The National Endowment for the Arts’ $365,000 Investment in Circus Performances: A Misguided Allocation of Taxpayer Dollars

Breaking Down the Spending

The total $365,000 allocation was distributed over several years, with funding increasing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Some of the funds were directed toward providing circus-based after-school programs for children, teaching them basic acrobatics and performance skills. Other grants were used to support the costs associated with hosting free circus performances in city parks, covering expenses such as performer salaries, equipment, and logistical support. As public gatherings became more restricted due to pandemic-related closures, some of the funding was repurposed to help sustain the organizations that relied on live performances. During the height of pandemic lockdowns, the NEA increased its financial support for circus performers, arguing that the industry required assistance to survive. This included large grants aimed at maintaining salaries for circus artists, many of whom were unable to work due to public health restrictions. Critics have pointed out that, while the pandemic caused hardships across the arts sector, circus performances were not among the most essential forms of cultural programming in need of taxpayer-funded rescue efforts. At a time when other performing arts organizations, including major theaters and orchestras, were also struggling, the allocation of hundreds of thousands of dollars specifically to circus arts seems questionable at best. Even as pandemic restrictions lifted, the NEA continued to allocate grants for circus performances, with more funding provided to sustain programming in city parks. These grants supported continued performances, workshops, and artistic collaborations within the circus community. While advocates for the funding argue that these events provided a valuable cultural experience, the overall impact remains limited. Unlike broader arts initiatives that fund museums, public art installations, or music education, circus performances appeal to a smaller audience and do not necessarily create lasting educational or artistic value in the same way as other publicly funded arts programs.

Why This Was a Waste of Money

The decision to allocate $365,000 toward circus performances highlights a larger issue with government spending priorities. Public funds should be directed toward projects that offer the greatest benefit to the largest number of people, yet the funding of circus performances serves only a niche interest. The argument that this spending made the arts more accessible does not hold up when considering that these performances, while free to attend, were limited in reach and frequency. The average taxpayer is unlikely to have attended or benefited from these events, making the justification for their funding weak. The timing of the spending also raises concerns. A significant portion of this funding was allocated during the COVID-19 pandemic, a period in which government resources were in high demand to support healthcare services, essential workers, and struggling businesses. Choosing to direct hundreds of thousands of dollars to circus artists rather than critical relief efforts suggests a misalignment of priorities. Many other sectors of the arts, including theaters, music venues, and museums, faced immense financial difficulties during this time, yet they did not receive the same level of targeted support that was given to circus performers. Another fundamental issue is the lack of long-term impact. Many publicly funded arts initiatives create lasting cultural value, such as the preservation of historic sites, the funding of public school arts programs, or the commissioning of permanent public art installations. Circus performances, by contrast, are temporary in nature. Once a show concludes, there is little residual benefit beyond the brief entertainment provided to those in attendance. Unlike arts education programs that equip students with lifelong skills or museum investments that preserve history for future generations, circus performances do not leave behind any lasting public good.

Where the Funding Could Have Gone Instead

The $365,000 spent on circus performances could have been allocated toward a number of other initiatives that would have provided greater and more measurable benefits. Public school arts programs across the country are underfunded, with many schools cutting music, theater, and visual arts from their curriculum due to budget constraints. Directing these funds toward arts education would have ensured that students had access to creative programs that could foster long-term artistic engagement. Investing in infrastructure improvements for community arts organizations would have provided more sustainable benefits. Many community theaters, music halls, and arts centers struggle with outdated facilities and limited resources. Using this funding to improve these venues could have created lasting improvements that benefit artists and audiences for years to come, rather than spending it on performances that provide only temporary entertainment. Supporting broader cultural initiatives that reach larger audiences would have made for a more justifiable use of public funds. Expanding digital access to the arts, such as funding virtual museum tours or online performances, could have brought artistic experiences to millions of people rather than a handful of attendees at circus performances. Grants for local artists to create murals, sculptures, or interactive public art projects could have left behind visible and permanent cultural contributions to communities rather than fleeting live events.

A Taxpayer’s Perspective

While the promotion of the arts is an important function of public funding, the decision to allocate $365,000 to circus performances in city parks represents a misstep in government spending priorities. The niche nature of the program, combined with its lack of long-term impact, makes it difficult to justify such an expenditure when so many other areas of the arts and public services remain underfunded. The NEA’s goal of expanding access to the arts is commendable, but the method of doing so should be more carefully considered to ensure that taxpayer dollars are used in ways that provide lasting value. Programs that support arts education, community theater, or public cultural institutions would have been more appropriate candidates for funding, as they reach broader audiences and create lasting artistic legacies. By contrast, circus performances, while entertaining, do not represent a pressing public need and should not be prioritized over other, more impactful arts initiatives. As public scrutiny over government spending grows, it is imperative that arts funding is directed toward programs that serve the widest possible audience and create enduring cultural benefits. The $365,000 spent on circus performances in city parks is a clear example of how misplaced priorities can lead to wasteful spending, highlighting the need for greater oversight and strategic decision-making in the allocation of public funds.

Year Reported: 2024
Total Amount Wasted: $0.00
Department: Other