and 7 PM Eastern on AM 970 The Answer in New York and on I Heart Radio. You can follow us at bizofgive on twitter and at facebook.com/businessofgiving.