USVI Public Records

Document text

DOCUMENT RESUME ED. 225 891 SO 014 453 TITLE Study of State Arts Agencies: A Summary Report. INSTITUTION National Research ,Center of the Arts, Inc., New York,. NY. SPONS AGENtY National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, D.C. PUS DATE 76 NOTE 74p.; Tor related documents, see SO 014 452-454. Some tables and figures may not, reproduce clearly due to small and light print type. PUB TYPE Reports - Research/Technical (143) EbRS PRICE / DESCRIPTORS ABSTRACT MF01/PC03 Plus Postage. *Administrative Organization; *Expenditures; Federal Government; *Financial Needs; *Financial Support; *Fine Arts; Governing Boards; Government Role; Local Goliernment; *State Agencies; State Government; Tablet (Data); Theater Arts; Visual Arts The origin, funding, expenditures, structure, and future directions of 55 state arts agencies are summarized. In addAtion to the 56 states, information is inclUded for the Di-Strict 4:1 Columbia, Puerto Rico,,American Samoa, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Data are for fiscal year 1974 and were obtained through interviews with directors 'and agency reports. Most state,agencies were founded, either by executive order or legislation, in the 1960's. Apliropriations, grants, and oth'er funds from all sources to the :state arts agencies and separate associated foundations totaled $45.4 million in 1974; expenditures amounted to $43.8-million. Major recipients of project expenditures were performing arts organizations. As of the end of fiscal year 1974, 42 state arts agencies were autonomous. All agenciet had,a governing council or commission headed by a chairperson. The structure closely reseMbled that of a private nonprofit corporatiOn. Councils and commissions were composed largely of persons fronCfieldi other than the arts; !I members were men and a large majOrity were white. Three out of every five'staff members were women. most agencies anticipated increases in funding over,the next 3 to 5 years. (KC) **-********************************************************************* Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE\ ARTS. INc . STUDY OF STATE ARTS AGENCIES A SUMAR1 REPORT Conducted for NATIONAL ENDOUNfENT FOR THE ARTS 1976 by *TONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS, INC, an Aff:i1iate of Louis Harris and Associates, Inc. 2 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC! t This documem has been reproduced ss received from the person or organization ontpliating KMinor changes have been made to improve reproduchot quality -Poims of view or opinions stated in this Woo; ment do not necessarily represent official NIE position or policy. NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS BACKGROUND OF THE SURVEY Page iii 1. ORIGINS AND HISTORY OF STATE ARTS AGENCIES 1 Purposes and Functions of State Arts Agencies Funding History- 1 4 2. FUNDING OF STATE ARTS AGENCIES - FISCAL 1974 8 SOurces of Funds Variations in Support Sources among States Funding of Associated Foundations 11 13 3. EXPENDITURES BY STATE ARTS AGENCIES - FISCAL 1974 16 i , Distribution of Project Expenditures J 16 Primary, or Direct, Recipients 19 Secondary, or Indirect Recipients 22 'Art Forms Assisted 27 Type cif Activity AsSisted 29 Initiation and Previous Funding of Projects 30 Matching Funds 33 Total Costs of Projects 34 4. STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION OF STATE ARTS AGENCIES Position of Agencies Within State Government Structure Relationships to Other State Agencies and Local and Regional Organizations Structure and Size of Arts Agencies Management Functions and Responsibilities Characteristics of Councils or Commissions Characteristics of Executive Director Characteristics of Agency Staff Outside Advisors 5. FUTURE DIRECTIONS OF STATE ARTS AGENCIES AnticiPatedjunding Changes Actual Funding Changes Since Fiscal 1974 Anticipated Effects of Funding Increases on Prcigram and,Functions' Other Anticipated Trends 3 35 - 35 35 37 38 38 45 47 52 53 53, 56 57 111 NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS, INC. : ; Table LIST OF TABLES 1 , Total Funds Received by State Arts Agencies and ,Associated 8eparate Foundations in Fiscal 1974 Project Ekpendituresand Number of Projects in Fiscal 1974 3, Primary,,or Direct, Recipients of Project Expendi- tures in Fiscal 1974 . 4 Secondary, or Indirect, Recipients of Project Expen- ditures in Fiscal 1974 5 SecondaryRecipienti of Project Expenditures in Fiscal 1974, By Primary Recipients 6 Art Form in Which Project Expenditures were made in Fiscal 1974 7 Primary Activity Assisted by Project Expenditures in Fiscal 1974 8 Resporthibility for Grants or Project Funding 9 Responsibility for Budget 10 Occupations of Council/Commission Members Serving at Close of Fiscal 1974 17 20 24 25 28 31 39 40 42 LIST OF FIGURES Figure PagLa 1 Legislative Appropriations to State Arts Agencies, Fitcal 1966-1974 2 Total Funds Received by State Arts Agencies, Fiscal 1971-1974 3 Sources of'Funds. of State Arts Agencies, Fiscal 1974 5 7 12 4 Sources of Funds of Affiliated Foundations, FisCal 1974 15 5 Initiation of Projects for Which Expenditures were made in Fiscal 1974 4 32 List of Figures (continued) Figure 6. Peiiod of Funding of Project Expenditures, Fiscal 1974 Characteristics of Members of,Counals/Commissions Serving at Close of FiScal 1974 44 8 CharacteristiCs of Directors Of State Arts Agencies _47 9 Characteristics of Professional and Clerical Staff: Civil Service and Union Affiliation 49. 10 Characteristics .of Professional and Clerical Staff: 50 Sex and Race 11 Characteristics of Staff: Median Salaries at Close of Fiscal 1974 51 12 Legislative Appropriations to State Arts Agencies, Fiscal 1974-1976 54 13 Total Funds Received by State Arts Agencies, Fiscal 1974-1976 55 v . i : NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTLR OF THE ARTS. INC. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study could not have been completed without the aid and cooperation of the directors and staff of the 55 arts agencies that were surveyed, and the National Research Center-is grateful for the time and effort that went into the careful completion of the interviews and selfadministered forms. 'Of particular help and guidance were the consultant directors and chairmen who Participaed in three meetings in 197A to develop the survey instruments and in two meetings held in November 1975 and March 1976 to consider:the signifi cance of the findingsand to review the in,tial draft of this report. The participants in the five meetings were: James Backas, then Executive Director, Nhryland Arts Council ,.Robert Bernet, then Exdcutive Director, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Council on the Arts Polly.Buck, then-Chairman, Delaware State Arts Council Charlotte Carver, Executive Director, South Dakota State Fine Arts Council Maurice D. Coats, Executive Director, Texas Commission on the Artg and.Humanities John G. Coe, Executive Director, New Ilampshire Commission on the Arts Nash Cox, Executive Director, Kentucky Arts Commission James Edgy, Executive Director, Ohio Arts Nuncil James D. Yorward,. then Executive Director, California Arts Commission Terrell Glenn, then Chairman, South Carolina Arts Commission \\\ 6 Roy H. Helms, Executive Director, Alaska State Counti, on the Arts Jonathan Katz, EXecutive Director, KanSas Gultural,Ar s Commission Anthony S. Keller, Eiecutive Director, Connecticut Commission on the Arts David Morton, then Chairman, Missouri State Council on the Arts Wayne A. Norman, Sr., Chairman, Iowa State Arts Council S. Leonard pas Jr., then Executive Director, Fine Arts Council of Florida Lida Rogers, Executive Director, Mississippi Arts Coommission R. Sandra Perry, Executive Director, The Office of arkansas State Arts and Humanities E. Ray Scott, Executive Director, Michigan Council for the Arts Louise G. Tate, Executive Director, Massachusetts Council on the Arts and Humanities, Anne Vermel, Executive Director, Rhode Island State ;',ouncil on, the Arts Norman Worrell, Executive Director, Tennessee Arts Commission The staff of the National Endowment for the Arts played v. an essential role in the study in every phase, notably the leadership and encouragement proVided by Handy Hanks, the ChaitMan, and the advice and counsel given by Harold Horowitz, \, Direttor of Research, Ana Steele, Director of Planning, and members of their departments and of the Arts Endowment's Federal-State Program Department. Joseph.Farrell President National Research/Center,of tht Arts NAT1ONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE. ARTS. INC. BACKGROUND OF THE SURVEY , In each of the 50,states of the United states there is an official state government agency whose primary concern is the arts within that state. Stnilar official agencies exist In the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam and the Virgin Islands. It is these 55 agencies -- most often called state artS coundils or commissions -- with which this report is concerned. They will be referredto as "state arts agencies." In rcent years it has become evident to many people working in ' and with the state arts agencies that the agencies' programs and policies have been severely hampered by lack of information' about the field. To answer that need', in 1974 directors of state arts agencies endorsed the recom-, mendations of the National Council on the Arts that a study of state arts agencies be undertaken by the NatiOnal Endowment for the Arts. The Arts Endowment then contfacted with the National Research Center cif the Arts to conduct the present study, which was intended to provide a compendium of data to serve as a base for continuing research oh particular aspect§ of the arts agency movement.* The Research Center was Charged with,the responsibility for collecting and interpreting the data to provide an in-depth picture of the state arts agencies as 7f the time ofthe survey. This report attempts *There have, however, been a number Of valuable though less extensive studies of arts agencies. In 1966 the Associated Councils of the Arts (ACA) began an annual CoMpilation and publication of data on the funds administered by the state arts agencies. In 1972 the National Research Center of the Arts, on behalf of-ACA, collected more,,extensive data on agency funds in fiscal 1971 and fiscal 1972, published by ACA under the title State Arts Councils. However, the data in these surveys were limited to the most basic information about funds received and expended and about the number of pro3ects ill/ various categories. -iv- to do that; it does nor in ,al-n)jr way provide an evaluation of the agencies -or an analysis of causal factors which may have determined their programs or policies. The study was designed tosobtain data on a wide spectrum of activ- ities and programs for each of the 55 official arts agencies; the basic or- . ganization 'and structure of the agency; its relationship to other agencies within the.state and with Other states and the federal government; the council or commissionGoverhing, thefagency; the director and staff of the agency; the agenCy's functions, practices, and programs; sources of funds and expen- ditures for program projects. These areas were selected for inclusion after extensive consultation with directorsand chairmen of state arts agencies and with representatives from the Rational Endowment for the Arts. The data were collected through a questionnaire administered in personal interviews (except in Guam and American Samoa) conducted by rep- resentatives of the National Research Center of the Arts with the directors of the state artq agencies. These interviews were usually conducted in two sessiond of approximately three hours each. The questionnaire focused on 1 , information for the fiscal year ending in 1974.* In addition to the per- sonal interviews, three forms covering info'trmation on internal structure of the agency and,funding practices were left with the agencies for them to complete. 4 After the data were tabulated and analyzed, a draft comprehensive report was prepared and submitted for review by state arts agency directors and chairmen and representatives of the National Endowment for the Arts. *The actual collection of data began in mid-1975. 9 f NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. 0111 .In considering the findings in this report, the reader should keep in mind certain limitations of the study., Fitst, because the information wasObtained from state artsagency directors, it is based on the directors' knowledge andperceptions, and the data for some sections of the survey, particularly those-sections referring to other persons and other agencies, must be considered as subjective rather than objfctilie factual material. In addition, although the study covered an extensive range Of subjects, it was impossible to cover all areas of importance in this research. For example, the study does not include an inventory of each state's cultural resources. Such information, whi h is vital\for a complete understanding of the arts and culture on a statewi e basis, can be obtained only through a survey of the arts organizations nd cultural institutions themselves. This brief summary, moreover, can serv only to give the reader a sampling of the contents of the full study. For further information, the interested reader should consult the COmprehensive Report and its detailed statistical material, . Unless specifically stated otherwise, all data refer to the fiscal year ending in 1974. Because of changes since then in the functioning and finances of various agencies, certain findings might today be different. , NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. 1. ORIGINS AND HISTORY OF STATE ARTS AGENCIES During he past decade the state arts agency movement has flowered in this country, becoming a major force for the arts and culture generally. The Utah State Division of Fine Arts can trade its origins back to the creation of the Utah Arts Institute in 1899 and, for that matter, as earlY as 1780 John Adams wrote into the lissachusetts constitution a mandate for the legislature and magistratei to encourage arts and letters along witu agriculture and.sciences. But most state arts agencies were foundd iR the 1960s, beginning with,the establishment of the New \york State Council on the Afts im 1960. goon other state 4encies were set up, eiticr by executive order or legislative acts, especially atter 1965, \ when the newly created N4tiOnal Endowment for the:Arts \ initiated a-policy of basic "block" grants to state arts agencies. Purposes and Functions Of State Arts Agencies The basic purposes of state arts agencies are set forth in the legislatiowor executive orders by which they were created. The legislative acts establishing the New York State Council on the Arts, Which came into existance,as a temporary commission in 1960 and was made a permanent agency in 1965, and the Missouri State Councilon the Arts, created as a governor's committee in 1962 and oTcially approved by the legislature in 1965, have served as ta basis of the * -2- legislation or executive orders creating-a-majority of the state arts agencies. The wording of the New York and Missouri legislation was presented as a model law in a handbook* published in 1966. The mandated purposes of the model law are: to stimulate and eAclura-le r-sens-atinns of perforMing arts and fine arts, to-encourageA,Ublic interest in the as, to survey and make recommendations on how to meet these ends, and to encOurage freedom of artistie eXpression. Though a small nuMber do have more specific or limited,purpo*, in general the state arts agencies have broad enough mandates to allow for'a great varietjr-of activities. The handbook also contained a model preamble, Aich many states also adopted, describing the conditions or circumstances which require the agency's existence: In it emphasis was placed on the "lack'of opportunity to view, enjoy, or par- ticipate in" the arts, though a number of states h e sought to express a more positive view by referring to the iMportance of the arts in developing the economy, in the promotion of tourism, or the attraction of permanent residents. Some also Speak of the potential for increased employment, and of the aiding and training of individual artists. A surprisingly small number of states make,any reference to the relationship between the arts and education, though one of thed does mention the capability of the arts to "inspire" children12 * The Politics of Art, Forming a State Arts Coun6i1, publi bbc.1 by Associated Councils of the Arts. '46 I . NATIONAL RESEARCH CeNTeR OF THE ARTS INC. ' . j. -3- --- Beginning in 1965, many state coundila-Or commissions were officially/designated as the state...agency to receive federal,funds tor the arts, and many others had been, or soon became, authorized to apply for, receive, and disburse federal funds, or to co-operate or enter into agreements with the federal goyernment. _During the same period of the late 1960s a nmnber of agencies a1so either came into'being, or redesignated themselves P with the phrase "and humanities" added to their ti:tle, reflecting the parallelism of the arts and theehumanities at the national ievel. In twd cases it is specifically declared that arts programs under the act,are not intended for an elite but kor the general public, one going so far as to speak of enriching and fulfilling , the lives'of its citizens. A small number Of States authorized their.arts agency to promote and advise on the ustirof art in state facilities. All agencies make expenditures to cultural organ- ii.ations for specific projects, and almost all hake expenditures to cultural organizationa for a wide variety of - other goala such as improving artistic excellence, audience ' developtent, andeducational Qr teaching; purposes. (Agency -expenditures for fAscal 1974-are reviewed in'Chapter 3 of this 4 r summary report.) 1 3 -4- ...ae programs on which arts agencies pladed Major emphasis in 1974 were in the afas of supporting coMmunity arts activities and counCila., artist-in-school:programs, touring, and other general funding/of organizations and institutions. Funding History In the y ars since the late 1960s, when state arts agencies w re established at such a rapid rate, both state and federal funds to these agencies have increased considerably. As Figure 1 shows, 23 States madg appropriations'totaling $2.7 million to their arts-agehdies in 1966. By 1970, 47 states appropriated a total of $7.7 million to their agencies. In 1974 all 55 states and erritories made appropriations, totaling $30.8 million, to their agencies. It should be noted that thg table segregates, the fuhding for New York,which since 1970-71 has received a state'appropration considerably larger than that of any other state, a result of subarnatorial and legislative initiative and:the high concentraaon of arts and cultural actiVities which New York Sate contains. ; 1 4 :-1111, Figure 1 LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATIONS. TO STATE ARTS AGENCIES1 FISCAL 1966- 1974* . 22 - 20 18 16 14 12 - 10 8 $6 734 091 $6,845,613 $3,346,402 $2,664,640, 2 $1,8914745. 1966 1967 4836 506 4,353,752 1968 1969 $26,905,782, A25 187 33 hi 829 87 $7,661,911 $6,772,589 $5,405.438, $7,406,875 or. 00,756,49k 1970 1971 1972 1973 Area below'dotted line indicates appropriations excluding New York State. 15 -6, The_increases in state appropriations to arts agencies duting the past decade reflect the increasing commitment by governors and-state Ugislatures to support of the arts, a commitment that ten years ago was practically non-existent in-all but a handful of states. This commitment by states tn support of the arts // agencies has been matched by an increasing commitment by the federal gOvernment to the state arts agencieS. The basic state agency grant of the National Endowthent for the Arts roSe from $36,363 per state in fiscal 1970 to $75,377 in Air fiscal 1971, $101,320 in fiscal 1972, $127,250 in,fiscal 1973, $150,000 in fiscal 1974, and $200,000 in fiscal 1675. Data on private funds received by the agencieiare unavailable for some years, but indications'are that private 'funds, though relatively modest, have also risen. In fiscal 1971, dollar amounts received from private sources totaled approximately $304,000, and-in fiscal 1974 private funds reached $750,115. Since 1971, the first year for which complete da' are available, the total funding of arts agencies-from all/ sources--'g overnmental, state, federal, and local, as well private--has increased from $26.9 million to $44.2 million in 1974 (see Figure 2). 16 BEST PCPY MAME NATIONAL`RESE4kRCH CENTER OF THE ARTS, iNC -7- Figure 2 TOTAL FUNDS RECEIVED BY STATE ARTS AGENCIES* FISCAL 1971-1974 millions 45 .- 40 )44,155'072' 35 .- $34,960,741 830,667,292 30 529,306,1/6 527,554,072s 25 $18,508,491 20 15 $14,781,996 $10,08,722 10 5 1971 ./972 ;1973 1974 *Area below dotted line indicated funds excluding New York State. ,' Note: The total funds include funds from state, federal, and local government as well as private sources. 17 \ by the various state agencies, as shown in Table 1. The funds \ of the New York State arts agency--the New York State Council on the Arts--and its associated foundation were ily far the largest of any single agency, totaling $16,895,243--more than ,one third of the total funds received by all agencies. Seven other agencies received more than $1,600,000 in fiscal 1974, and-even excluding, New York State the aVerage amount of funds per state was above $500,000. -8- 2. FUNDING OF STATE ARTS AGENCIES - FISCAL 1974 The total appropriations, grants, and other funds from all sources (state, federal, and local government and private sources) 'to the 55 state arts agencies of the United States, and to separate foundations associated with 12 of the agencies#,amounted to $45.5 million in fisaal 1974. Of that total, $44.2 million was received directly by, the agencies. There is a wide diversity in the amount of funds received Sources of Funds All agencies receive both state and federal funds and some receive additional funds from local government and private *Associate4 separate foundations have been set up by these state arts agencies to supplement their own activities and/or to serve as a private fund=raising arm of the agency. 18 BEST COPY AVAILABL NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS.INC. -9- Table 1 TOTAL FUNDS OF STATE ARTS AGENCIES AND ASSOCIATED SEPARATE FOUNDATIONS IN FISCAL 1974 .. New York 16,895,243* Total Per Capita .933 Puerto Rico 3,012,167 .992 California 1,267,747 .061 Connecticut .374 Ohio =:1425* .101 Pennsylvania 1,063,927 .090 Illinois 1,033,868* .093 Michigan 1,127,048* 113 New Jersey )1,482 .123 MAssachusetts. L77,600* ;151 Missouri 839,837 .176 Hawaii 777,727 .918 South Carolina 761,921* .274 Texas 747,140 '.062 Maryland 722,352 .176 Minnesota 704,585 .180 Indiana 550,747* .103 Tennessee 544,752 .132 West Virginia 542,280 .303 Florida 512,183* .063 Alaska " 500,774 1.486 Arkansas 481,085 .233 Washington North Carolina 470,164 445,048 .135 .081;: Georgia 443,617 .091 i Kentucky 428,338 .128, 1 Rhode Island 418,412 .447 / Colorado .413,968*. .166 I' i Virginia Maine 412,317 385,569 .08 A. .368 Alabama , 356,085 .100 ' Virgin Wands 343,167 3.813 Oklahoma 315,925 .117 Arizona 305,485 .142 Mississippi 301,298 .130 Iowa 291,787 .102. Oregon 290',275* .128 Louisiana 286,150 .076 Utah 271,726 .232 South Dakota 265,032 .389 Kansas 261,959 .115 Delaware 246i85, .431 Vermont 245, 31 .521 New Hampshire 244,4 2 .302 New Pexico 2 .218 Nebraska 21=:; .158 Montana .227,09 .309 Wisconsin Wyoming 22Q,47, 202,580* .048 .564 District uf columbia 202,000 .279 Nevada 188,970 .330 Idaho 183,508 .230 North Dakota 17910Q , .282 American Sanoa Gudm 137(6??-(7) 4.133 .,.743 \ TOTAL 454364512 --...-.....--= .212 * Total without New York 21.EI74 .146 Average per state: 827,937 Average without New York: 530,394 * Includes funds received by associated foundation. 19 a -10- sources. In fiscal 1974 state arts agencies received: $31.3 million from the state governments 12.0 million from the federal government 0.8 million from private and miscellaneous other sources 0.1 million from local municipal or county governments State Funds. In 1974 almost all state,funds ($30.8 million of the total $31.3 million) werg direct legislative appropriations; the remaining $0.5 million came from other state sources such as state,departments of education, conservation, bicentennial commission, and contingency funds.. Federal Funds. Funds from the federal government were derived almost entirely from the National Endowment for the Arts. Of the $12 million in federal funds, $11.6 million came from the Arts Endowment, and $0.4 million from other federal sources, the most important of which were the Office of Edutation and the American Revolution Bicentennial-Administration. The basic mechanism of the Arts Endcament for funding state activities is the blotk grant to state agencies. Given in equal amounts tO each of the states, this grant was $150,000 in 1974: (Americ xi Samoa and Guam received grants of $60,000 and $55,5O9, respectively.) Private Funds. Private support' of the arts agencies came primarily from ftundations, which contributed $386,673 or about 2u NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THC ARTS. INC. '-11- half the total of priate funds to agencies in 1974. Individuals, corporations, earnings, and other miscellaneous spurtes accounted . for the balance of prpate funds.. 7* Local Government Funds: Local county and municipal governments accounted for a very small proportion of total funds. Proportionate to other sources, less than 0.51of the total came from local governments and yas received by only 11 states. The substantial local support which goes directly to arts/organizations:is not covered in this survey. Variations in Support Sources Among States- / There are considerable variations not only.in the / agencies receive but/p1 the proportion of funds they receive from amounts different sources. ew York State, for exanple, has *an unusual funding pattern: iin 1974 the New York StateCouncil on the Arts received 99 percent of its fundtngjpm the state governmentmore than half the total state appropriationg to al4 agencies. As Figure 3 shows, when New York State is removed from the sample, the pro-' portion of state funding drops fkom 71%,to 547. overall and the pro- portion of federal government funding rises to 43% of agency funds. Moreover, although federal funds accounted for less than half of the total funds received by state arts agencies, the federal government was the source of at least half of the fundS received by 33 of the 55 Agencies. And in certain states:--Idaho, North Dakota, and Wyoming--with few other sources of funds, federal funds accounted for more than 90% of their total funds. It should be remembered that the National Endow- ment for the Arts basic grant to state arts agencies is the same for all states, regardless of their population or the amount of their state arts funding. Figure 3 'SOURCES OF FUNDS OF STATE ARTS AGENCIES FISCAL 1974- * Less than 0.5%.' ** Does not,include funds received by associated foundations. Total agencies** $44,155,072 Federal goVernment 277. Sta te government 717. Excluding New York** $2745544072 Federal government 43% 22 Local government * *Private 27. Local goVernthent - Private 3% 1 NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. iNC. % I. -13L Funding of Associated Foundations Twelve of the state arts agencies have associated foundations which can receive funds independent of the grants to agencies. The foundations are private but are closely allied with the arta agency, primarily to carry out programs ihat the-agency cannot or does not want to conduct * directly,and also to raise funds for the agency. In fiscal 1974, these separate associated foundations receiVed funds totaling $2.0 million,of which $0.7 million (32%) was transferred to the foundations from the state arts agency. As Figure 4 shows, other funds to foundations came from private sources ($0.8 million or 40%), from the 'National Endowment fot.the Arts ($0.5million or 26%)., and in very small amounts from other miscellaneous and state sources. Again, there are variations 4iong those 12 states in the sources and proportions of funds for these foundations. The Connecticut Foundation for the Arts, associated with the - Connecticut Commias141 on'the Arts, accounted for a large proportion of the funds from private sources because of its unique situation. It is the prinary grant-making body for state funds, and the state has given it an annually renewable loan on which'interest may be used for the foundation's activities. Its earnings amounted to' $0.5 million in fiscal 1974. Excluding Connecticut, the state arts agencids 2 3 -14 - themselves were the contributors of the largest proportion (44%), of funds to their separate assOciated foundations, with 34% from ihe National Endowment for the Arts, and onZy 20% from private sources (see Figure 4). WO. NATIONAL REStARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. -15- Figure 4 SOURCES OF FUNDS OF ASSOCIATED FOUNDATIONS FISCAL 1974 Total associated fourvaations $2,041,251 Pri.mte 40% Other 1% ( National Indowment for the Arta 2fq. State ars agency/1 Total Associated Foundations Excluding Connecticut $1,541,976 /1/ Natienal Endowment for the Arts 34% , Private 20% ---Other state 17. State arts agency 44% -16- 3. EXPENDITURES BY STATE ARTS AGENCIES - FISCAL 1974 In fiscal 1974, the 55 state artS agencies spent a-totil of $43.8. million. Of this total, $37.5 million (86%) was _expended for programs, andthe balance for personnel and other administrative expenses. The'funds expended for projects were matched by more than $42 million, evidence that the state agencies' support of the arts is indeed stimulating significant support from other.sources. Grants and contracts to organizations, institutions, and individuals account for-the bulk (927) of program expenditures: $34.6 million was expended. in'such grants and contracts. The remainder ($2.9 million) was spent primarily for program development and administration. As Table 2 shows, the $34.6 million was distributed by agencies to 6,903 projects, or an average of $5,000 per project. However, the New York State Council on the Axts alone accounted for 996 projects and $15 million during fiscal 1974, oti 44% of the total funding. The 54 agencies, not including New York, expended a total of $19 million, or a median amount of $3,000 per project. Distribution of Project Expenditures The distribution of project expenditures described in the following pages refers to the dollar a5Atits of thOse 26 T 13EU COPY AVAILABLE -17- NATIOWAL RESCA_,RCH`CkNTER Cfr THE ARTS. INC. \\1 Table 2' PROJECT EXPENDITUMN AND NUHDER OF PROJECTS IN 'FISCAL 1974 Alabama Alaska American Samoa Arizona, = Arkansas California \ Colorado 0 _Connecticut , 1161aware Iastridt Of Columbia Fldrida _ c. Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana -IoWa Kansas KentuCky , Louisiana Maine Marylanci Massachusetts Michigan k Minnesota Mississippi lessouri Montana Nabraska - Nevada New NatIpshire New Jersey NewHexico New York North Carolina North Dakota, Ohio 74, Oklahoma_ Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto-MCC RhOde Island 0 South Carolina South DakotW Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont ' Virgin Inlands Viiginin Washington West!-Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming - --"N,'":f , Dollars Aar.nlis 267,000 154 398,000 127 120,000 17 229,000 62 415000 79 938,000 151 ' 2174000 87 938,000* 259 186,000 66 139,000 21 421,000 73 368,000 62 63,000 * 31 67,000 98 , 164,000 58 730,000 373 385,00 94 254,000 111 209,000 67 342,000 88 124,000 -"-j 58 3120000 142 510;000 150 558,000 150 715,000-, 414 09;000 162 209,000 119 - 7.42,000 66 142,000 104 1781000 128 134,000 53 201,000 66 582,000 111 175,000 74 15,113,000 996 364,000 100 169,000 66 929,000 173 140,000 148 207,000 106 738,000 166 ' 286,000 22 316,000 91 528,000 185 165,000 96 398,000 182 617,000 91 205,000 49 174,000 67 243,000 78 i 295,000 86 359,000 06 506;000 108 176,000 73 149 000 49 Total $34 553,606 Average expenditure-per project; $5008 Total Without New York $19 440 000, Averape expenditure per project:. $3,000, 5907 Includes project expenditures-made byithe Connecticut Foundation for the Arts. 1/ 4 Based on incomplete data. 27 Vt. -18- expenditurea rather than the number of projectS, since the dollar amountS mote accurately reflect the flow of financial supporti* AS shown below, the major recipients of,funds from the state arts agenCies in 104 were perforMing arts organize- , tions. They received considerable funds not only as primary-- i.e., directrecipients of arts agency expenditures but also as secondary recipients--1.e., recipients of funds from the- primary recipienta. Musamns, which ate a largerlindustry nationally in dollar terma than the performing arts, received only approximately ! one 6iird of what _performing arts organizations received from state ,L arts agencies. However, in Many,parts of the country museums are government or quaSi-goveipmental institutions themielves, which may account in part for the smaller proportion of funds received from state agencies. , _- Other artS ând,cultural organizations and institutions, educatiorial institutions,, and, to a lesser extent, individuals account for expenditures. most of the remainder of state arts agency *For example, one agency might, consider funds granted to a single recipient, but ccsvering several phases of a project, as one project expenditure, whereas another agency could consider the same amount as constituting two or three project expenditures. , NATINAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THEARTS, INC. 'Primarci Direct, Recipients --"Performing arts organizations were the major recipientb of . z - the arts agencies project expenditures: 27c of every $1 for z' projects went directly to performing arts organizadons in fiscal 1974 (see Table 3). Museums received 10c of every $1-for project expenditures. The state arts agencies themselves were,the primary recipients of 12c of every $1 of project expenditures. This money was used for agency-administered programs such as artists-in-schools and touring, and as discussed later, some yortion was then channeled from the agency to outside groups such as performing arts organizations and schools, and to indiVidual artists. There were many differences aMong stateS in the proportional distribution of expenditures among primary recipients. Included in the many factors determining ot influencing how each agency dis- tributed funds were external conditions, such as the state's exist- ing cultural resources, statewide political and economic consider- 'ations, Snd the mandates and restrictions under which the agency operates, as well as internal factors such as the agency's program emphases and criteria used for funding decisions. Some . agencies (12) are restricted from giving grants to indi- viduals (though subgranting is used by certain agencies to provide such support). Earmarking of funds is another con- straint on an agency's discretionary funding: 8% 29 tzl -20 - Table 3 PRIMARY, OR DIRECT, RECIPIENTS OF PROJECT EXPENDITURES . IN FISCAL 1974 (Dollar amounts in thousands) Total_ project expenditures Arts and cultural organizations , Professional performing arts organizations Non-professional performing arta organizations Art MuSeums General museums Science museums History mUseuMs Cultural centers CoMmunitY or municipal artS councils Foundations.not ASsociated with,state ,arts agencies Visual arts organizations other than. museums Foundations associated with state atts .agencies Regional organizations Arts fairs and festivals Other state aits agencies Other arts and cultural organizetions Other organizations Colleges, and universities Schools and school systeys Civic groups Publicradio or public television stations Individuals 'Professional artists ,Non-prOfessional artists Non-artists, Other Own state arts agency Other state agencieS within sta Combination of recipients Other 3u * Lest than 0.5% Total Agencies All. Agencies Except New York 14.593 100- 19,439 100' V== 7,949 23 4,380 1,248 4 1,233 6 1,651 5 663 3 950 3 85 411 1 1 331 1 191 1 2,151 6 729 4 1,755 5 1,247 6 1,097 1,063 (3j, 3 1 196 5.04 1 3 II 699 2 207 1 644 2 239 1 . 497 1 413 8 * 8 1,925 17 1,769 9 1,447 4 1,345 7/ 1,026 3 842 41 311 1 225 ill 265 1 143 234 1 234 i 37 * 37 14 * 14 /* 4,137 12 4,137 i21 142 * 142 1 217 1 217 343 1 238' I k4-AVG/NAL RESENIZCH CENTER Or THE ARM. INC. -21-- of the agencies' program expenditUres was earmarked for specific purposes and in 13 Statesmore than 25% of program expenditures was earmarke'd or restricted. Overall, the different effects of All these factors, more than differences in budget size, appear tnaccount for the major variations in the distribution pattern between agencies in different states. The widest differences in dis,tribution of project expenditures occurred in the proportion af expenditures' going to the state arts agency itself. In 11 states, the arts agency itself received no projecrexpenditures, whereas in 9 states more than .half the project expenditures wentto the state'arts agency kor iis own 'projects: Arizona (51%), Hawaii (51%), Iowa (51%), VermOnt (59%), Louisiana (62%) , South Carolina (66%), Alaska (67%)', Puerto'Rico. (68%).and Texas (73%). Many state arts agencies undnubtedly see it necessary to undertakerirojects which are hot otherwise being 1 (bane privately,or for which no other qualifieciorganization exists or whiCh the agency deems itself-to be best equipped to handle. Thus, the state agncies may conduct their own touring programs or present'arts events under their own auspices. Arts agencies in Alaska and Puerto Rico, for eXample,-administer most of the projecta in those states. 7/1/ Furthermore, such programs as artists-in-schools are generally run by the agencY or by its associated foundation. - -22- 'Because project expenditures of the-New York State Council on the Arts, accounted for 44% of totalproject expenditures, New York's distributionpattern affects the overall findings on distribution of expenditures to a large degree. New York gave proportionately more project funds to museums (17c of ,every $1). Also, the New York 'State Council ho longer has its original agency-administered programs; these are now administered by its associated foundation. 141th these two exceptions, hoWever, New York Statels distribution does not significantly alterthe overall-patter of distribution to primary recipients (see Table 3). Secondary,or Indirect Recipients Some of the agency funds that are granted directly to a primary recipientare ultimately distributed to secondary recipients: .,for example, an agency may fund a concert series, and some portion of that money is then channeled td a performing arts group; or the agency may award a grant to a College, which is then channeled to individual artists-in- residence. .In many cases,, there are a number of secondary recipients.* The Alecondary,or indirect recipient's of fiscai.1974. expenditures were mainly individuals (mostly professional *For this reason, and becausetbe information on secondary, recipients waS obtained from,the'dtate arts agency, rather _thadfrom ihe primary recipients, it is impossible to deterMinethe exaCt amountef funds received by secondary recipients, . . . 32 NAno NAL RESEARCti CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. -23- artists), followed by professional preforming arts organizations, and educational-institutions (see Table 4). As Table 5 shows, project expenditures madedirectp to the state arts agencies themselves,and to schools anck to colleges,were the most likely to be channeled to individual artists, who were among the secondary recipients of 35% of the expenditures to the state arts agencies themselves, 22% of expenditures to schools and school systems, and 20% of expenditures to colleges and universities. Colleges and universities and schools and school systems were also among the secondary recipients of expenditures to the state arts agency itself. (One-quarter Of the project expenditures made to state'arts agencies Aaere for artists-in-school projects, accounting for,the relatively high proportion of individual'artists and schools as secondary recipients.) Professional performing arts organizations were also among secdndary recipients of a significant part of the project expenditures, especially of expenditures to foundations not associated with state arts agencies, (see Table 5). Half of the expenditures that went directly to non-associated foundations went td professional performing arts organizations :as secondary recipients. In Tart,this distribution may result from the large number of such foundations (especially in New y'ork State) established to obtain support for dance companies. Professional performing arts organizations were 33 -24- Table SECONDARY OR INDIRECT RECIPIENTS OF PROJECT EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL 1974 (Dollar Amounts in thousands). Total Aeencies Tittal Project Expend±turest 34,553 Secondary Recipients: Arts and cultural organizations Professional performing arts organizations Non-professional performing.arts organizations Art museums General museums Science museums History museums 4,592 13 1,102 3 , 325 119 201 193 dultural centers 253 Community or municipal arts councils 875 3 Foundations not associated With state arts agencies 44 * Visual arts organizations other than museums 332 1 Foundations associated with stalA arts -- agencies 52 * Regional organizations 59 * Arts fairs and festivals 817 2 Other state arts ag.ncies 99 * Other arts and cultural organizations 1,292 4 1 1 1 1 Other aary_Lilations Colleges and universities 1,485 4 Schools and school systems 1,941 6 Civic groups 373 1 Public-radio or public television stations _.54 * Individuals Professional artists Non-prokessional artists Professional non-artists Non-professional nori-ariists Other Own state arts agency Other state agencies within state Combination of reciRients Other 34 4,620 13 573 2 647 2 205 1 79 115 992 137 3 All Agencies Except New York. 19,440, 100 2,068 11 1,102 6 256 1 80 40 183 253 1 875 4 29 241 1 52 59 731 4 99 1. 677 1,485 1,918 364 44 8 10 2 3,352 17 79 ,* 115 1 729 4 89 \ * Less than4045%. 4 Because a project expenditure may have no secondary receipients or may have more than one secondaryrecipient, figureAdo not add to the $34,553 total. Total Proiect Expenditures Secondary Recipients: z Table 5 3, -I 6 , >z SECONDARY RECIPIENT'S OF PROJECT EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL 1974, BY PRIMARY RECIPIENTS=/ r (Dollar amounts in thousands) ' 4 PI CP PI Primary Reci ients >X Non- Foundations 4 0 Professional "Other" Community - Professional Not I Perforthing Arts and Own or Colleges Performing Associated Visual 'Schools 0 Arts Cultural State Municipal and Arts with State Arts Organi- Organi- Arts Cultural -Arts Art UniVer- Organi- Arts Orghni SCh:Ol. 2-1 02 zations zntions Agency Centers Councils Museums sities zations Agencies zations System g Total ' Agencies 34 553 $7,949 $5,924 $4 137 $2 151 $1 755 $1 651 $1 447 100 IN _ 100 13 2 33 6 1 12 1 1 * 1 1 1 100 ' 100 100 100 100 Arts and Cultural AOrganizations Professional performing arts organizations - 4,592 13 2 22 14 38 Non-professional performing arts organizations 1,102 '3 * 3 9 1 Art museums 325 1 * 2 * General museums 119 * - 1 1 - Science museums 201 1 - 1 * History museums 193 1 * 4 - Cultural centers 253 1 * * 4 * Community cir municipal arts councils 875 3 5 1 6 1 Foundation,: not associated with state arts agencies 44 * - * * ,* Visual arts organizations other than museums 332 1 * 1 3 * Foundations associated with state pts agencies 52 * - . 1 - Regionarforganizations 59 * 2 * * - Arts fai s and festivals 817 1 2 4 2 Other stilts arts agencies 99 * - 1 * - Other a4s and cultural organizations 1,292 4 1 7 7 - Other Organizations Colleges and universities 1,485 4 6 1 14 * Schools and school systems 1,941 6 3 1 27 1 Civic groups 373 1 1 * 1 * Public radio or public television stations 54 * "le * * - 2 1 ' 2 - * . 6 1 ' 8 1 3 1 3 2 1 2 5 * 7 2 1 1 . Only primary recipients that received at least $1,000,000 in project expenditures are snows. * Lass than 0.5t. 35 1 $1,248 `$1,097 p.,661 "$1,026, 51 VI. ..1 awl I , ).33 C:P NI °V P , 3:111 v4, la ri!! Mir CICI 1."11 MI 100 3 1 * 2, 100 ___ 100 --- 100 .49 1 2 * 1 14 ,5 - * * * 1 1 3 2 1 2 3 1 2 4 ' 3 6 2 4 1 2 4 (Continued) 3 1 K1 LA 1 i 1 1 1 Table 5 SECONTY RECIPIENTS OF PROJECT EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL 1974, BY PRIMARY RECIPIENTS1/(Continued) Primary Recipients , , Individuals Toial Professional Performing Arts Organi- zations "Other" Arts and 'Cultural Organi- zations Own State Arts Aeoncy Cultural Centers Community or Municipal Arts Councils Art Museums Colleges and sities Professional artists 4,620 13 9 18 35 4 11 4 20 Non-Professional artists 573 2 . 1 1 3 3 6 Professional non-artists 647 2 1 6 1 3 1 3 Non-professional non-artists 205 1 1 1 1 1 Other Own state arts agency 79 * 1 Other state agencies within. state -115 * 1 1 * / Combination of recipients 992 3. 1 1 6 4 1 1 Other '137 * 1 2 3 -1 Non- Professional Performing Arts Organi- zations 10 4 1 1 3 8 3 Foundations / ,Associated Visual with State Arts Agencies Arts Organi- rations 7 9 2 1 1 1 3 1 CCP Schools nil And School simmill LYASYILI % (no 7:36 r". 3 2E! 4 %Ale 22 2 p.) ' NATIONAL RCSEARCH CtNTER OF THE ARTS. INa. 4 -27- also secondary recipients of at least 330 of every $1 that went directly to cultural centers and to colleges and universities. Art Forms Assisted Half the project expenditures made by the state arts agencies in fiscal 1974 went to the performing arts, as shown - in Table 6. Among the performing arts: 23 0 of every $1 for project expenditures was spent for musid (orchestral and opera, as well as jazz, ethnic, and other non-classical music) 120 for theatre (plays and musicals) 100 for dance (modern anok.ballet primarily) 50 for a combination of perforning art forms (for ,example, expenditures for-i civic concert organization to support performances in dance, music, and theatre during a season) A relatively high 170 of every $1 of project expenditures was spent In support of combinations of art forms,such as community council programs encompassing a wide range of the performing and visual arts. The visual arts alone accounted for 140 of every $1 project expenditures. The emphasis on certain art form§ varied widely among the states, which may stem in part from earmarked funds and certain mandates. Overall, however, the different distribution patterns segm to reflect individual circumstancessuch as t'e existence or lack of certain types of arts resources in 3 9 BEV top_y_ MIAILMEt . Table 6 ART FORM IN WHICH PROJECT EXPENDITURES WERE MADE IN FISCAL 1974 (Dollar amounts in thousands). T\oal Project Expenditurestt t Music . Orche tral, chamber, etc. dpera Jazz, lk, ethnic Choral , Rock, poOular Other Combinations within music Theatre Plays, musicals Other Dance Modern Ballet Ethnic, folk Mime, pantomime Other Combinations within dance Combinations of Performing Arts Visual Aits Painting, drawing, graphics Crafts Sculpture PhotograRbY 'Other Combinations within visual arts ., Public Media Film Television ' Video , Radio 'Other . COmbinattons within public media Litoratpre ---Tiy Playwriciag Translations Other P^mbinations within literature Ocher Art Forms Architecture and environmental arts Folk arts Multi-media Other Combinatione of A Forms MtinAtkrit litmanities Field * Less than 0.52.* u 4 Dollar tigures:and pergintagett-a6 not ad to total becauie of funding. o Total All Agencies Exce t New York .....telcies. $ . 2 $ z 34,551 100 19 1440 100 7a 771 23 4 789 -A--- 25 -- 4,326 13 3,176 16 1,213 4 561 3 402 1 4 178 1 217 1 185 1 12 * 9 139 it- 18 1,462 4 662 3 4 195 12 2 314 12 4,074 -a-- 2,301 12 12 121 * . 13 3.547 10 1 937 1,069 3 422 2 852 2 633 3 77 46 4"* 34 34 143 12 1,372 4 790 4 1 741 5 890 5 4 909 14 3 055 16 484 1 426 2 417 1 342 177 1 137 1 141 * 38 41- 245 1 8 3,445- 10 2,104 11 1 673 5 537 3 -a- 803' .318 2 2 686 2 73 * 68 * 68 * 18 * 18 * 9 * 9 * ,89 * 51 * I 1 098, 3 723 4 469 1 441 2 8 * 7 7 * '4 3 * 6 * 605 265 1 1 833 728 4 -a--- 962 3 344 2 291 1 151 1 184 1 184 1 396 * 49 6041 17 22 1,41/5 5 202 1 Ni NATIONAL,RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTSJNC. =29- each,state. Music accounted for more than half of the expendi- tures in Guam, Maryland, Missouri, and, Pennsylvania, and for half of the expenditures in New Jersey. Theatre accounted for more than one-quarter of expenditures in Kansas North Dakota, and South Dakota. Similarly, more than one7quarter of project exl'enditures was for dance in Louisiana (basgd on incomplete information), the Virgin Islanas, and Wisconsin. Visual'arts accounted for more than one-third of total project expenditures in American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Tennessee, and Wyoming, half in Oregon, and mote than half in Hawaii. The distributidh to various art forms by agencies classified in groups' by different budget sizes shows few differences, except that large-budget agencies ($750,000 and above) snend a higher proportion of project funds in support of music, and low-budget agencies (below $250,000) spend a somewhat higher proportion ---,..-;---- ofIC,2ies.t-tutds on visual arts. The dollar amounts expended are governed to a\sertain extent bo!; the financial requIrements of certain types of Projects; e.g., a visual'arts or literature 'project may not cost as much as a musical project; museums may have more readily available suppott elsewhere, and so forth. Type of Activity Assisted Approximately 30c of every $1 of project expenditures in fiscal 1974 was made primarily for the program support of 14 -30- an institution or organiz/Ition, by far the largest amount for any single type of activity (see Table 7). Another 16c of every $1 went for salary suPport of the organization's staff, 14c for basic ur general operating support of an institution or organization, and 12c for direct support of individual artists for specific services. The proportion of funds used to assist some types of activities varied greatly among individual states. For example, in New Mexico and New York, 30C of every $1 of total project expenditures went for staff salary support whereas in 19 state'agencies there were no expenditures for an organization's staff salaries. Initiation and Previous Funding of,Projects Most project expenditures made by the state arts 'agencies in fiscal 1974 were in support of projects initiatedby the grantees. As figure 5 shOws, 72C of every $1 was expended for grantee-initiated projects. Since, in many states, the volume of requests is.high, most of their availnb1e funds nmst be used to respond. Those agencies with the largest budgets also have the highest proportion of -grantee-initiated Tjects, an indication that the large-budget agencies may have the most visibility and-consequently a proportionately even greater volume of grant requests. But this 42 NATIONAL. RESEARCH CENTER OF' THE ARTS. INC. 0 31 Tabae 7 PRIMARY ACTIVITY ASSISTED BY PROJECT EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL 1974 (Dollar amounts in thousands) Total Agencies All Agencies Except New York / Total Project Expenditures 34 553 100 19 440 Program surt of institution or organixation 10,120 29 7,720 39 Staff salary support 5,571 16 976 5 Basic (or general operating) support of institution or organization 4,876 14 2299 12 Direct support of individual art- ists 1or specific services, such as clasgroom teaching, park programs, etc. 4,294 12 350 2 Touring 2,33, (Touring within state) (1,532) '7 - (4) 2,315 (1,517) 12 '(8) (Touring from out of state into state) (703) (2) (703) '(4) (Touring from within state 0 out of state) (95) (*) (95) (*) Artists-in-schools projects 1743 5 1,715 Artists-in-residence projects 902 3 783 4 Other educatioa projects (scholar- ships, fellowships, lectures, courses, etc.) 754 .2 492 3 Informational publications, conferences and other informational sources 478 1 388 2 Commission by organization of visual arts creat'ions 437 1 434 2 Commission by organization of performing arts creations 312 1 101 Conservation/preservation 310 1 210 1 Audience development 304 1 231 improvement of visual envirOnment 281 1 16 Community or neighborhood arts * development 239 1 238 1. Support of programming via the media 237 1 117 1 Technical assistance 230 213 1 Direct support of individual artists in pursuit of their art 218 1 197 1 Research 200 1 56 Experimentation within art forms 156 156 1 Documentation (oral history, etc.) 130 59 Literary publications 109 104 1 Establishment of new cultural organizations 98 82 Purchases by organization of visual arts objects 71 71 Arts management training 43 43 Communications/c.,aaboration between sections of cultural community 27 ". * 27 Humanities project 18 18 Other 65 * 29 * Less than 0.5% 4 3 -32- I Figure 5 INITIATION OF PROJECTS FOR WHICH EXPENDITURES WER,E MADE IN FISCAL 1974 Joint effort of state arts/ ageocy and,recipient 9% Offeredgy state arts "Aageney to recipient /6% Grant requests,sUbmbtied for \\ grantee-initiated ,projects 7,2% 1 ! I Initiated and I dministered by state arts agency 117. ngure 6 PERIOD OF FUNDING OF PROJECT EXPENDITURES FISCAL 1974 Anticipated one-time Sunding 14% Pilot projects 137. First expenditure in-planned ongoing funding 6% Continued funding of ongoing projects ' 67% 44 NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF ME ARTS. INC. -33- high proportion of cipenditures for granteeAnitiated projects may L also reflect the a ts agencies' preference for having the initiative come 1i:cm the grantee. To a large extent, patterns of distribution of project expenditures lave already been estab:ished in state arts agencies; ongoing funding accounted for the great majority of expenditur-es overall (see Figure 6): 67-c of every $1,df projeet expenditures,in fiscal 1974 went to the continued funding of ongoing projects, and an additional 6c was the first expenditure in planned ongoing funding 13c of every $1 of project expenditures went for pilot projects Matching Funds Approximat half the state arts agencies required matching funds f all'project grants, and all but two agencies required matching funds for at least some grants. Two-thirds of those agencies asking for matching funds required a match of 100%. As shown below, significant amounts of matching money for the arts are being stimulated by public dollars. The funds matched by recipients of project expenditures in fiscal 1974 exceeded the total amount of the expenditures, although required matches amounted to slightly less than half the project expenditures: Total Project Expenditures in Fiscal 1974 _Aequired matching funds Actual matching funds 4 $ . 34,553,000 100 15,841,000 46 42,395,000 123 6 -34-- Almost all agencies &mit a variety of types of funds to be used as matching f funds: all allow contributions fiom private sources, apd more than four in five accept as matching funds operating Tevenues,.services or goods in kind, and,grants from other government agencies% ash contributions and operating_revenues mere the primary sources of the matching funds, with 35% ofthe funds coming'irom earned income, 7% from National End6wment for the Arts and 1% from other federal sources, and 48% from other cash; in-kind contributions accoUnted for 9% of the matches. total Costs of Projects The project expenditures made by state arts agencies in fiscal 1974 adcounted for Only a minor portion of the total costs of the projects supported: slightly less than one-third of the costs, on the average, of the projects for which theY were made. In those cases where an expenditure was made for the support of an institution or organization, on average the expenditure amounted to approximately one-eighth of the operating budget of the organization receiving such support. 4 6 NATrONAL "ReskARCH CENtTER OF THE A$RTS. NC -35.- 4., STRUCTURE AND,ORGANIZATION OF STATE ARTS AGENCiEg Position of Agencies Within State Government Structlire Thelposition of the ste, arts agency within state government is a,key determinant ofJ.ts management and functioning, the assumption being k that the greater autonomy an agency has, the more freedom it is likely to have in determining and initiating programs and projects. As of the end of fiscal 1974, most (42) sta e arts agencies were autonomous: 28 wereautonomou agencies 14 were autenemous within larger agencies or departments 5 were offices in agehcies or departments with purposes other than the arts 5 were part of the exetutive office of the governor 3 were subordinate agencies within larger agencies or departments Relationships to Other State Agencies and Local and Regional Organizations Although the state arts agency is usually seen as the primary agency within the state government in the field of arts and culture, other agencies provide some tYpe of tupport, directly or indirectly, to the arts. In fiscal 1974, ,49 state departments or commissions of educaton provided funds for the arts, and most provided support at all levels--elementary, secondary, college and university, and adult education. In 44 states at least one other agency or depart- ment, in addition to the education department, provided support for 4 7 -36- the erts, including departMents of conservation and natural resources, health and welfare) mental health or aging, economic develdpment, corrections, and commerce and industry. More than three in four state arts agencies conducted joint programs with the education departmentS, and a majority of'arts agencies had a representative on the commission or advisory panel of at least one other agency within the state. On the local or community level, state arts agencies generally worked closely with the coMmunity arts councils (which in 1974 existed in every state and territory except Guam and American Samoa). Although only five state arts agencies operated under a mandate to support community councils, almost all actively served' such councils: 51 arts agencies provide community arts councils with funding grants for projects 48 provide technical assistance to community councils 43 assist in the establishment of community councils 32 provide basic operating support 31 reimburse community councils for assistance in carrying out state projects Furthermore, the state arts agencies assisted in the formation of seven statewidenssocintionsof community councils in fiscal 1974, and in the creation of two such associations in fiscal 1975. The state arts agencies were also actively involved in interstate programs, especially in regional organizations and programing. Participation, including funding, in regional 4b NATIONAL RESEAR IH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. -37- organizations of state arts agencies (such as the Western' States Arts Foundation and the New England Regional Committee) has increased in recent years: pribr to fiscal 1974, 21 of the state arts agencies participated in regional organizations; it fiscal 1974, 31 participated; and in fiscal 1975, 34 participated. Structure and Size of Arts Agencies All 55 official arts'agencies had as a governing board some type of council.or commission, headed by a chairman. The median number of members on such boards was 15, althbugh the size ranged from 104 in Louisiana s(an exception) to 7 each in \\Oregon and Puerto Rico. In 53 of the 55 agencies there was a paid director, usuall called the executive director; one agency had an unpaid director,\and in American Samoa the council chairman, a member of the governor's\Staff, handled administrative matters. The size\4 paid staff of arts agencies varied widely. Although there were an average of nine staff members per agency in fiscal 1974, New York had a staff of 82 whereas Idaho, Nevada, North Dakota, and Wyoming had only 2 paid staff members each. 41 -38- Mane ement Functions an& Responsibiliti s The members of the 'council or commi.sion bear primary responsibilities for decisions concerning p licy and long- range planning, guidelines and program planni and grants or project funding (see Table 8 ), and are secon only to the legislature in the area of budget (see Table ). Executive directors, however, are involved in decision=making in all areas in most of the agencies,'and the director and staff have the major responsibility for evaluation and administrative matters. In general, the management struature of state arts agencies, which seems to be largely based on the lead from the New York,State Council on the Arts, more closely resembles that of private non-profit corporations than it does that .of a typical government agency. Chairmen and directors both play important roles as representatives of the state arts agencies to ave state governments. Most chairmen and directors meet personally with the governor, the governor's staff, and legislators. Characteristics of Councils or Commissions Selection of Members. The governor of the state is the most influential person in the selection of council and commission members: according to executive directors, the governor had u BEST COPY AVAItABLE NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. -39- Table 8 R'ESPONSIBILITY FOR GRANTS OR PROJECT FUNDING Total 55 Involved in deliberations Council/commission meabers 48 Executive &tractor 45 Council/commission chairman 38 Staff members othet than director 36 Pnnels of experts 28 'Committees oE the council/commission 20 Other advisors or consultants 9 State butlaat or finance officer 5 VovermOr 3 LegisZature- . 2 Mirecter of departmenr of which tgamay is a part 1 Final responsibility for decisions ComoCil/commission members 44 Council/commission chairman. 17 Executive director 14 Committees of the .council/ Omission 5 Staff members other than di ectqr 5 Governor 3 Panels of experts 3 Director of department of which agency is a part 2 Total Agencies 100 87 82 69 65 51 36 46 19 5 4 . 80 31 25 9 9 5 5 4 .1Iiimar.E.1.10Ii1.1111j 4 BEsfeOPY A811 -40- Table 9 RESPONSIBILITY FOR BUDGET a ______L___---- In4O1veil in dklibarations Nkeutivedirector Com*il/commission members State; bmilset or finance officer legislature. CoMedilfoommission chairman Gol ernor St4Iff members other than director Cóihnittees of the counci//commdssion ,Oter advisors or consultants Pa e/s 04 -e3perts tilrecEor of department o£ which agency is a part .F_AVA.S.!----5M.1"L.L."-it....1°S.L4 eisiocs lesisTathar.e Councilhommission members Governor Council/commission chairman Executive director State budget or finance officer Directors of department of which agency is a part Committees of the council/commission 5 2 Total Agencies 55 50 40 100 91 tot 73 38 69 37 67 37 67' 34 62 34 62. 19 35 7 13 5 9 5 9 20 36 20 36 17 31 15 27 14 25 6 11 5 9 3 5 NATIONAL RESEARCH CCNTER O THE ARTS. INC. -41 - "a great deal" of influence in selecting new members for boards of 50 oZ the arts agencies. Many directors believed that members were selected for political reasons (such as be'ng friends of officials or pOliticians, or having politica i fluence, or being prominent in public / life), rather f r their artistic or administrative expertise. In co9tIjast, agency directors would prefer to have representatilre of the arts on councils and commissions to a greater extentj than a_t present, particularly experts in the administrat on he(' production of the arts. Non-arts administrative exp rts are also desired as council members. Occupationy. Itackvound: Councils and commissions are composed , I largely of personf from fields other than the arts. Approximately one in five council or commission members works in business or a finhncial area; anothet one in five is in some arts or cultural field; one in six members is from the educational field. The occupational distribution of council and commission members serving at the close of fiscal 1974 is shown for all agencies in total on Table 10. Certain state agencies have a preponderance of one or another occupational group on their councils and commissions: In Hawaii, Mississippi, Nebraska, Rhode Island, and Tennessee a larger than average proportion (ranging from 457. to 60%) are from business/ financial fields. 53 IBEST COPY AVAILABLE Table 10 OCCUPATIONS OF COUNCIL/COMMISSION MEMBERS SERVING AT CLOSE OF FISCAL 1974 Business/financial Total A;-;encies % 22 . Bankers, accountants and other financial experts 5 Retailers 3 Other bus,'-ness people 14 Arts/culrural , 20 Artists 15 Staffs of cultural organizations 4 Architeets/urban planners 1 . Music/dance teachers , * Gallery owners , Education 16 Teachers -- college/university 7 Educational'administrators 6 Teachers -- elementary/secondary 3 Professional . . _ - 6 Lawyers 5 Doctors Clergy Media 5 'Critics 1 Other media 4 Volunteers active in civic affairs, not oth2rwise ef:nloyed 10, Homemakers Elected tr nwinted state officials 3 Union cp'ficials Other 1 1 * Less than 0.5% 54 NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER Or THE ARTS.INC. 0 -43- In parts of the Northeast (Connecticut, Massachu- setts, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont) and 1? in Montana, Utah, and Puuto Rico councils and commissions included a higher than average pro- portion,(from 40% to69%) of people from the arts. In several midwestern states (Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, apd Oklahoma) councils and commissions included a much higher than average proportion (from 40% to 72%) of volunteers active in civic affairs but not otherwise employed, and/or of home- , makers. Age, Sex, and Race. Somewhat more thah half of council and commission members are men, the large majority are white, and four in five are between the ages of 35 and ,64 years (see Figure 7). Terms And Frequency of Meetings. Council and commission memb'ers generally serve for many years. In more than half of the agencies, membership terms are at least four years, and on more than three in four councils and commissions the members may serve two or more terms consecutively. A majority of members servin&at the close of fiscal 1974 had been pn the council or commission at least three years, and almost one in five had served six years or more. Councils and commissions met an average of 6.2 times during fiscal 1974, or an average of once every other month. The overall average attendance of members at meetings was 7670 during,the year. Most councils and commissions are required to have public sessions and the number in that 5 5 group Figure 7 CHARACTERISTICS OF NEMBERS OF COUNCILS/CONNISSIONS SERVING AT CLOSE OF FISCAL 1974 . Sex r36 Raciatiethnic group \ stl 57 Age NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER or THE ARTS. INC -45- is rising; in fiscal 1974, 32 councils or commissions were required to meet in public session for all meetings; in fiscal 1975, 36 were reqqired to do so. Another 8 agencies were required to hold public, sessions for some meetings'in both fiscal years. Even among those agencies that bre hot required to meet in Public session most have held some public meetings. Payment. In only 6 agencies are members of the councils or commission paid an honorarium for attending meetings. However, in 44 agencies, council members are at least reimbursed for their expenses in attending. Cogncil/Commission Chairman. In 30 states the governor names or appoints the chairman; in 24 states or tprritories the council or commission names the chairman; and in the remaining state the governor and the council or commission jointly name the chairman. In a majority of states the chairman serves a specified term, usually one year (only one state has a term of more than four years); in most cases, the chairman can serve two or more consecutive terms. In two in five states the chairman serves an unspecified term. Characteristics of Executive Director Selec4on of Director. In the large majority of cases, the director is chosen by the council or commission, although in one in five states the governor selects the director. r -46- Educational Background and Experience. All directors but one are college graduates, and most have gone beyond a bachelor's 'degree. Undergraduate degrees were earned by directors in a variety of fields such as political science, history, education, psychology, and business administration, as well as more arts-oriented subjects such as architecture, music, and theatre. Those with master's degrees were more likely to have specialized in As-oriented areas: literature, arts admilistra- tion, visual arts, and music. Although arts administration is a relatively new field of study for advanced degrees, four directors had received master's degrees in arts administration. Furthermore, a majority of the directors had taken arts management courses and two in three had arts management experience (as directors of art," organizations, in arts education, in gallery work, and so forth) before working with a state arts agency. The length of experienee the directors have had winin state arts agencies ranges from one to ten years; the median number of years of experience in the agency is 5.5. However, the'median number of years in the position of director is 2.5, and one in three directors had been in that job for one year or less, indicating a high rate of turnover. / NATIONAL RE SEARCH C ENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. -47- ......&2211.2.sLseic.. As Figure 8 shows, two in three state arts agency directors are men and a majority are less than 45 years old. Figure 8 CHARACTERISTICS OF DtRECTORS OF STATE ARTS ALENCIES Sex Age Saler/. The median salary of arts agency directors was $18,900 in fiscal 1974. However, almost one in five state arts agency directors were paid less than $15,000 a year; fewer than one in five received $25,000 or over. Characteristics of Staff Size. The 55 arts agencies badn total paid staff of 483 persons at the close of fiscal 1974, or an average of nine paid staff members per agency. Directors of 47 agencies felt that _ -48- the size of the staff was not adequate in term of the agency's 'current activities and responsibilities. a Function and Affiliation. Approximately two in three staff membeLs were executive or professional personnel and the remainder were clerical personnel. Most (87%) paid staff umbers worked full-time--i.e., a minimum of 35 hours a week on a regular basis. As Figure 9 shows, approximately one in three was a civil service employee. Clerical employees were much more likely to be in the civil service or unions than were executive or professional staff members. Sex and Race. Three out of every five paid staff memhers of state arts agencies are_ummen (see Figure 10). A majority (57%) of the executive-professional staff are men and only 10% of the clerical staff are men. Four out of five staff members are white. Saia._E,y.. One in three staff members received a salary of less than $7,500 at the.close of fiscal 1974, and the median salary paid was $9,700 (see Figure 11). Excluding part-time workers, the median was a somewhat higher $10,500 for full-time staff, but still more than ond'in four (28%) were earning less than $7,500. Executive-professional personnel earned a median of $12,100; clerical personnel earned a median of $6,600. According to dinctors of a majority of'agencies, staff salaries were generally on a par with those for equivalent 6.i Figure 9 CHARACTERISTICS OF PROFESSIONAL AND-CLERICAL STAFF: CIVIL SERVICE AND UNION AFFILI.TION Total staff Civil service 34% Neither civil service nor contract 46% 62 Er.Lc4tlm-professiona1 Contract 257. Neither civil service nor contract. 46% .nion member 6% Non-union me=ers 94% Clerical Neither civil service nor contract 47% 63 . Figure 10 CHARACTERISTICS OF PROFESSIONAL AND CLERICAL STAFF: SEX AND RACE Total staff Executive-professional Men 577. Women 437. Clerical 65 Figure 11 CHARACTERISTICS OF STAFF: MEDIAN SALARIES AT CLOSE OF FISCAL 1974 theusauds 15 14, 13 12=:- 10 9 g_13_,AEL. $9,700 7,800 $10,000 .$13,800 $12,100 $7,100 7 $6,600 6 5 4 0 3 (-4 Total staff Executive-professional Clerical 66 67 -52-- positions in other agencies within the state, although more than one in three reported salary levels below those of other state agencies. Moreover, three out of four directors felt that the salary levels were not adequate to attract or keep needed personnel, and te__problem of inadequate salaries was seen as equally great'in large-budget agencies as in small. Funds from the National Endowment for the Arts eased the problems of salaries to some extent. Most agencies (42 in fiscal 1974 and 49 in fiscal 1975) used funds from the Arts Endowment to pay,in whole or in part, staff members, 1 consultants, or contract Tersonnel performing staff functions. Outside Advisors Most state arth agencies use the services of outside advisors and consultants on advisory panels, and as a source of professional experxise in policy and program planning. More than two in three agencies had panels, most of which are for grant review and, to a lesser extent, policy. In most agencies the members of panels were at least reimbursed for expenses, although in seven agencies panel members received neither reimbursement nor an honorarium, in effect, volunteering their services. In 1% six agepies_using other outside professional advisors and consultants these consultants received neither reimbursement nor an honorarium or fee. Aside 6om these categories of volunteers and the council or commission members, volunteers are not widely used: only agencies used any other types of volunteers on a regular basis. k 68 1 . NariONAL RE SEARCH C ENTER OF THE ARrS, NC. \ 0 -53- 5. FUTURE DIRECTIONS OF STATE ARTS AGENCIES Anticipated Funding Changes-- In 1974 a great majority of agencies anticipated increases in funding over the next three to five years. Increasing interest in and demand for the arts and increase& legislative activity were seen'as the major reasons for changes in levels of funding. Actual Funding Changes Since Fiscal 1974 The increases in state legislative appropriations to 0 state arts agencies in the years before fiscal 1974 continued in the period from fiscal 1974 to 1975, with total appropriations rising from $30.8 million to $57.3 million, an increase of::86% , (see Figure 12). Again, however, the total was affected by a great increase in the New York State appropriation from $16.4 million to $35.7 million. For agencies except New York, the legislative appropriations increased in total by 51%, from $14.3 million in fiscal 1974 t- $21.6 million in fiscal 1975. State legislative appropriations also increased in fiscal 1976, but at a reduced rate, rising from $21.6 million 469 54-2 Figure 12 LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATIONS TO STATE ARTS AGENCIES*, FISCAL 1974-1976 NA millions 60 557- 50 45 40 35 30 25 15 10 5-- .r $61,416,405 $57,189,285 $30,756,494 t, ' $14,311,494 $21,536,785 $25,713,505 / / // 1974 1975 1976 *Area below dotted line indicates funds exCluding New York State. - . ' NATIONAL RE :SEARCH C ENTER OF THE ARTS, INC. 0 -55- Figure 13 TOTAL FUNDS RECEIVED BY STATE ARTS AGENCIES!' FISCAL 1974-1976 $ mi 11 ions 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 25 20 15 10 5 $76,061,615 $44,155,072 $27,554,072 $83,584,732 $40,156,115 - - - - $47,486,422 - - - 19,74 1975 1976 *Area below dotted line indicates funds excluding New York State. Note: The total funds include funds from state, feckral, and local governments as well as private sousces. -56- to $25.7 million, excluding New York. This level of ap ropriation was l9% higher than the fiscal 1975 appropriations. // The total funds from all sources received by agencies (excluding New York) rose 47% between fiscal 104 and fiscal 1975, from $27.6 million to $40.2 million (see/Figure 13). Total funds (excluding New York) increased o $47.5 million (estimated) in fiscal 1976, an 18% increaSe. - Anticipated Effects of Fundin Increases (Y6 Program and Functions The majority of directors felt that both'1974 and 1975 levels of funding from all sources were inadequate. Should the agencies have sufficient funds (from whatever sources) to make desired improvements or changes over the next two to three years', they would make such changes primarily in staff development: 28 cc the agencies would spend funds to increase staff for adequate service to the state 18 would increase supportand grants to arts and cultural organizations 16 would increase emphasis on services throughou, the state 11 would promote general development of arts in the community 10 would slipport individual artists The high priority given to increased size of staff reflects the inadequate number of staff. Agencies also seem to want to supply more in the way of service than simply to fund I NATONAt 'AM:4CH CENTER OF THE ARTS, INC" -57- projects. Funding does remain the primary purpose, however, with high priority given to increased fund§ to the arts and cultural organizations on botb a short-term and long-term basis. Most agencies indicatea-they would engage in new areas Of programming -- primarily to support individual artists, educational programs, community organizations d local arts councils, as well as support of major institutions -- if the basic state agency grant from the National Endowment for .the Arts were to be increased. At a grant level of ;150,000, 29 of the agencies indicated they would engage in new areas of programming. If the grant were $750,000, 46 agencies would engage in new programming. Other Anticipated Trends The major trends or shifts in program emphases foreseen in the coming three to five years were toward greater/development of community arts activities, organizations, and councils, and toward increases in programs. Most (50) agenc31 directors anticipated increases in regional programming over the coming three to five years; 45 of these directors felt that such programming is generally a benefit to their state because, if well planned and executed, it will permit more\aad better programming at a more efficient 73 -58- cost. The increased participation by state arts agencies in regional organizations shown in 1974 and 1975 may well continue even if state and federal funding were not increased to the degree that many state directors anticipated that it would be at the time of dhe interview. At any event, whether funds increase or decrease, dramatic changes in program emphasis or priority seem unlikely. The fact that so large a proportion of program expenditures (72C out of every $1) go to grantee-initiated projects suggests the possibility that the allocation of expenditures by art form may reflect condidons inherent in the arts and culture industry more than it reflects deliberate initiatives on the part of the state arts agencies. While single states differ sharply from one another, it is interesting to note that the proportion of expenditures by art form of all the state arts agencies combined shows a high degree of similarity with that same total after New York has been runoved, implying that above a certain level of size and complexity in the number of arts activities being dealt with a common proportion of allocation by art form will be found. What emerges from this survey,therefore, is nol only a picture.of state arts agency activity, but also a representative pattern of funding derived from the needs and operations of the arts 'and culture cobstituency of the nation.