Is it Actually Possible to put a Dollar Figure on Your Organization’s Public Value?

(HINT: The answer is yes!)

How do you show that your institution provides genuine public value? If you have anything to do with the administration of a museum or cultural organization, this is a question that you and your board of directors find yourselves having to answer continually these days. If you are like most of the leaders I have worked with, coming up with a persuasive answer for policy makers has been very difficult.

The Elephant in the Room

Although the last quarter of the 20th century was a time of unprecedented growth and prosperity for cultural organizations of all types, the first decades of the 21st century have not been so kind. Even those museums, performing arts organizations, nature centers, historic sites and other similar entities that might have been doing well earlier this year now find themselves staggering under the challenges wrought by the novel coronavirus pandemic. The sector has responded by arguing that they are essential organizations that deliver genuine value to their communities. To support these claims, they’ve offered evidence of the educational, social and intellectual contributions they make.(1) All of these areas of contribution are clearly important, still the evidence presented has gained minimal traction, at least as judged by the on-going challenges within the sector.(2) For better or worse, most political decisions related to value/worth ultimately revolve around, or more accurately devolve, into issues of money. Specifically, policy makers want to know whether the benefits that accrue from the existence/use of each institution is truly worth the cost it takes to maintain and run them.

I am certainly not the first person to advance the need to assign a monetary value to the worth of the cultural sector. Organizations like the American Alliance of Museums, Association of Science and Technology Centers and Cuyahoga Arts & Culture have proposed a range of metrics to make the case that the institutions they represent add significant economic value to their communities, for example, by generating tourist dollars and offering employment opportunities.(3) But all these essentially “instrumental” measures of value – “value” as defined by its functionality – might superficially seem like a good idea, but they ultimately tend to mischaracterize the true value of museum experiences, not to mention rarely seem to appreciably influence funding priorities. To be blunt, trying to tie the value of museums to something others can and typically do accomplish equally, if not better than museums, such as expanding a community’s tax rolls, has not, nor is ever likely to, convinced those in the policy realm that non-profit organizations such as museums, theaters, performing arts groups, parks and historic homes deserve more funding. After all, which do you think the local city council is likely to believe will lead to more tourist dollars, giving their local museum $100,000 so they can develop a new exhibition or spending $100,000 on a new city-wide marketing campaign? The bottom line is that trying to tie value to things like tourism dollars, employment, or even such public goods as a social, intellectual and educational benefits have always fallen short of moving the dial.

So how can a cultural sector leader convince policy makers that their institution actually delivers significant, quantifiable value? There is an answer to this question, but it does not lie in how those working within the sector have traditionally viewed the value of their organizations. Rather the answer lies in how people who use those places define the intrinsic value of these places to their lives.(4) As someone who has spent a lifetime thinking about why people use cultural institutions, interviewed thousands of users of these organizations, and written and reviewed hundreds of research papers on why people use and value cultural organizations, I suggest that the outcome the sector needs to emphasize, and put a dollar value on, is NOT learning; NOT aesthetic appreciation, and NOT even enjoyment. The ultimate value the cultural sector delivers is all of these and at the same time something else altogether. The value the cultural sector delivers has always been there in plain sight, but never clearly defined or articulated.

What is this Value?

Community policy makers primarily agree to support museums, historic sites, operas, symphonies, arts festivals, natural area parks and preserves because they believe they are “good” places; places that measurably enhance the overall EQUIPOISE of the individuals who live within the community. Yes, equipoise!

Equipoise means balance, and balance – physical, emotional, social, intellectual and spiritual balance – is something every human constantly strives to achieve every day of their life. Like well-being, being in balance feels good, being out of balance feels bad. People often find it difficult to describe, they know when they are feeling physically in balance; they feel healthy, they feel secure and vital. Similarly, people know when they are in a state of social equipoise, they have a sense of belonging and feel accepted and respected by their friends and family. So too, emotional, intellectual and spiritual equipoise.

This desire for balance and wholeness is universal, something every cultural group, in every corner of the planet, has embraced. Of course, every culture has viewed and described this idea differently, but each in its own way has incorporated the basic desire for equipoise into their philosophies and daily lives.(5) Although equipoise, like current notions of well-being, can and often does include feelings of comfort, satisfaction, and a general feeling of financial security, but it is much, much more.

First, to fully understand the concept it is essential to appreciate that the ability to perceive when things are in or out of balance is something that all living creatures are capable of, not just humans. The human perception of equipoise, as it is in all living things, is primarily designed to ensure survival, it is a feedback mechanism that ensures that not only psychological but basic biological needs as well, are being met. In other words, every human, like every living thing on earth, is constantly striving for equipoise, because that is what living things do. Unfortunately, one cannot just get there and stay there, the never-ending pursuit of equipoise is a fundamental feature of what it means to be alive. That is why when people perceive that they have achieved this kind of balance and well-being from an experience, it is very salient and very memorable, and most importantly, very valuable.(6)

Of course, cultural institutions are not the only settings that support the feelings of equipoise. People derive some measure of well-being from the work they do,(7) from good government,(8) public safety,(9) and of course, as is painfully evident under the current circumstances, from a well-functioning public health system.(10) However, in my opinion, the cultural sector broadly writ, plays a particularly unique and critical role in supporting the public’s equipoise; a role that few if any other institutions in current society do quite as well. Activities such as museum-going, concert attendance and hikes in natural areas allow people to learn about themselves and their place in the world, they help critically shape people’s sense of social, civic and cultural belonging, and they inspire awe and a sense spiritual connectedness to humanity and nature. They create moments that inspire people and allow them to transcend the prosaic bounds of their normal lives. They are particularly notable because people totally trust these institutions and willing and proactively bring their children to them so that they, too, can benefit from these essential outcomes. Achieving a sense of equipoise, particularly the well-being associated with personal intellectual, social and cultural belonging and the feeling that one has secured these benefits for one’s family is what research has shown ultimately allows a person to feel like they have lived a satisfying and successful life.(11)

Equipoise is Worth A Lot!

The people who “run” communities intuitively understand that the cultural sector delivers this value, though of course it has never been quite articulated in this way. And although it has been (fairly) argued that historically, not all community members have equally shared in the fully opportunity for enjoying the potential benefits the cultural sector delivers, evidence now shows that when people of all walks of life actually have opportunities to utilize the sector (and with support, many more recently have), they actually do accrue these important equipoise-related benefits.(12)

Supporting public well-being has long been perceived as important but it has always been undervalued because it has been both poorly defined and virtually never accurately assessed. But what if it was possible to accurately define and measure the value of public equipoise? What if it was possible to place a dollar value on the equipoise benefits cultural organizations foster? If this was possible, then, at least theoretically, a case could be made for answering the question posed at the beginning of this blog – How do you show that your institution provides genuine value? With this dollar figure in hand, it would be possible to directly compare the economic value of a museum, nature preserve or opera experience, to the economic value generated by other community resources such as trash collection or emergency services. Without such a number assigned to museums and the like, efforts to add another garbage truck or increase the number of firefighters in a community will always be easier to justify, and fund simply because they are able to be monetized.

Where I’m At

Figuring out how to monetize the equipoise generated by a cultural institution/organization is a challenging task, but I believe I have created an approach to be able do it and do it relatively inexpensively. However, my “solution” is only a solution in theory. I need to more rigorously test my ideas to determine if they actually do represent a valid and reliable way to measure and monetize the value that cultural institutions contribute to equipoise.

To that end, I am currently refining a research tool that I have begun piloting with a small group of individuals. If this preliminary testing indicates the feasibility of the tool, which very preliminary results indicate is true, then the next step will be testing the model more widely, in particular at an organizational level.

Shortly, I will be looking for a few organizations interested in participating in early trials of this new approach. At that point, I hope to be able to demonstrate that it is possible to directly measure and assign an economic value to the enhanced equipoise an organization delivers to all of its users, across all of its many different activities.

If you think your institution might be interested in helping be one of these early trial sites, please contact me at john.falk@freechoicelearning.org .Otherwise, stay tuned as I hope to have something tangible to share later this year.

John H. Falk, Ph.D.

End Notes

1 Educational examples: ArtsCouncil UK. (ND). Generic learning outcomes. https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/measuring-outcomes/generic-learning-outcomes Retrieved February 25, 2020.

Bonnette, R.N., Crowley, K. & Schunn, C.D. (2019) Falling in love and staying in love with science: ongoing informal science experiences support fascination for all children, International Journal of Science Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2019.1623431

Crystal Bridges. (2013). Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art & University of Arkansas Department of Education Reform announce results of a study on culturally enriching school field trips. https://crystalbridges.org/blog/crystal-bridges-museum-of-american-art-university-of-arkansas-department-of-education-reform-announce-results-of-a-study-on-culturally-enriching-school-field-trips/ Retrieved March 19, 2020.

CASE: The Culture and Sport Evidence Programme. (2010). Understanding the Impact of Engagement in Culture and Sport: A systematic review of the learning impacts for young people.

Falk, J.H. & Dierking, L.D. (2010). The 95% Solution: School is not where most Americans learn most of their science. American Scientist, 98, 486-493.

Falk, J.H., Dierking, L.D., Swanger, L., Staus, N., Back, M., Barriault, C., Catalao, C., Chambers, C., Chew, L.-L., Dahl, S.A., Falla, S., Gorecki, B., Lau, T.C., Lloyd, A., Martin, J., Santer, J., Singer, S., Solli, A., Trepanier, G., Tyystjärvi, K. & Verheyden, P. (2016). Correlating science center use with adult science literacy: An international, cross-institutional study. Science Education, 100(5), 849–876.

Falk, J.H. & Needham, M. (2011). Measuring the impact of a science center on its community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(1), 1-12.

Falk, J. H., & Needham, M. D. (2013). Factors contributing to adult knowledge of science and technology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(4), 431–452.

Falk, J.H., Pattison, S., Meier, D., Livingston, K. & Bibas, D. (2018). The contribution of science-rich resources to public science interest. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(3), 422-445.

Hull, D. (2011). Assessing the value and impact of museums. Technical Report. Belfast: Northern Ireland Assembly Research and Library Service Research Paper. http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/globalassets/Documents/RaISe/Publications/2011/Culture-Arts-Leisure/2911.pdf Retrieved February 20, 2020.

Powell, Stern, & Frensley (2020). Crosscutting outcomes for Environmental Education programming in national parks. In J. Thompson, A. Houseal & A. Cook (Eds). America’s largest classrooms: What we learn from our national parks. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Stein, R. (2018). Museums & public opinion: Exploring four key questions about what Americans thin of museums. Technical Report. Washington, DC: American Alliance of Museums. https://www.aam-us.org/2018/01/20/museums-and-public-opinion/ Retrieved February 18, 2020.

Social examples:

Australian Expert Group on Industry Studies (AEGIS). (2004). Social impacts of participating in the arts and cultural activities: report on stage two- evidence, issues and recommendations. Sydney, AU: University of Western Sydney. https://www.stategrowth.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/160833/Social_Impacts_of_the_Arts.pdf Retrieved February 25, 2020.

Ashton, S., Johnson, E., Nelson, K.R., Ortiz, J. & Wicai, D. (2019). Brace for Impact: Utah is conducting a pilot study to show the social impact of the state’s museums. MUSEUM, May-June 2019, 26-31.

Dafoe, T. (2020). Attendance has always been a narrow way to define success. That’s why this museum is using data science to measure its social impact. artnet news. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/oakland-museum-social-impact-1780698#.XlEnYoZUia0.twitter Retrieved February 23, 2020.

Maas, K. (2008) Social impact measurement: Towards a guideline for managers. http://www.erim.eur.nl/portal/page/portal/ERIM/Research/Centres/Erasmus_Centre_for_Strategic_Philanthropy/Research/Publications/Social_Impact_Measurement_voor_sso_nieuwsbrief%5B1%5D.pdf Retrieved February 25, 2020.

Museums, Libraries and Archives Council. (2008). Generic social outcomes: http://nia1.me/5pf Retrieved February 18, 2020. Wood, C. & Leighton, D. (2010). Measuring social value. http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Measuring_social_value_-_web Retrieved February 18, 2020.

Intellectual examples:

Bradley, R.D., Bradley, L.C., Garner, H. & Baker, R. (2014). Assessing the value of natural history collections and addressing issues regarding long-term growth and care. BioScience, 64(12), 1150-1158.

National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine. (2020). Sustaining the future of the nations’ biological collections. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Suzrez, A.V. & Tsutsui, N. (2004). The value of museum collections for research and society. BioScience, 54 (1), 66–74.

Te Papa National Services. (2001). Valuing Collections. Technical Report. Wellington, NZ: Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. https://www.tepapa.govt.nz/sites/default/files/13-valuing-collections_0.pdf Retrieved February 18, 2020.

2 e.g., Kelley, R. (2014). The emerging need for hybrid entities: Why California should become the Delaware of “Social Enterprise Law”. Loyola L.A. Law Review, 47, 619-655.

Barrero, J.M., Bloom, N. & Davis, S.J. (2020), COVID-19 is also a reallocation shock. University of Chicago, Becker Friedman Institute for Economics Working Paper No. 2020-2059. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3592953 Retrieved June 1, 2020.

Walker, D. (2020). Extraordinary times, extraordinary measures. Ford Foundation. https://www.fordfoundation.org/ideas/equals-change-blog/posts/extraordinary-times-extraordinary-measures/ Retrieved June 11, 2020. 3 American Alliance of Museums. (2020). Museum facts. https://www.aam-us.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Museums-Facts-Infographic.pdf?utm_source=American+Alliance+of+Museums&utm_campaign=f0787b9159-MAD_2020_Advocate_Anywhere_NonMembers&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f06e575db6-f0787b9159-37291589 Retrieved February 25, 2020. Association of Science-Technology Centers. (2018). Science Center Statistics – 2017. https://www.astc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/ASTC_ScienceCenterStatistics-2017.pdf Retrieved February 25, 2020.

Sidforth, H. & Rabkin, N. (2014). The Public Benefits and Value of Arts & Culture. Cuyahoga Arts & Culture. https://americanorchestras.org/conference2015/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/The-Public-Benefits-and-Value-of-Arts-and-Culture-2014.pdf Retrieved August 3, 2020.

4 Weil, S. (2002). Making museums matter. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books.

McCarthy, M., Ondaatje, E., Zakaras, L. & Brooks, A. (2004). The gift of the muse: Reframing the debate about the benefits of the arts. New York: Wallace Foundation.

Scott, C. (2006). Museums: Impact and value. Cultural Trends, 15(1), 45-75.

Korn, R. (2018). Intentional practice for museums. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

5 For example, central to the Maori of New Zealand’s philosophy of life is something they call hauora, which is the balance a person needs to strive for between their physical, social, emotional and spiritual life.1 Native American communities talk about “finding balance in chaos … an ever evolving point of balance, perpetually created and perpetually new.”1 Australian aboriginal peoples talk about equipoise as a desire to be spiritually connected to the past, to ancestors and the values that they represent. It is a state of being that brings balance to their thoughts and relationships and engenders calmness, acceptance and tolerance, focus, inner strength, cleansing and inner peace.1 Hindu philosophy and traditions also emphasize the importance of equipoise, believing that a life of wholeness, balance, and life equilibrium is the pathway to obtaining sukha – spiritual bliss and well-being.1 While many African cultural communities place balance and equanimity, i.e., equipoise, at the center of their daily lives, the equipoise focus of many sub-Saharan communities is on the role of the individual within his/her social group. In this scheme, social relationships are paramount and every individual must constantly maintain balance in his/her actions and relationships, first as a person, second as a member of a group, and third as a member of a community.1

The Chinese have two ancient spiritual/philosophical traditions – the Taoist and the Confucian and both emphasize balance. In the Taoist tradition, the idea of balance, the yin and the yang, is a central concept with the core idea of harmony – or Héxié – and typically thought of as the goal of trying to find balance with the forces and events in the natural world.1 Confucianism also emphasizes balance, as best exemplified by the central “Doctrine of the Mean” or Zhongyong; Zhongyong is the title of one of the “Four Books” of Confucian philosophy.1 By contrast with Taoism, though, this Confucian focus on balance and harmony, much like suggested above for many African societies, is primarily focused on the need of the individual to achieve balance within and between one’s various social relationships.

There are also a variety of ways Western societies have spoken about and emphasized the importance of balance. For example, the Classical Greeks were quite fixated on the concept of the “Golden Mean.” Aristotle believed a good life, eudaimonia, was achieved by maintaining equipoise; a way of life that required a balance between virtue and vice so as to insure good health, positive social relationships and moral and intellectual achievement.1 More recently, these ideas have been variously embedded within constructs such as the Anglo-American idea of well-being, the Danish notion of hygge or German concept of gemütlichkeit. Unfortunately, today many Western societies have replaced these historically rich ideas about balance and equanimity in all of life’s practices with a single, overly simplistic meaning, such as happiness, prosperity and/or comfort. This does a supreme disservice to the real underlying complexity and holistic principles at work here. Neither the idea of happiness, prosperity nor comfort fully encapsulate the deeper, more visceral realities of daily human strivings; the realities I’ve chosen to capture with the term equipoise.

For more detail, see Falk, J.H. (in press). The Value of Museum Experiences. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

6 Falk, J.H. (in press). The Value of Museum Experiences. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

7 e.g., Benjamin, D.J., Heffetz, O., Kimball, M. & Szembrot, S. (2014). Beyond happiness and satisfaction: Toward well-being indices based on stated preference. American Economic Review, 104(9): 2698–2735. Fox, J. (2012). The economics of well-being. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2012/01/the-economics-of-well-being Retrieved February 26, 2020.

Fleurbaey, M. (2009). Beyond GDP: The quest for a measure of social welfare. Journal of Economic Literature, 47 (4), 1029-1075.

Graham, C. (2011). The pursuit of happiness: An economy of well-being. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Youngman R. (2003). Understanding and measuring intangibles: A journey of learning http://www.intangability.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/prism-understanding-and-measuring-intangibles.pdf Retrieved February 18, 2020.

8 e.g., Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI). (2001). The well-being of nations: The role of social and human capital. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Fox, J. (2012). The economics of well-being. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2012/01/the-economics-of-well-being Retrieved February 26, 2020.

Fleurbaey, M. (2009). Beyond GDP: The quest for a measure of social welfare. Journal of Economic Literature, 47 (4), 1029-1075.

Fujiwara, D., Kudrna, L. & Dolan, P. (2014). Quantifying and valuing the wellbeing impacts of culture and sport. Technical Report. London: UK Department for Culture, Media & Sport. http://www.artshealthresources.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2014-Fujiwara-Quantifying_and_valuing_the_wellbeing_impacts_of_culture_and_sport.pdf Retrieved February 18, 2020.

Graham, C. (2011). The pursuit of happiness: An economy of well-being. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press).

9 e.g., Deniz, D. (2016). Improving perceived well-being through improved safety. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(6), 632-642. Patil, S., Patruni, B., Lu, H., Dunkerley, F., Fox, J., Potoglou, D. & Robinson, N. (2015). Public perception of security and privacy: Results of the comprehensive analysis of PACT’s pan-European Survey. Brussels: Rand Europe.

Wood, D.A. & Wills, E. (2012). Subjective well-being and security. Dordrecht, NL: Springer

10 e.g., Lindert, J., Bain, P., Kubzansky, L. & Stein, C. (2015). Well-being measurement and the WHO health policy Health 2010: systematic review of measurement scales. European Journal of Public Health, 25(4), 731–740.

Lohr, K.N. (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Quality of Life Research, 11, 193-205.

National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine. (2020). Promoting positive adolescent health behaviors and outcomes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

11 Falk, J. H. (2017). Born to choose: Evolution, self, and well-being. New York: Routledge.

12 e.g., Abraham, T. (2016). This is how libraries and museums can revitalize neighborhoods. Generocity. https://generocity.org/philly/2016/02/18/libraries-museums-revitalize-neighborhoods-lisc/ Retrieved March 19, 2020.

Falk, J.H. & Needham, M. (2011). Measuring the impact of a science center on its community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(1), 1-12.

Falk, J.H., Pattison, S., Meier, D., Livingston, K. & Bibas, D. (2018). The contribution of science-rich resources to public science interest. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(3), 422-445.

Posted Aug 4, 2020