USVI Public Records

Document text

DOCUMENT RESUME 'ED 225 892 SO 014 454 TITLE Study of State Arts Agencies: A Comprehensive Report. INSTITUTION National lesearch Center of the Arts, jnc. , New York,. NY. SPONS AGENCY National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, D.C. PUB DATE 76 NOTE 447p.; For related documents, see SO 014 452-453. Some tables may not reproduce clearly due to small print type. PUB 'TYPE Reporti - Research/Technical (143) EDRS PRICE DESCRIPTORS., MF01/PC18 Plus Postgge. *Administrative Organization; Administrators; Budgets; *Expenditures; Federal GoNiernment; Financial Needs; *Financial Support; *Fine Arts; Governing Boards; Government Role; Legislation; Local, Government; *Organizational Objectives; *State Agencies; State Government; Tables (Data); Theater Arts; Visual Aits .ABSTRACT A comprehensive analysis of state arts agencies in the 50 states and in the District f Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa is presented. Data were collected from interviews with agency directOrs and agency reporfs as of fiscal. year 1974. The report is organized into eight chapters. Chapter 1 examines budget and finances at state and federal levels,, private funds, expenditures, and.types and methods of budget presentations. Chapter 2 describes mandated purposes, functions, practices, and trends of the agencies. Chapter 3 focuses on program emphases, restrictions, mandates, criteria of funding decisions, matching funds, and associated foundations. Chapter 4 defails the distribution of project funds in terms of primary and secondary recipients, distribution by art form 'ip each state, types of activity assisted, initiation and location of projects, audiences, and matching funds. Chapter 5 discusses arts agencies' relationships with departments of education, other state agencies, and local government. Chapter 6 Outlines management practices and organizational structure. Chapter 7 describes characteristics, number, salaries, organization, and adequacy of state paid staff. The final chapter, analyzes past developments and the future financial outlook. (KC) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** NATIOiVAL RES ARCH CENTER Or rf-t EAR TS. INC, bs) STUDY OF STATE ARTS AGENCIES A COMPREHENSIVE REPORT' Conducted for NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS By 6 NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS, INC. an Affiliate of Louis Harris and Associates, Inc.. 1976 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) Thks dcwtorent tos been reproduced as tot (.ned from the person or organtiahon OfKileAllt) )1 MArlO, 01,111kley ban. Lre,. fl ado to woptony teposlut bon ttaaSty POMP, 01 WA W (4WIMS OWM M thus (JOM Men( 40 /Mt set evYy itloosem offival AIE fUSIOn itt s),A tt NATIONAL Re SEARCIH CENTER or THE ARTS, INC TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION CHAPTER I: BUDGET AND FINANCES Funds Received in Fiscal 1974 3 Sources of Funds Received by State Arts Agencies 5 A Closer Look at State Funds 10 A Closer Look at Feder.al Funds 13 A Cioser Look at Prii*Tate Funds 16 Funds Received_by Separate Associated Foundations 19 Expenditures 21 Budget Submissions 27 Type of Budget Submitted 28 .N.,...4=PMethods'of Submission of Budget , CHAPTER II: PURPOSES, FUNCTIONS AND PRACTICES 32 36 Mandated,Purposes 37 Function's and Practices 47 Trends and Shifts in Functions and Practices.... ...... 55 CHAPTER III: PROGRAMS 58 Program Emphases 60 Restrictions and Mandates 65 0 Criteria for Funding or Denial of Funding '83 Sp'ecific 0riteria Used in Funding Decisions 85 Matching Funds 90 NonFunding Programs 92 Programs-of Associated Foundations 97 CHAPTER IV: PROJECT EXPENDITURES 102 Total Expenditures 105 Highlights of the Distribution of the Project Expenditures 107 Sources of Funds for Project Expenditures 108 Primary,,of Di:rect,.Recipients of Project Expenditures 114 Primary Recipients by State 116 Sources of Funds for Expenditures to Primary, or Direct, Recipientg. 127 Secondary, or Indirect, Recipients 129 Distribution of Project Expenditures by Art Form 134 Distribution by Art Form by State' 136 Distribution by Art Form of the Recipients 147 Sources of Funds for Expenditures in Art Form 150 Types of Activity Assisted by Project Expenditures 153 Types of Activity Assisted by'Project Expenditures, by State 155 TABLi OF CONTENTS (Continued) CRAPTER IV: PROJECT EXPENDITURES (Continued) Page Primary Activity by Art Form 164 Primary Activity by Primary Recipient 166 Primary Acitvity by Source of,Zunds 169 Skondary Activities 171 Initiation of Projects 173 Location of Project; . 179 Prgvious Funding of P-rojects . 181 Audiences and Attendance..... 186 Matching Rinds.. 188 " Cost of Projects 192 CHAPTER V: INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE RELATIONSHIPS WITHOTHER AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS 197 Departments or Commissions of Education 199 Types of Arts Activities of Education Departments... 200 Evaluation of Relationship With Education Departments 206 Activities of Other State Agencies and Departments 208 Services from Other State Agencies 4 . 214 Interstate Relationships with Community Councils and Citizens' Groups 216 Interstate Relationships and Regional Programming.... 220 Evaluation of Relationships 230 CHAPTER VI: MANAGEMENT. 232 Position within the State Government Structure 234 Councils and Commissions.,. 235, Composition of Councils4Commissions 237 Occupations of Council/COmmission Members 239 Boards of Separate Associated Foundations 243 Selection of Council/Commission Members 246 Terms of Service of Council/Commission Members 254 Meetings of the Council/Commission and Its Committees... . 257 Meetings of Council/Commission and Its Committees in Public Sessions 262 Compensation to Members for Attendance at Meetings... 264 Chairman of the Council/Commission 266 Directors of,State Arts Agencies 271 Activities of\Directors 276 Management Auehority and Decision-Making Powers 288 Decision-Making\yowers 291 -(Continued) LI NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS, INC, TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) CHAPTER VII: MANPOWER NuMber of Paid Staff 308 Type of Personnel 310 Characteristics of Paid Staff 312 Salaries of Paid.Staff 313 Staffs of Associated Foundations 315 Organization of Staff of State Arts Agencies 317 Adequacy of Staff 318 Civil Service/Merit Systems 320 Salary Suppprt from the National Endowment'fOr the Arts 325 Outside Advisors or Consultants 127 Selection of Panel Members 330 CHAPTER VIII: PAST DEVELOPMENTS AND FUTURE OUTLOOK 337 State Appropriations 339 Change in State Appropriations Per CapiL... . , ... , 343 Total Funds Received s 346 Total Funds Received Per Capita % 349 Adequacy of Funding on Functions and Practices 352 . Future Plans and Goals t 356 Effect of Possible Increases in Basic State , Agency Grant 357 ' APPENDIX A: MODEL STAT ARTS COUNCIL ACT 365 APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY 368 440 0 NATIONAL RESEARC0-4 CENTER OE THE' ARTS. INC. INDEX OF TABLES CHARTER 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. .BUDGET AND FINANCES rage 4 6,8 9 11 12 13 Total Funds of State Arts Agencies And Associated'Separate Foundations in Fistal 1974 Sources of Funds of State Arts Agencies in Fiscal 1974 .. Percentage of Funds From State Legislative-Appropriations Fiscal 1974, By Total EXenditures... Sources of Other State Funds in Fiscal a974 and Pelcentage of ,Total Funds Received Percentage of State Appropriation.in Fiscal 1974 For Admin- istrative and for Program Purposes Average Percentage of State Appropriation in Fiscal 1974 For Administration Parposes. . - Sources of Other Federal,Funds in Fiscal 1974 and Percentage ok Total Funds-Received .. 8. ' Sources of Private Funds Receivea bY State Arts Agencies in Fistal 1974, and Rercentage of Total Funds Received 17-18 9. Fu nds Received by Separate Foundations Associated with State Arts Agencies In Fiscal 1974 20 10. Expenditures of State Arts Agencies in Fi6ca1 1974 22-25 11. Expenditures of Separate Foundations Assoéiated with State Arts Agencies in Fiscal 1974 26 12. Type of State Appropriation 27 13. Fiscal Year Covering Fiscal 1974 28 ' 14. Type of liudget Submitted to State Legislature Fiscal 1974 29 15. Type of Budget Submitted to,State Legislature Fiscal 1974, by Total Expendittres . 29 16. Whether Funds Budgeted for One Line Item Can Be .Used for Other Purpose After State Appropriation Has-Been Made 30 17. Separation of program and Administrative Fundsfin Budget Submissions 31 18. Whether Budget is Submitted to Legislature Through Another Individual, Agency or Office . 32 19. Individyal, Agency.or Office Through Which Budget is Submitted to State,Legislature 33 20. Whether Director or Member of the Agency Appeared Before Legislature in Behalf of Fiscal 1974 Budget 34 21. Whether Trends or Shifts in the Manner of Budget Submissions A are Foreseen as Coming in 3 to 5 Years 35 . 22. Trends or Shifts in the Manner of Budget Submission Foreseen as Coming in 3 to 5 Years 3 5 INDEX OF TABLES (Continued) .Page, CHAPTER II PURPOSES, FUNCTIONS AID PRACTICES 23. Functions and Practices of State Arts Agencies . .. 49-50 24. Ohether Agencies Have Previously Engaged in Functions and Practices Not Engaged in During Fiscal 1974, And/Or Would. Like to in the Future 52-53 25. Whether Trends or Shifts in Functions and Practices of Agency 0 Are Foreseen in Coming 3'to 5 Years ..... 55 ' 26. Trends or Shifts in Functions and Practices Foreseen ifi Coming 3 to 5 Years 56 27. Reasons Why Trends and Shifts Foreseen in Functions and Practices Will Occur.- 57 CHAPTER Iil PROGRAMS 28. Major Program Emphases of State Arts Agency ............ 61 29. Perceived,,Future Balance of Progrtms 62 30. Trends or Shifts in Program Emphases of the Agency Foreseen in the Coming 3 to 5 Years.. ....... 00,000 64 31. Reasons Why Trends or Shifts Foreseen in Program Emphases of the Agency Vill OcCur 65 32. Legal PrOhi tions Against Receiving Operating Revenues . 66 33. Other Fis al Prohibitions Under Which Agency Operates.. ...... 67 34. Restrictions or Prohibitions Currently Affecting Program Activities 69 35. Whether Agency Use Any Means of Subgranting Funds to Indi- viduals or Organizations it is Prohibited From, or Prefers Not To, Fund Directly.'..... 70 36. Maximum Amount That Nay Be Granted For Single Project 71 37. Whether 'frends or Shifts in the Mandating by Legislature to Conduct Specific Activities are Foreseen in Coming 3 to 5 , Years . 72 38. Trends or Shifts in the Mandating by Legislature to Conduc Specific Activities Foreseen in Coming 3 to 5 Years.......... 73 39. Distribution of Fiscal 1974 Legislative Appropriation-By Earmarkea Vs. Discretionary Funds ........... 74-15 40. Distribution of Private Funds Received in Fiscal 1974 By Earmarked Vs. Discretiondly ... 77-78 41, Sources of Private Funds Received in Fiscal 1974, By Earmarked V. Discretionary.... ......... 79 42. Distribution of Program Expenditures ir Fiscal 1974, By Earmarked Vs., Discretionary 80-82 43. Whether Agency Has Written Grant ProviSions or Program Guidelines 83 44. Existence of Written Grant Provisions or Program Guidelines By Total Expenditures .. . 84 45. Items That Are Usually a-Part,of The Agency's Decision-Making Process for Funding Projects 85 46. Criterialnvolved in Decisions on the Funding of Projects....... 87 47. Other Criteria Important in Deciding Whether A Project Should Be Funded . 89 NATIONAl ARC H?C ENT Eiit or THE ARTS°, INC. INDEX OF TABLES (Continued) Page CHAPTER III PROGRAMS.(Continued) 48. Other Reasons Important in Denying Formal Applications For. The Funding of Projects in Fiscal 1974 89 49. Requirements for Matching Funds 90 50. Percentage of Grant Required as Matching Funds 90 .01. Types of Matching Funds AlloWed by Agency' 91 52. Approximate Percentage of Formal Applications for Funding of Projects That Were Denied by the'Agency in Fiscal 1974.,..,. .91 53.. Average Percentage,of Applications Denied in Fiscal 1974.by Total Expenditures 92 54. Most Imporiant Activities Undertaken by Agency in Addition to the Funding of i'rojects' 93 55. Art Forms in Which Non-FUnding Activities are Conducted 94 56. Types of Groups for Which Non-Funding Activities. are Normally Conducted.. 95 57. Percentage of Work Time*by Director and Staff Devoted to Non-Funding Activities 96 58. Activities of Associated Separate Foundation 97 59. Whether Trends or Shifts in the Activities of the Associated Separate Foundation are Foreseen in Coming 3 to 5 Years 98 60. Trends or Shifts in the Activities of the Associated Separatp Foundation Foreseen in Coming 3 to 5 Years 98 61. Benefits of Having an Associated Separate Foundation 99 62. Problems Involved in Having Associated Separate Foundation 100 63. Sources of Funds Received y Associated Separate Foundations in Fiscal 1974, by Farmarked Vs. Discretionary 101 64. Distribution of Funds Received by Associated Separate Found- ations in Fiscal-19/4 by Earmarked Vs. Discretionary..., 101 CHAPTER IV PROJECT EXPENDITURES , 65. Project Expenditures and Number of Projects in Fiscal 1974., 106 66. Sources of Funds for'Project Expenditures in Fiscal 1974 111-113 67. Primary, Or Direct, Recipients of Project Expenditures in Fiscal 1974, by State.. 119-124 68. Primary, Or Direct, Recipients of Project Expenditures in Fiscal 1974, by All States Except New York 126 69. Primary, Or Direct, Recipients ofProject Expenditures in Fiscal 1974, by Source of Funds 128 70. SecOndaiy, Or Indirect, Recipients of Project Expenditures in Fiscal 1974, by Primary Recipients 132-133 71. Distribution by Art Form of Project Expenditures in Fiscal 1974, by State 138-143 72. Distribution by Art Form of Project Expenditures in Fiscal 1974 by Total Expenditures 144 73. Distribution by Art Form of Project Expenditures in Fiscal 1974, by Tote. Agencies and by Total Agencies Without New York 146 74. Distribution by Art Form of Project Expenditures in Fiscal 1974, by Primary Recipients 148-149 CO 4, INbEX OF TABLES (Continued) it CRABTER IV PROhCT EXPENDITURESb(Continued) 75. Distribution by Art Form of Project Expenditures in Fiscal 1974, by,Source of Funds 76. Primary Activity Assisted by Project Expenditures In Fiscal 1974, by State 77. Primary Activity Assiste4,by Projett,Expenditures 1974, by Total Expenditures Primary Activity Assisted by Project Expenditures ' 78. 79. 80. 81. 1974, by Art Form Primary Activity Assisted by project Expenditures ,*n.Fiscal 1974, bi Primary Recipients Primary Activity Assisted by Project Expenditures in Fiscal 1974, by Source of FUnds 170 Secondary Activities Assisted.by project Expenditures in Fiscal 1974 ,.. 1727173 82. Initiation of,PrOjects For Which ExPenditures Were Maje in Fiscal 1974, by State 175-177 83. Initiation of Projects For Which Ixpenditures Were Made in Fiscal 1974, by Total Expenditures 178 84. Location of Prdjects For Which Bxpenditures Were Made in in Fiscal in Iascal, 157-162 163 165 167-168 Fiscal 1974, by Total Expenditures 180 ' 85. Whether Project Expedditures in Fiscal 1974 Were Continued Funding of Ongoing Projects, One-Time,Funding or.Pilot . Projects,. i . . - - . .. 182-184 86. Numben of Years Ongoing PrJjects Had Been Funded 185 87. Whether Continua Funding of Ongoini Projects is Anticipated 185 88. Matching Funds for Project Expenditures in Fiscal 1974.. 189-191 89. Total Costs.of Projects 'ForWhich Expenditures Were Mdde In Fiscal 1974. ., -- , '193-195 CHAPTER.V INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS 90. Levels of Education For_Which Funds For The Arts dre Provided by Education Departments .. ... 200 91. Types of Arts Activities For Which Funds are Provided by State Education Departments 201 92. Type of Relatfonship With Departments of Education. .. ... 202 93. Joint Programs Conducted With Education Departments 203 94. Areas or Types of Activities in Which Support of Education Departments is Most Effective and Beneficial to the Arts..,. 204 4 95. Areas or Types of Activities in Which Support of Education Departments is More'Seriously Lacking , 205 06. Rating of Relationship With Education Departments.... 206 97. Whether Trends or Shifts in Relationship With Departments of ... Education are Foreseen in Coming 3 to 5 Years 207 98, Trends or Shifts in Relationship With Departments of Education Foreseen During Coming 3 to 5 Years ....... ............ 2G/ 99. Agencies or Departments of the State Government Other Than, The Education Department(s) That Provide Some.Typeof Support to the Arts 9 209 NATI6NAL RESEARCN CENTER or THE ARTS. iNC. 4 r . iNDEX OF TABLES' (Continued) p. ev.A. Page CHAPTER V INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE RELATIONSHIPS 11TH OTHER' AGENCIES AND.ORGANI2ATIONS (Continued) g 100.* Types of Support Provided by Agenoies or Departnents of the State Covernment OEher than the Education.Department(s) ,- 210 101. Expectations Concerning Support of the ArtaDuring the Coming 3 tO 5 Years and Reasons Fox Such Expectations 211 _ 102. Representation To.and From Other Agencies 213 103. Whethei Required to Pay-for Services Provided by Other State Agencies.-- 214 104. Whether Rent is,Paid and Td Whom 215 15. Evaluation of the Importance of COmmuaityrts Councils to the ArtS'in the State 216 106. Support Relatlonship of State Arts Agenciesto Community Arts Councils 107. Whether it is Thought"that Relationship Between Agency and Community Councils Will Change in Coming 3 to 5 Years 'Changes That-axe Thought Will-Octuf iii Relationship Betx:/een State Arts Agency and Commaity Arta Councils Whether funds Weie Ever Given to Agency in Another Act on Behalf of State Arts Agency 110. imether Funtib Were Ever Given to Agency v Region 111. Participation in Regional Programming 112. Aegional Organizations in .- Participated.. 113. Contributions tp Regional .114. Regional Organizations or Planned 115. Whether Regional Programming Will 3 to 5 Years, and Wr Reasons Regional Programminkis a Benefit to the Reasons Regional Programming Does Not Benefit State Preferred Developments in Regional Programming katings of Relationships With Selected Groups, Agencies or' Individuals State to in Anoeher State, by Organizations eau Regionai Which State Arts Arpies Have 217 218 219 2/1 221 222 223 Organizations.,, 224 Projects in Which Participation is Increase During Coming 225 226 State 227 228 229 CHAPTER VI MANAGEMENT 120. Position of State Arts Agency Within the State Government... 121. Size of Council/Commission 122. Average Membership'of Council/ComMission, by Total Expendi- tures , 231 234 236 237 123 Characteristics of Members of CouncillCommission 238 124. Occupations of Council/Commission*Members 240-242 125. Size of Board of Separate.Associated Foundation 126. Characteristics and Occupations of Members of Boards of Separate Associated Foundations r 127. People With a Great Deal,of Influence on Selection of New. Members of Council/Commission.. 246 24 '5 1 w ODEIC OF TABLES 1- (Continued) 2 : A /1 'CHATTER 128. % 7 4 +4, VI . MANAGEMENContinued) Two' or Three Most Predomivant Reasons-in the, Selection Of . Council/Commission Members Serving at,the End of Fiscal 1974 , ....... 129. ,Two or Three Roasons,That Direetors Peer hould be Mose .. Predominant in Selection of Members of Council/Commission 249 13p. Two or Three Most Predominant Reasons in.Selectio0of Council/dommission Members Serving at Mid-of Fiscal 1974 .252 131. Trends or Shifts in Reasons for Selection of Council/ . ComMission Members Fofeseen During Coming Ito 5 Years 253 .132.( Terms of.Service of Council/Commission Members 254 .13. Number of Terms Eligible to Serve and Number of Terms Most ' Council/Commission Members Do Serve".....,....,....., .. 255 134. Time Served-on Council/Commission, ,. 256 135. Changes Desired in Tqrms of Service of Council/Commission. Members " 257 136. Number 6f Times Council/Commission is Mandated to Meet 258 137. Number of Times Council/Commission Met During Fiscal 1974 258 NuMber of Times1 COuncil/CommO.ssion Met Ewrilig Fiscal 1974, ,138. by Total Expenditures ... e . . J 259 139. Average Percentage of Members Attending Codncil/Commission. T* 0 Meetings in Fiscal 1974 -259 ' 140. Whether Council/Commission Met in Commitee Sessions During . Fiscal 1974 260 141. ,Names of Committees of the Council/Commission 261 142-: Functioits of Committees of Council/Commission ,..,... 261 143. . Usef5lness of-Committees of Councilgommission.. 262 144: Whether Councils/Commissions Are Required to Medt in Public Session 262 145. Whether Committees Required to Meet in Public Sessions....... 264: 146. Whether CotWeil/Commission'Membrs Are Compensated for \,. Attending Meetings, 265 147. Whether No Compensation is Made to CoubCil/.Commission Members.1 For Attending Meetings, by Total Expencatures 266 148. Most Likely Persons to Suggest a Person for Chairman or to . Initiate the Selection Process., , 267 149. Persons Who Name or Appoint Chairman . 267 150. Power of Final Review or Approval oT Selection Of Chairman by Council/Commission 267 151. Term Which.Chairman Seves 268 152. Whether Chairman Can SerVe More than One Term....,,. 268 153. Whether ChOlrman Personally Meets, As a Function of His or 'Her Chairmanship, With the Governor on Matters Pertaining to the Agency, And Approximate Numbefr of Times Such Meetings Were Held'in Fiscal 1974 , ...... 269 154. Whether Chairman Personally Meets With Administrative Assistant or Other Staff of Governor/s Office on Matters Pertaining to the A6ncy, and Approximate Number of Times Such Meetings Were Held in ascal 1974 270 ... .4 0,111. NATIONAL RESSARCH CENTER OE THI* ARTS. C. . '7INDEX'OF TABLES (Continuted) 'Page CHAPTER VI MANAGEME_.W1(_Ca),Itimued 155. Whether Chairman Personally Meets With lndiVidual Members of the State Legislature on Matters Pertaining to the Agency, and Approximate Number of Times Such Meetings Were Held in, -Fiscal 1974 .' 270 ,156. Persons Who Select or Opoint Director. ,, 271 157. .Characteristics of Directors 272 158. Arts and Non-Arts Management Experience 0 273 159. Years of Experience in Work in State Art§ Agencies 274 160. Years in Current Xhdition as Director.7 274 161. Salary of Director 275 162. Median Salary of Dlrector , by Total Expenditures of Agency.. 276. 163. What Directors Feel Should be Major Functions of Their Job... 277 164. Activities on Which Directo s Spend a Great Deal of Time ..... 278 165. Expectations of Changes in. ount-of Time Spent by Director on Different Types of Activ ties in Comihg 3 t9 5 Years.... 280 166: Whether Director Personally Meets With Governor on Matters Pertaining tO the Agency, and Approximate Number of Times Such Meeting-Were Held in Fiscal 1974 281 167. Whether Direetor Personally Meets With Admihisxrative Assistant or Other Staff of Governor's Office, and Approxi- mate Nullifier of Times Such'Meetings Were Held in Fiscal 1974 ?81 168. Whether,Director Personally Meets-With Individual Members of the State Legislature, and Approximate Number of Times Such Meetings Were Held in- Fiscal 1974 282 169. Meetings ot Chairman anld DirectorsWith State Hierarchy 283 170. Other Channels of dommunication With Governor,-Governor's Staff and Individual, Members of Legislature. 284 .,171. Whether Trends or Shifts in Communication of Diredtor With Governoi'and Staff and Individual Members oE State Legis,- lature Are Foreseen in Coming 3 to 5 Years . 4 284 172.' Trends or Shifts in Communication of Director With Governor ) and Staff and Individual.Members of State Legislature Foreseen in Coming 3 to 5 Years 285 174. Other Government Officials Directors Feel Are Most Critical to the State Arts Agency 286 174. Whether Trends or Shifts in Which Government Official(s) Will Be Most Critical in DeterminingLevel of Appropriations or Frequency of Contactby Director With Such Officials,Are Foreseen,in Coming 3 to 5 Years 287 175. Trends or-Shifts in Government Official(s)' Determination of f..avel of Avpropriations or Director's Contact With Them Foreseen A Coming 3 to 5 Years t.o7 176. Discretionary Grant-Making Powers in Fiscal 1974 288 177. Discretionary Grant-Making Powers in Fiscal 1974, by Total Expenditure& 289 178. Discretionary Grant-Making Power Within Broad Program Areas Approved by Council/Commission in Fiscal 1974 290 179. Maximum Amount For Which Director or Other Staf2 Had Discre- tionary Power Within Broad Program Areas Approved By Council/Commission 1 2 INDEX OF NILES (Continued) CHAPTER VI MANAGEMENT (Continued) 180. Whether thairman Has Power to Appoint Committees Council/Commission , 181. 'ResponSibilitY for Overall Policy and Long-Range' 182. ReSponsibility for Budget, 183. Responsibility for Formulation olf Guidelines and - Planning 184. Responsibility for Grants or Project Funding 185. Responsibility for Follow-Up Evaluation' .186. Responsibility for.Administrative Matters. 187. Outside Officials With Veto Power Over Decisions State Arts Agency CHAPTER VII* MANPOWER of the 'planning..,. PtOgram Made by 293 295 297 299 301 / 303 304 188. Number of Paid Staff, Including Director and'COnsultants and Contract Personnel, Serving in a Staff Capacity at Close of Fisca1,1974' 309 189. Average Number'of.Paid Staff at Close of Fiscal 1974, by Total Expenditures '310 190. Type of Personnel 311 191: Type of Personnel, by Executive-Professional Vs. Clerical Staff 312 192. Characteristics of Paid Staff. 313 193. Salaries ok Patd Staff 314 194. Median Salary of Men and Women , 315' 195. Number of Paid Staff of Sepatate AssVciated Foundations at Close of Fiscal 1974. 316 196. Type of Personnel and Characteristics of Paid Staff of Separate Associated Foundations 197. Organization .of Professional Staff Ap'art from Director, 198. Adequacy of Number of Staff in Terms of Agency's Current Activities and Responsibilities 199: ' Adequacy of Experience or Training of Staff of Agency , ,200. Whether,Staff Members Othei Than Director 'Are Under State Civil Service or Merit System 321 201. Whether Civil Service/Merit System Positions Must be Filled in Order Determined by the System 202. Whether Salaries of Staff Other Than Directors are Set by the State , 203. Persons With/Authority to Set Non-State Regulated Salaries,. 204. Comparison of Salary Levels in State Arts Agencies with Those of OtherAgehcies in the State 205. Adequacy of.Current Salary Levels to Attract pr Keep'Needed Personnel 206. Staff Members And/Or Consultants or Contract Personnel-Per- forming Staff-Like Functions Paid in Whole or in Patt by F.IpAs from the National Endowment Fot The Arts,.Fiscal 1974 325 317 318 319 320 322 322 323 323 324 NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. .. INDEX OF TABLES (Continue0 Page CHAPTERVII MANPOWER (Continued) 207. Staff Members And/Or Consultants or Contract Personnel Per- forming Staff-Like Functions Paid in Whole or in Part by Funds from the National Endowment for the Arts, Fiscal 1975 326 208. Use ofPanels of Experts by Agency ..... . . 327 209. Use of Panels in Fiscal 1974, by Region 328 210. Names of.Panels 4encies Had in Fiscal 1974 329 211. Selection Of Members of Panels .. 331 212. Whether Panel Members Are Compensated 332 213. Whether Trends or Shifts in the Use of Panels. Are Foreseen in the Coming 3 to,5 Years-- 332 214. Use of Other Outside Advisors or Consultants in Fiscal 1974 333 215. 'Selection of Outside Advisors or Consultants 334 216. Compensafion of Outside Advisors or Consultants ..... 335 71- Use of Volunteers Other Than Council/Commission Members. ..... 335 CHAP R VfIf PAST DEVELOPMENTS AND FUTURE OUTLOOK. ,418. tate Legislative Appropriations, Fiscal 1966-1976 .. ...O. 342 219. tate Appropriations Per Capita, With Rankings, Fiscal 1970-1975 , 344-345 22 . Total Funds Received, Fiscal 1971-1976. / 347-348 . 22a. Total Funds Received Per,Capita, With Rankings, Fiscql 1971-1975 350-351 222: Adequacy of Total Funding Level From Ala Sources for the Agency's Functions and Practices ....... 352 223. Adequacy of Total Funding Level in Fiscal 1974 by Total Expenditures 353 224. Whether Trends or Shifts in the Level of Funding Expected c are Foreseen During Coming 3 to 5 Years .. , 354 225. Treads or Shifts in the Level of Funding Expected Foreseen During Coming 3 to 5 Years 354 226. Reasons Why Trends or Shifts in Level ot Funding are Foreseen 355 227. Existence of Long-Term Plans and Goals 356 228. Existence of Long-Term Plans and Goals, by Total Expenditures 357 229. Directions of Programming With Possible Increases in Basic State Agency Grant 358 230. New Areas of Programming Agency Would Engage in if Basic State Agency Grant were Increased to the $250,000 Level..., 359 231. New Areas'of Prografting Agency Would Engage,in if Basic State Agency Grant Were Increased to the $750,000 Level.... 360 232. Two or Three Areag ia Which Funds Would Be Spent in the Next Two to Three Years, If Sufficient Funds Weie Available For Improvements or Changes in Programming, Staffing or Other Activities - 362 233. Two or Three Ardas in Which Funds Wduld Be Spent in the Next Five to Ten Years1/4 if Sufficient Funds Were Available For Improvements or Changes in Programming, Staffing Or pther Activities 1 39 NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. INTRODUCTION During the past decade the state arts agenoy movement.has grown and flowered in this country to become a major force for the arts and culture. With the exception of the Utah Arts Institute, founded in. 1899, the state arts agency movement can be said,to have begun with the creation of the New York State Council on the Arts in 1960. This was soon followed by'other state agenaies set up by executive orders or legislative acts, with most agencies being founded during the mid-1960's, today there is an official agency for the arts in each of the 50 states as well as in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa. 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 Associated Councils of the Arts, collected more extensive data on the fiscal 1971 and fiscal 1972 funds of the agencies, publiphed by ACA under the title' State Arts Councils. However, these data were limited to funds received and expended and the number of projects in various categories, and within these areas onlY the most basic information was obtained. It was evident to many people in the state arts agency iield, 'and to those interested in support of state arts agencies, that the programs and policies of the agencies were being severely hampered by the lack of comprehensive information. In 1974 directors of state arts agencies endorsed the undertaking of a study of the agencies by the National Endowment for the Arts, and the Endowment contracted with the National-Research Center'of the Arts to conduct this study. Wt. During 1974 three series of Meetings were held with state arts agency directors and chairmen, National Endowment for the Arts representatives and staff of the National Research Center of the Arts, the first to block out the substantive areas to be covered in the study, the second to review a questionnaire developed by the Research Center, and the third to approve a final questionnaire. °The collection of data was planned to begin in late 19744 and the questionnaire focused on fiscal 1974. However, necessary clearances by the Office of Management and Budget were unexpectedly delayed, and the actual collection of data did npt begin until mid-1975. Coverge of the Study Using questionnaires and forms developed with the assistance of con- sultant state arts agency directors and chairmen, the study collected data on a wide spectrum of agency activities and programs, including the basic organ- ization and structure of the agency, its relationship to other agencies within the state and with other states and the federal government, the council or cammission governing the agency and the chairman of that council/commission, the director and staff of the agency, the agency's functions, practices and programs, expenditures (grants, contracts, etc.) made for projects, and so on: The broacLscope of the study vas intended to provide a compendium of data that would serve as a base point for bontinuing research on particular aspects of the agency movement. Similarly, the Research Center was charged with.the responsibility for collecting and interpreting the data so as to provide an in-depth picture of the state arts agencies as of the time of the survey. This'report attempts to do that; it is not La any way an evaluation of the agencies nor an analysis of causal,factors. 16 NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. It phould be noted that, although the survey covered an extensime range of subjects related to state arts agencies, there are areas of importance that it was impossible to include in this research. Perhaps the most imporCant of these is an inventory of a state's cultural resources; this information, which is vital for a complete understanding of the arts and culture on a statewide basiS, can be obtained only through a survey of the arts organizations and cultural institutions ,themselves. It should also ,be pointed out that information on arts and cultural activities of other state agencies included in 'this report was supplied by the directors of the state arts agencies, and not by those other state agencies, so that data on their activities may be incomplete; furthermore, it was impossible to put any dollar values on other agencies' activities in support of the arts without direCt contact with the agencies. Collection a the Data The data were collected through a questionnaire administered in in-person'interviews conducted by xepresentatives of the National Research Center of the Arts with the directors of the state arts agencies. The directors were notified of the study and the areas of coverage through a "memorandum from the Chaim= of the gndowment, Nancy Hanks, which also exprained that they wouldbe contacted directrr by interviewers from the Research Center. The interviewers subsequently telephoned the directors and set up appointments for the personal interviews. These interviews were usually conducted in two sessions of approximately three hours' length each. (The questionnaires for Guam and American Samoa were completed in writing and returned by nail.) The questionnaires were divided into four sections: Section I, Structure and Organization and Relationships With Other Groups 0 -iv- and Organizations; Section II, 'Council/CommiSsion and Stafk; Section III, Functions and Practices; and Section TV, Prograns. It should be stressed that in all cases the interviews were conducted with'the director of'the agency; in some cases the position was held by an intertm or-acting director who was interviewed. (The American Samoa questionnaire was completed by the chairman, since the positi n of director di&not'exist.) Thus info,:mation on council/dotthission chairm n and members is based on the directors' knowledge and,was not obtained from the chairmen and members. In addition to the in-person interviews, three self-admistered forms were left with the agencies for completion by them. One of these self-administered.forms covered the race, age, length of service and occupation of members of councils/cammissions and of boards of associAed foundations, if any, and the number, type and characteristics of paid staff, including - dneir salaries, and of staffs of associated foundations, if any. Another form detailed the amount and sources of funds-received during fiscal 1974, and the funds expended by the agency during that year, as well as total state appropriations and total amounts received during fiscal 1972,,fiscal 1973, fiscal 1975 and fiscal 1976; information on amount and sources of funds received and amount expended in fiscal 1974 by the associated foundation, if any, was also obtained on this form. The third form was completed by agencies for each project expenditure made in fiscal 1974, and indicated dhe amount and sources of funds for the expenditures, the primary and secondary recipients, the initiatorof the project, the previous and anticipated funding of the project, the primary and secondary type of activity assisted, the art form, the locations of the N.ATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS.INC. st -v. project:Ane_audiences and attendance, and artists and organizations involved, and the matching funds-and total costs of the project. Allagencies had tp complete multiple numbers of these forms, and for some agencies the numbers xan into theliundrgds. Almost all agencies were able, however, to provide all data necessary on their prOjec expenditures; in a few cases, National Research Center personnel were required to assist the a,gencies in the completion of the project expenditure forms. In the case of the Lonisiana Council for Music and Performing Arts, the forms remain soMewhat incomplete even after all efforts were exhausted, but the figures for that state art agency used in the report are believed to be reasonably accurate. Agency'Groupinga In the tabulation of findings, the data were assembled.not only in total but also by groups of agencies. These groups were chosen to see if an agency's geographic location, the total and per.capita amounts of expenditures, t..e population size/density of the state, the propqrtion of the state's population living in metropolitan areas, and the percentage of the state arts, agency's funds.derived from state appropriationS had significant effects , on agency programs.and policies. Generally, the data did not indicate that the'se groupings revealed significant differences in agency programs and policies. In sone capes, however, the regional expenditUres and total expenditure groupings did reveal interesting differences or simiearities among agencies, and where this occurred, the tables include these groupings. The states in each group are shown in the following: 13, - Regions (not including Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa) Northeast , Maine, New Hampshire, VerMont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Conhecticut, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania Soutti Delaware, Maryland, District of'Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carólina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, TenneaSee, Alabama, MiSsissippi, Arknnsas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas North Centnai Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota; South Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas West Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Neva a, Wa hin ton, Oregon, California, Alaska and Hawaii Expenditures (Fiscal-/974) Below V50,000 Gham, AMik-itan Samoa,- North Dakota,Jdaho,-NeVadaWyoming, Wisconsin, Montana, New Hampshire, Nebraska, Vermont, Delaware, Ne7W-Mexico, District of Columbia and Louisiana AI $250,000-499,999 Total Kansas,.Oregon, Iowa, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Arizona, Coloxado, Alabama, Virginia, Kentucky., North Carolina, Georgia, Washington and Indiana $.17 and above Utah, South Dakota, Virgin Islands, Maine, Rhode Island and Arkansas $500,000-749,999 Total less'than $.17 par capita Florida, Tennessee, Massachusetts and Texas $.17 and above Alaska, West Virginia, Connecticut, Minnesota, South Carolina and Maryland $750,000 and above Total Less than $.17 per capita Illinois, New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and California $.17 and above Hawaii, Missouri, Puerto Rico,and New York NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. Limitations of the Data In considering the findings contained in this report, the reader should keep in mind certain limitations of the study. First, as already noted, is the fact that the'information was obtained from state arts agency directors, and therefore is based on the directors' knowledge and perceptions. Thus much of the data, particularly those sections referring to other persons and other agencies, must be considered as subjective on the part of the director rather than as objective factual material. It should also be pointed out that the surveyamproyed a large number of open-end questions. In recording thOtanswers to these questions, in which, the directors were not offered structuted responses but.were allowed s to volunteer any answers, interviewers provade the verbatim responses of the directors, which were then coded by National Research Center technicians for computer tabulations. In a basic study such' as this, these open-end questions are especially necessary, Since the range of,possible answers is unknown. However, they should be interpreted as Offering the information' that came to the directors' minds when asked the question, and because a director did not cite an item in response to such a question does not mean necessarily that that item does not pertain to that agency. For example, .` in , sponse to an open-end question qn what restrictions.or proh'ibitions affect p gram activities, three directors volunteered that they could make grants only t non-profit or tax-exempt organizations, but this does not mean that other ag cies could make such grants. It only indicates that such a restriction did t occur to them in the context of the question. It should always b remembered that unless specifically stated otherwise, all data refer to the scal year 1974, i.e., the fiscal year ending in 1974. 21 4 Acknowledgements This study could.never have been completed without the aid and cooperation of the directors and staff of the 55 arts agencies that were surveyed, and the National Researcb Center is grateful for the time and effort that were put into the careful completion of the interviews and self- a.iministered forms. Of particular help and guidance were the consultant directors and chairmen (representing in number nearly half the states) Oho participated in the- , meetings to develop the survey instruments and in two meetings held in ilovember 1975 and March 1976 to donsider ehe significance of the findings and to review the initial draft of this report. The participants in the five meetings were: James Backas, then Executive Director, Maryland Arts Council Robert Bernat, then Executive Director, Coomionwealth 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 Arts and Humanities John G. Coe, Executive Director, New Hampshire Commission on the Arts Nash Cox, Executive Director, Kentucky Arts Commission James Edgy, Executive Director, Ohio Arts Council James.D. Forward, then Executive Director, California Arts Commission Terrell Glenn:then-Chairman, SouthCarolina Arts Commission Roy H. Helms, Executive Director, Alaska State-Council on the Arts Jonathan Katz, Executive Director, Kansas Cultural Arts Commission , 2,2 NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. Anthonr-S. Keller, Executive Director, Connecticut COMMissiO4 on the Arts David Morton, then Chairman, Missouri State Council on the Arts Wayne A. Norman, Sr., ChSirman, Iowa State Arts Council S. Leonard Pas, Jr., then Executive Director, Fine Arts Council of-Florida Lida Rogers, Executive Director, Mississippi Arts CommissiOn R. Sandra Perry, Executive Director The Office of Arkanas State Arta and HtiManities "` E. Ray Scott, Executive Director, Michigan Council for the Arts Louise G. Tate, Executive Director, Massachusetts Council on the Arts and Hunanities Anne Vermeli EXecutive Director, Rhode Island State Council on the Arts Norman Worrell, Executive Director, Tennessee Arts Commission The staff of the-National Endowment for the'Arts played.an essential role in,the study Ln'every phase, notably the leadership and encouragement provided by Nancy Hanks, the Chairman, and the advice and counsel given by Harold Horowitz, Directot of Research, Ana Steele, Director of Planning; David Waterman, assistant to W. Horowitz, and other members of the,Researeh Staff, Clark Mitze, then Director of the Office of the Federal-State Partnership, Donald Dillon, Assisthnt Director, and other members of that office. Finally, a special word of thaOs is due Bernard Lacy and Michaei Edison of the Research Center staff for their outstan ing analytical and managerial skills brought to bear in this research. N may 31, 1976 2 3 Joseph Farrell President National Research Center of the Arts NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. -1- 'a CHAPTER I BUDGET AND FINANCES 24 NATIONAL RESARCH CGNTER OF THE ARTS. INC. a -2- BUDGET AND FINANCES This chapter considers the budget and finances of the atate arts Agencies for fiscal 1974, -Le., the fiscal year that ended in 1974. The financial picture is viewed first from the amount offunds receiVed during the fiscal state arts sources of year and then the total expenditures made during the year by the agencies. The funds received are analyzed in total and by the the funds, including: . --State funds, with a closer look at the distribution of funds from legislative appropriations and from other state sources. "Municipal/county funds ,--Private funds, with a closer look at the distr ution of funds. from foundatlons, corporationt, earnings, and other private tources, --Federal-funds, including'funds from the National Endowment for the Arts -- both from the basic state agency grant and otherlr Endowment sources -- and from other federal sources, with an al- alysis of the latter by the federal agencies from 11.i4 hey were yeceived. The funds received by separate foundations associated with the. state arts agencies iire also detailed by their sources, including the state' - arts agency itself, other state sources, the National Endowmont for the Arts, and private and other sources. The expendiiures of the state arts agencies ar4 shown in total, as well as by amounts expended for programs, includimg-expenditures for administration and develoPment of programs, for other personnel costs, and for other administratiqn expenditures. The final section of the chapter concerns budget practices of -3- the agengies, focusing on the.types of appropriations (annual,or bienial) re- ceived, the fiscal year covered,.the type of budget submitted, and the mgans ng submission, with directors' views of changes that may be expected in budget: submissions. Funds received in fiscal 1974 The total appropriations, grants and'other funds from all source% to so. the'55 state arts agenaes of the United States -- in the 50 states, the District ofColumbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam and the Virgin Islands amounted . to 05,536,517 In fiscal 1974: Of that total, $44,155,072 was received by the agencies and an additional $1,381,445 by separate foundations* associated with twelve of the agencies from sources othei than the agencies. The funds ot the New York State.arts agency -- the New York State Council on the Arts -- and'its associated.foundation were by far the largest of any"singlefagency, totaling $16,895,243. However, seven other agencies did receive more ,than $1,000,000, and even excluding New York atate'the average amount of funds per state was above $500,000. The per capita.amount of total funds varies widely, with the high- est per capita funds in the states with very small populations -- e.g. Ameri- can Samoa,.the Virgin Islands and Alaska -- where the funds received from the National Endowment for the Arts in the basicystate agency grants alone would result in high per capita amounts. *Associatdd sparate foundations are foundatibns set up by the state art agency to 4upp1ement its own activities and/or to serve as a.private fund-raising arm of the agency. 26 BEST COPY AMIABLE NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. -4- Table I TOTAL FUNDS OF STATE ARTS AGENCIES AND ASSOCIATED SEPARATE FOUNDATIONS IN FISCAL 1974 Total Per .Capit,1 New York 16,895,243* .933 Puerto Rico 3,012,167 .992 California 1,267,747 .061 Connecticut 1,156,192* .374 Ohio 1,084,075 ' .101 Pennsytrania 1,063,927 .090 Illinois 14,033,868* AO- Michigan 1,027,048* .113 New .14:Tsey 901,482 .123 ' Massachusetts 877,600* .151 , 0 Missouri , 839,837 Hawaii 777,727 .176 .9).8 South Carolina 761,921* ..274 Texas 747.,146 .062 Maryland 722,352 .176 Minnesota 104,585 .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 0 Washington 470,164 .135 « No" Carolina 445,048 Georgia 443,617 .083 .091 Kentucky * 428,338 .128 Rhode Island 418,412 .447 Colorado 413,968* .166 Virginia 412,317 .084 ... Vaine 385,569 .368 a Alabama 356,085 .100 Virgin Islands 343,167 .81.3 Oklahoma 415,925 .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 261,059 .115 Delaware 246,885 .431 Vermont 245,031 .521 New Hampshire 244,412 .302 New Mexi.:o . 244,295 .218 Nebraska 243,941* .153 . Montana /27,092 .309 Wisconsin 220,472 .01148 Wyoming 202,580* .564 District of Columbia 202,000 .279 Nevada 188,970 .330 Idaho '183,508 .230 North%Dakota 179,100 .282 American Samoa 120,000 4.138 Guam 78,t,77 .743 TOTAL 45,516,517 .212 2111.- .0icCIPNWOMII ..1( Total without New York 28,641274 :146 Average per state: 827,937 Average without New York: 530,393 * Includes funds received by associated foundation. 27' -5- Sources of Funds Received h State Arts A encies Of the total $44,155,072 received in fiscal 1974 by the agencies (not including funds received by associated foundaticifts), 71% orj$31,273,166 waa received from the state governments,27% or $12,008,050 from the federal government, less than 0.5% from local municipal or county sources, including school districts, and 2% from priVate and other sources. The far above average legislativeappropriation made to the New York State Council on the Arts is a major factor in the high proportion of funds derived from state governments bul,even.excluding Oew York State, states were still the source for a majority of the funds received during the ,..--year. Fifty-four percent of the total of $27,554,072 received by the 54 agencies other than New York in fiscal 1974 or $14,828,166 -- represented state funds,, with 43% or $11,852,050 from the federal government, less than 0.5% from local governments and 3% from private and other sources. However, sharp variations can be seen in the proportion of eunds by source received by individual agencies, with federal government funds ranging from only 1% of New York State's total funds, 7% of funds received 4 by the Puerto Rico agency and 18% in California,to 93% of total funds in Wyoming, 94% in Idaho and 97% in North Dakota. .In fact, 33 of the 55 state arts agencies received at least 50% of their funds from federal government 'sources. 4 BEST Copy AVAILABLE NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. Table 2 SOURCES OF FUNDS OF STATE ARTS AGENCIES IN FISCAL 1974 Alabama Alaska Total State Toast. Legislative Appropriation Other 356,085 100 500,774 100 125,000- 35 149,600 30 $/7, 8/7. 125,000 35 149,600 30 American Samoa 1:0,000 60,000 60,000e. 100 50 Arizona 305,485 68,700 68,700 100 22 22 -- Arkansas 481,085 166,727 166,727 100 35 35 Califordia 1,267,747 1,034,763 1,03.,763 100 82 82 Colorado 319,975 120,963 120,963 100 38 38 Anecticut 625,917 351,500 551,500 100 56 56 Delaware 246,885 42,600 100 17 r District of Columbia 202,000 52,000 100 26 Florida 504,945 289,895 289,895 100 57 57 0eorgia 443,617 220,000 220,000 100 50 50 Guam 78,077- 10,218 10,218 100 13 4 13 Hawaii 777,727 560,817 221,307 339,510 100 72 28 44 Idaho 183,508 10,000 10,000 100 5 5 Illinois 877,511 600,000 600,000 100 68 68 Indiana 500,922 170,005 170,005 100 34 34 , Iowa 291,787 52,244 52,244 100 18 18 Kansas 261,059 45,634 45,634 100 17 17 Kentucky 428,338 201,638 153,930 47,708 100 47 36 11 --tottislana 286,1'-f) 44,000 44,000 100 15 15 Maine 385,569 184,046 162,000 22,046 100 . 48 42 6 Maryland 722,352 468,411 453,411 15,000 100 65 63 2 MOnicipald County _Private 5/1 $/7. 818 2,851 70,153 1 14 I 3,445 , 12,155 1 4 21,100 I 39-,500 11,579 C 4 1,500 2,402 1,485 2 4,389 2,175 137,356 27 2,002 806 6,150 a National Endowment for the Arts Total Federal Basic State Agehey Grant Other Grants Other Federal 817. 230,267 65 278,170 55 60,000 50 , $1. 150,000 43 150,000 30, 60,000 50 $17. 75,267 21 122,170 24 $/% 5,000 1 6,000 1 221,185 150,000 59,183 12,002- 73 50 19 4 253,758 150,000 100,758 3,000 53 31 21 232,984 150,000 82,984 18 11 7 187,433 150,000 37,433 58 46 12 272,917 150,000 122,917 44 24 20 201,883 150,000 47,763 4,120 82 61 19 2 150,000 150,000 74 74 21.1,050 150,000' 60,050 5,000 43 30 12 1 218,617 150000 65,617 3,000 49 33 15 1 66,376 55,509 10,865 85 71 14 212,521 150,000 62,521 27 19 8 171,333 150,000 16,333 5,000 94 82 9 3 277,511 150,000 127,511 32 17 15 193,561 150,000 43,561 39 30 9 237,541 150,000 82,541 5000 81 51 28 2 215,425 150,000 65,425 83 58 25 226,700 150,000 71,700 5,000 53 35 17 1 242,150 150,000 92,150 85 53 32 200,717 150,000 50,717 52 39 13 247,791 150,000 97,791 34 20 14 (Continued) Massachusetts . Michigan Minaesota . Mississippi Total , 785,000 100 941,079 100, 704,585 100 301,298 \ 100 Missouri ,839,837 5. 100 Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York 227,092 100 240,274 , 100 188,970 \ 100 244,412 100 901;482 100 \ 244,295 100 \ 16,60 ,000 10 Nbrth Carolina 44 ,048 100 North Dakota ii4ioo Ohio 1,084,075 100 Oklahoma 315 925 Oregon 100 100 271 713 100 Pennsylvania 1,063 927 ,100 Puerto Rico 3f012167 100. RhOde Island 418012 Oa 41South Carolina 713, 55 South Dakota 265, 32 Tennessee Texas 00 00 544, 52 747,1 0 . 1 0 BEST COPY AVAILABLE -7- Table 2 SO(JRCES OF FUNDS OP STATE ARTS AGENCIES (Continued) State Municipal/ County Total 17Y- 600,000 76 b88,501 52 325,000 46 Legislative Appropriation Other -Ur 2,701 25;000 $/7. 600,000 76 485,800 52, 300,000 $17. 107,668 107,668 1,850 36 36 1 64-,920 654,920 78 78 27,550 27,550 12,142 12 12 5 35,122 35,122 -15 - 15 15,122 15,122 8 8 45,679 45,679 19 19 698,932 698,932 78 78 45,300 45,300 9,150 19 19 4 16,445,000 16,445,000 99 99 221,231 221,231 50 50 - 5,100 5,100 \ 3 3 849,847 849,847 \ 78 78 ' 95,100 95,100 12,625 -30 30 4 I 54,563 54,563' 20 20 765,500 758,000 7,500 4,920 72 71 1 2,)53,267 2,753,267 a* 91 91 6,231 126,231 10,000 10,989 32 30' 2 3 36 ,896 360,896 33,090 I 51 51 5 6;,773 61,702 6,071 25 23 2 353636 312,500 41,136 65 57 8 157,345 157,345 21 21. IN FISCAL 1974 Private 147,275 16 34,161 5 11,441 5 r, r9r- 4,345 2 2,500 1 47,400 23,609 6 21,756 . 3 476 3,416 138,723 a National Endowment for the Arts Total Basic State Other Other Federal Avid), Grant Grants Federal "Pr- $/7. -75- $/7. 185,000 150,000 35,000 °24 20 4. 305,303 150,000 155,363 32 16 16 345,424 150,000 195,424 49 21 28 191,780 150,000 38,780 3,000 63 49 13 . 1 184,917 150,000 31,917 3;000 22 18 4 187,400 150,000 37,400 83 67 16 193,711 150,000 40,711 - .3,000 80 62 17, 1 172,657 150,000 22,657 . 91 79 \ 12 198,733 150,000 48,733 81 6t. 20 202,556 150,000 42,550 10,000. 22 16 5 1 185,500 150,000 35,000 500 75 61 14 156,000 150,000 6,000 1 1 221,117 150,000 71,317 49' 33 16 174,000 150,000 21,000 3,000 97 83 12 2 . .... 234,228 150,000 79,228 5,000 22 15 7 * 208,200 150,000 58,200 66 48 '18 217,150 150,000 62,150 5,000 80 55 23 2 293,507 150,000 143,507 28 14 14 211;500 150,000 61,500 7 5 2 , 247,583 150,900 97,583 - 59 36 P 298;019 150,000 144,798 3,221 41 21 20 * 196,783 150,000 46,783 75 57 18 187,700 150,000 37,700 34 27 7 451,072 150,000 142,296 158,776 60 20 19 21 (Cont au BEST C/OPYAVAILAI3LE NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC, -8- Tabic SOURCES OF FUNDS OF STATE ARTS AGENCIES IN FISCAL 1974 (Continued) Total State Municipal/ County . Priva te National Endowment for the Arts - Other Federal Total Legislative Appropriation Other 777 Total Federal Basic State Agency Gran t Other Grants SA SA $/*/. $17. $17. $/7. $17 . SP:. $/'4,, Utah 271,726 104,026 1'04,026 500 167,200 150,000 17,200 100 38 38 * 62 56 6 Vet- Tont 245,031 52,626 52,626 2,030 190,375 150,000 . 37,375 3,000 100 21 21 1 78 . 62 15 1 Virgin Islands 343,167 160,000 160,000 15,500 167,667, 150,000 17,667 lpo 47 47 5 48 '43 5 Virginia 412,317 201,705 " 201,705 7,070 203,542 150,000 53,542 100 49 49 2 49 36 13 Washington 470,164 98,415 98,415 371,749 150,000 147,838 73,9' 100 21 21 79 32 , 31 lb , West Virginia 542,230 '261,580 263,580 278,700 150,000 123,700 5,000 100 49 49 51 27, 23 1 Wisconsin 220,472 42,227 42,227 178,245 150,000 28,245 100 19 19 81 68 13 Wyoming 202,030 12,543 12,543 2,8374 186,650 150,000 36,650 100 6 6 93 75 18 Total Funds Received by Stati Arts Ancic 44 155 072 31 273 166 20 756 494 516 672 123,741 750 J 15 008 050 8 665" 509 3,531 511 391 '030 TU =.- 1.; - Total Without New York 27 554 072 14 828 165 14 311 494 516 672 125 741 750 115 11 852 050 7,915,509 3,545,511 391,030 100 54 52 2 * 3 43 29 13 1 1/Includes $27,000 received in Arkansas from colleges and universities, and $2,345 received in New Mexico from reimbursements and the Four Corners Regional Commission. * Less than 0.5% 4. 3i -9- The percentage of total funds derived from state legislative appropri- ations was qharply higher among,those,agencies with higher total expenditures,' rising from 16% of agencies in,the lower(expenditure group to 90% in the high- est: Table'.73 , PERCENTAGE OF FUNDS FROM STATE LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATIONS FISCAL 1974, BY TOTAL EXPENDITURES Total Funds Received State Legislative Appropriations $ / % $ / % .; Total Agencies 44,155,072 30,756,494 100 71 Expenditures Below $250,000 3,108,296 500,087 100 16 $250,000-$499,999 ,7,288,724 2,515,844 100 35 $5,000,000-$749,999 6,391,500 3,238,727 100 51 $750,000 and above 27,366,552, 24,501,836 100 .90 NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER 'OF THE ARTS, INC. A Closer LoOk at State Funds -10- Appropriations from state legislatures accounted for almost all of state funds to the arts agencies in fiscal 1974. Of the total $31,273166 from state sources ($14,828,166 excluding New York), and a minimal $516,672 .or 1% of total funds received (2% excluding New York) was derived from sources other than legislative appropriations. In fact only ten states received any state funds in addition to the legislative appropriations.. However, state funds from sources other than the legislative appro- - -----prlation-did account for a signifiCant amoinit-of total-funds in a few agencies. In Hawaii, in fact, state funds other than the legislative appropriation repre- sented 44% of.the total funds received by the Hawaii State Foundation on Culture and the Arts, a larger amount than that from any other source. The major reason for this was Hawaiian legislation sdtting aside 1% of the appropriations for original construction of any state bnilding to be used for the acquisition of works,of artt The State Foundation on Culture and the Arts received $327,787 (43% of total funds) for this purpose in fiscal i974, plus $8,223 from the state university and $3,500 from the state's Bicentennial commission. With an addi- tional state appropriation of $221,307 (28% of total iunds), state sources accounted for 72% of total funds received by diawaii in fiscal 1974. Eleven percent of total funds ($47,708) received by the Kentucky Arts Commission was derived from the governor's contingency, funds, and in Tennessee' 8% of total funds came from other state soumes: 4% ($19,469) from 'the depart, ment of conservation, 2% ($11,117) from the department of personnel, and 2% ($10,550) from the economic department. In Maine, 6% of total funds was from other state sources: 3% ($12,046) from the department of education, and'3% ($10,000). from the executive council. In no other state, though, did other state sources account for as much as 5% of total funds received. *The 1967 legislation places the responsibility tor the commissioning of artists for: reviewing of design, execution and placement, and the acceptance of works of art for state buildingS with the state comptroller and the Hawaii State Foundation on Culture And the Arts. - , 3:1 Table 4 SOURCES OF OTHER STATE FUNDS IN FISCAL 1974 PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL FUNDS RECEIVED, Total Governor's Grant/ Contin- gedcy Fund 'Economic Department/ Economics and Dept. of Community Dept. of Education Development Personnel Dept. of Conser- vation State Bicen- tennial Commission Executive Council Art in State Buildings Legis- lation State Univer- General sity Fund $1% $1% $17. $1% $/% $17. $/7. $17. $/% $/% $/% Hawaii 339,510 3,500 327,787 - 8,223 - 44 * 43 1 Kentucky 47,708 47,708 11 11 Maine 22,046 12,046 lo,000 6 3 3 Maryland . 15,000 15,000 2 2 Michigan 2,701 .2,701 Minnesota 25,000 25,000 4 4 Pennsylvania. 7,500 7,500 . Rhode Island 10,000 10,000 2 2 South Dakota 6,071 6,071 2 2 Tennessee 41,136 10,550 11,117 19,469 8 2 2 4 Total Funds Received from Other State Sources 516 672 A 57 708 25 617 25 550 11 117 19 469 28'500 10 000 327 787 8 223 2 701 1 '* * * * *Lesa than 0.57. NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF' THE ARTS. INC. -12- 0 The directors of the agencies were asked what percentage of their state appropriations in fiscal 1974 -- excluding any fpderal funds -- were for the administration of the state arts agency. .The proportion reported for aministration ranged from less than 10% to 100%,. with 15 agencies re- , porting that all funds appropriated by the state legislature were used for administrative purposes. Table 5 PERCENTAGE OF STATE APPROPRIATION IN F,ISCAL 1974- FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND FOR PROGRAMVURPOSES Total Agencies Administration It 55 100 1% - 9% 2 4 10% - '19% 15 27 20% - 297. 7 A. 13 '30% - 39% 4 7 40% -'49% 2 4 50% - 59% 2 4 60% - 69% 3 5 70% - 79% 3 5 - 80% - 89% 2 4 90% - 99% 100% 15- 27 Average per ntage 51% The proportion-of approp uted funds available for program purposes is greater among the larger agencies, with the percentage of star approRriations for administration of the agency declinin sharply with an increase in total expenditures. This is a reflection'of t that the major proportion of 'f'unds received, by agencies in the los,,est axpen0 ture group are derived from the basic state agency grant, with correspondingly.lOW\apprOpriations, most of Which must thus go for administrative purposes. The larger \ the appropriation, the \\ higher the expenditures will be,-and the greater the prop.rtion of appropria7 tions aVailable for non-administrativd purposes. 36 / -13- Table 6 AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF STATE APPROPRIATION IN FISCAL 1974 FOR ADMINISTRATION PURPOSES (Base) Administration .Total (55) 51 Toial Expenditures Below $250,000 e (15) 92 ' $250,000-$499,999 (20) 50 $500,000-$749,999 (10) $750,000 and above (10) 15 A Closer Look at Federal Funds Funds from the federal government to the state arts agency were derived almost entirely from the National Endowment for the Arts. Funds from other federal sources totaled-only $391,030, or 1% of the total funds eeceived, while National Endowment for the Arts funds amounted to $11,617,020 or 26% of total funds. Excluding New York, National Endowment for the Arts funds represented 42% of total funds received. The majority of funds from the National Endowment for the Arts were accounted for by the basic state agency grant. TAis block grant is given each year to all of the siates in equal amounts: in fiscal 1974, $150,000. This sum was received by all of the Uencies except'those in American Samoa and Guam, which received basic state agency grants of $60,000 and $55,509 reppect- ively. The basic state agency grans totaled $8,065,509, 18%.of total funds received,,and 29% excluding New York State. In addition to-the basic agency grant,every agency except those in knerican Samoa., the District of Columbia and Pnerto Rico received other Endow- ment grants amounting to $3,551,51,1, 8% of total funds reCeived. (Other Endow- ment grants accounted for 13% Of total funds excluding,New York State.) However, the proportion of total funds accounted for by other Endowment grants 37 NATIONAL RESEARcH CENTER OF THE ARTS,:l rose as high,as ji% ($147,838) of total funds received by the Washington State Arts Commisqon and 32% ($92,150) of Octal funds received by,the Louisiana Council for Music and the Performing Arts. Endowment grants other than the basic state agency grants were largely accounted for by grants for the Artists-in-Schools and Dance Touring,Programs, and bY program giants. A very small portion, $77,158, represented Endowment Treasaury Fund grants (not including private portions) that were received in four states': Arkansas, Minnesota, Nebraska and South Carolina. The only major sources of federal funds aside from the National Endow- ment for the Arts were the Office of Education and the American Revolution Bicentennial Commission. Eighteemagencies received $90,341 during their fiscal year'1974 in manpower training funds from the Office of Education; these funds for a poetry program weredistributed through the St. Paul Arts Council. An additional $158,500 from the Office of )ducation was received by agencies in Puerto Rico ($61,500) and Texas ($97,000). 'The Americanrevolution Bicen- , tennial Commission was the source of $51,776 received in TeXas and $50,000 in*Washington. : 36 Alabama Alaska ArIzona Arkansas Delavarc Flotida Eta wa tutucky ississippl MisSouri Nebraska New Jei4cy-- New Mexico North Dakota Ohio Oregon Puerto Rico South Carolina Texas Vermont Washington West Virginia BEST COPY_ AVAILABLE lar70- 7 i SOURCFS OF OMR FEDERAL FUNDS IN FISCAL 1974 ,AND PLRCENTACE1OF TOTAL FINDS RECEIVED Education Bureau Office of ,Amarican Revolution llserasncy of Ratimal U.S. 114npowir Bicentenntal Employment ladisa Parks poithssaiim Forest Total rrainin& Other Commission Act Affiiat Barytes InOttukten Service Si% 77i7 $ A ----1-5- -17E7' in. 3,000 1 6,000 1 12,002 4 3,000 1 4,120 2 5,000 1 3,000 1 5,000 3 5,000 2 5,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 1 10,000 1 500 3,000 2 5,000 5,000 2 61,500 2 3,221 1514776 21 3,000 1 73,911 16 5,000 Total Funds Received from 4 Other Federal Sources . 391 030 *Less than 0.57. 5,000 1 6,000 5,000 7,002 2 2 3,000 1 4.120 2 5,000 1 3,000 1 5,000 3 5,000 2 5,000 1 3,000 3,000 1 10,000 1 3,000 2 5,000 5,000 2 - 61,500 3,221 10,000 97,000 13 1/.77a 7 3,000 1 10,0oo' 2 5,000 1 3,000 Oa A 500 - 50,000 13,911 11 3 90.341 1511'500 101 776 13 911 7 002 6 000 3 000 500 A -7; 39 NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS, INC. -16- A Closer Look at Private Funds As noted earlier,'only 2% of total: funds receive by state arts agencies in fiscal 1974 came from private sources. Founda ions accounted for almost half of this amount,'with $386,673 or 1% of t 1 funds caming from foundations. Individuals accounted for $92,312, c porations $13,160, earnings $191,622, and other private sources $66,348.. Private sources provided a-minimal amountiof sUpportloverall to the state arts agencies in all but four states: .in Indiana, 27% of total funds was received from private sources, the entire amount of $137,356 from foundations. In Texas 19% of total funds represented private support, 187. ($132,000) from foundations, 1% ($5,365) from individuals and less than 0.5% from earnings. In Michigan, 167. of total funds was from private sources, 3% ($25,000) from foundations, and 13% ($122,275) from earnings iri revenue from Artrain. And in Alaska 14% of total funds ($70,153) was from ble private sector, All of it. from individuals. - -17- Table 8 * SOURCES OF PRIVATE FUNDrS RECEIVED BY STATE ARTS AGENCIES IN FISCAL 1974, AND PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL FUNDS RECEIVED Alabama Alaska Arizona Total Foundat ions Ind iv idua Is Corpora t ions Earn ings Other $/% 818 , 70,153 14 12,155 4, $/% $1% - 70,153 14 2,000 f s,Odo 2 $/% $ 4% 818 * o 5,153 2 Arkansas 12,500 12 ,500 j) 3 Connecticut 1,500 4' 1,500* Delaware 2,402 - 755 500 147 s 1 .s, * * * Geol^gia 5,000 . 5,000 1, 1 - Guatn s`. 1,485 2 - 485 1 1,000 1 Hawaii -4,389 3,000 1,389 1. * * , Idaho' 2,175 , 2,175 1 1 'Indiana 137,356 137,356 - 27 27 Iowa, 2 , 002 - . 2,002 1 1 Maine I. / 80.6 806 * MzryIand . 6,150 6,150 1 1 )4ichigan B47;275 25,000 122,275 v 16 3 13 Minnesota 34,161 25,567 8,594 5 4 1 Nebraska 11,441.- 10,000 1,441 5 4 1 Vevada 1,191 1,191 1 1 New Mexico 2,000 2,000 1 North Carol ina 2,500 2,500 1 NATIQNAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS.INC. -18- = Table 8 SOURCES OF PRIVATE FUNDS RECEIVED B1; STAiE ARTS AGENCIES IN FISCAL 1974, AND PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL FUNDS RECEIVED v Total Foundations Individuals Corporations Earnings .0ther 77-7. $i% Puerto Rico 47,400 47,400 2 Rhode island 23,609 23,609 6 6 South 6arolfna, 21,750 21,750 3 3 South Dakota 476 476 Tennessee' 3,416 3,416 1 Texas 138,723 132,000 5,365 1,358 19 18 1 Utah 500 500 * Vermont 2,030 2,030 1 Islands 15,50a 14,500 1,000 .Virgin 5 5 * Virginia 7,070 7,070 2 2 Wyoming 2,837 1 500 2,337 1 Total Private Funds Received 720;770 386,673 92 312 13 160 191 622 37,003 ,2 1 -19-, Unlike the proportion of funds,receiVed from state appropriations, . the percentage and sources of private funds was not siWficantly affected by' the size of the total expenditures of agencies, Overall, private funds do not constitute an important source of funds for state arts agenCies. However, as noted in Chapter IV, private support 01 the arts was greatly stimulated by the agencies through matching ads. Funds Received by Separate Associated Foundations* A total of $2,041,251 was received in fiscal 1974 by the 12 active separate foundations associated with state arts agencies, and 40% of this amount, or $824,8114, was from private sources: However,,the large propor- tion of funds from private sources, particularly from earnings, is a result of the unique.situation of the Connecticut Foundation for the Arts. This foundation, associated with the Connecticut Commission on the Arts, is the primary grant-making body for state funds, and the Foundation has been given an annually renewable loan by the state on which the interest may be \\ used for the Foundation's activities. The Connecticut foundation received $482,240 in earned interest in fiscal 1974, 927. of the total funds received of $530,275. Excluding Connecticut, separate associated foundations received $1,510,976 in fiscal 1974, with the largest proportions coming from the state arts agencies -744% or $659,806 -- and the National Endowmen for the Arts -- 34% or $515,950 -- and only 20%,or $306,774, coming from private sources. * The activites and programs in which the associated foundations are involved are described in Chapter III. 41 NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. -20- Table 9 FUNDS RECEIVED BY SEPARATE FOUNDATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH STATE ARTS AGENCIES EN FISCAL 1974 National State Endowment Arts Other for the 121A1 Agency State Arts Colorado 93,993 100 Connecticut 530,275 100 Florida 7,238 100 Illinois 156,357 Indiana 49,82.11 100 Private Corpora- Individ- Founds- Total tions uals tions Earnings Other Other 66,820 16,573 1,600 6,083 8,890 10,600 71 18 2 6 10 11 .. . 10,500 518,040' 2,600 33,200 482,240 1,735 2 98 *. 6 92 * 7238 100 49,750 106,607 32 Massachusetts 217,100 124,500 - 92,6100 100 57 43 Michigan 85,969 100 Nebraska 23,667 20,000 10G 84 New York 808,549 514,306 260,038 100 64 32 Oregon 19,562 1,000 5 South Carolina 48,166 - 16,424 31,742 100 34 66 Wyoming 550 100 68 7,238 100 24,951 1,375 80,281 16 1 51 49,825 1,125 , 7,800 40,900 100 2 16 82 85,969 44,400 8,935 30,000 2,634 - 100 52 10 35 3 N 3,045 \ ,000 10 35 2,06 ' 622 *13 \ 4. * * 3 34,205 5,000 26,269 2,936 - 4 1 3 * 15,600 2,762 100 2,662 - 800 77 14 1 13 4 Total Funds Received by Associated Foundations Total Without Connecticut 2,041_,251 100 1 510 976 100 659_._80 16,4Ve 526,450 - 32 1 26 659 806 16 424 515 950 44 1 34 550 100 ^ 50 500 9 91 824,814 49,725 55,074 116,962 500,772 82 28 40 2 3 24 244:11. ULM Lltial 12.2.02. 1212762 Mal 82 28 12,022 20 3 4 7 1 *Includes reimbursements and funds from local governments and school:districts. -21- Expenditures Expenditures of the state arts agencies in fiscal 1914totaled $43,7P),286. Eighty-six, percent of this amount, or $37,491,082, was accounted for by expenditures for programs. $1,976,286 was expended by the separate foundations associated with the state arts agencies. (Specific project expend- - itures are detailed in Chapter IV.) Program expenditures accounted for a strong majority of total ex- penditures in almost all states. However, accounting procedures differ in the means by which program administration and development costs are-attributed, with some agencies including these costs as program expenditures and others not doing so. For this reason, ^gencies were asked to indicate the percentage of program expenditures used for development and admdnistration of programs, and this percentage figure has been translated into a dollar amount-on the following tables. It should be kept in mind that these are only estimates, and that percentages will vary according to accounting procedures. Furthermore, it should be remembered that those state agencies that conduct and administer their own programs will inevitably incur more administration costs than agencies that primarily fund projects administered by others. NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER-OF THE ARTS, INC. Taag-10 ,EXPENDITURES OF STATE ARTS AGENCIES EN FISCAL 1974 xpenditures for'Proarams Expenditures for Admins- tration and Development i Total Total of Prozrams - 77r $1% AlabaMa 384,850 259,859 (25,986) 100 68 (7) Alaska 500,774 417,374 (20,869) 100 83 (4) 'Anwrican Samoa 120,000 120,000 (-) 100 100 Arizona' 311,485 242,785 (7,284) 100 78 (2) Paluunsas 474,763 441,282 (26,477) 100 93 (6) \ California 1,242,511 1,013,748 (70962) 100 82 (6) Colorado 319,975 229,012 (22,091) 100 71 (7) Connecticut 625,917 540,917 (-) 100 87 Delaware Z44;209 213,903 (6,417) 100 87 (13) District of Columbia 201,900 149,900 (;) . 100 75 Florida 505,693 415,798 (12,474) 100 82 (2) Georgia 443,617 373,617 (7,472) 100 84 (2) Guam 78,077 77,256 (10,043) 100 99 (13) Hawaii 777,727 720,973 72,097) 100 93 (9) Idaho 183,508 163,508 (19,621) 100 90 (11) Illinois 873,541 733,335 (-) 100 , 84 6' 46 Other Personnel Costs Other Adminis- tration Expenditures $17. 59,212 65,779 15 58,400 25,000 12 5 46,000 22,700 15 7 24,139 9,342 5 140,826 87,937 11 7 70,106 20,837 22 7 70,000 15,000 . 11 2 25,955 4,351 11 2 30,925 21,075 15 10 55,788 34,107 11 7 57,234 12,766 13 3 821 1 47,474's 9,280 6 1 15,452 4,548 8 2 63,069 77,137 7 9 (Continued) twomormirriorromilmill '-23- Table 10 EXPENDITURES'OF STATE ARTS AGENCIES IN FISCAL 1974 (Continued) Total 777:- Expenditures for'Programs Other Personnel Costs Other Adminis- tration Expenditures Total Expenditures for Adminis- tration and Development of Programs , $17. $7% 498,937 360,648 (-) 107,429 30,860 100 72 22 6 Iowa 201,285 248,444 (24,844) 33,405 9,436 100 86 (9) 11 3 Kansas 261,059 200,425 (-) 47,720 12,914 100 77 18 5 Kentucky 427,754 341,509 (3,415) 58,049 28,196 100 79 (1) 14 7 , Louisiana 286,150 242,150 (14,529) 35,000 9:000 100 85 '(5) 12 . 3 . Maine 385,569 311,523 (3,115) 59,046 15,000 100 81 (1) 15 4 Maryland 719'052 633,837 (126,767) 55,015 30,500 100 88 (18) 8 4 MaSsachusets 769,812 634,724 (69,820) 97,439 37,649 100 82 (9) . e 13 5 Michigan 939,430 856,362 (154,145) 54,376 28,701 100 91 (16) 6 3 I Minnesota 695,227 591,483 (70,978) 60,517 43,227 100 85. (10) 9 6 Mississippi 301,298 225,630 (33,845) 31,324 44,344 100 75 (1 15 Missouri 828,706 745,847 (-) 47,613 35,246. 100 90 6 4 Montana 227,092 195,723 (45,016) 19,160 12,209 100 87 (20) 8 5 Nebraska 239,579 196,211 (-) 29,298 14,070 100 82 12 6 Nevada 188,836 152,837 (18,340)- 19,185 16,814 100 81 (10) 10 ' 9 New Hampshire 238,192 184,918 (-) 33,839 19,435 100 78 14 8 47 (Continued) NATIONAL SEARC CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio p. Puerto Rico Rhode Island Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Soueh Carolina Soutli Dakota Tennessee Texas -24- Table 10 EXPENDITURES OF STATE ARTS AGENCIES IN FISCAL 1974 (Continued) Total $ /7. 921,675 100 244,295 100 Expenditures:for Programs Expenditured. for Adminis- tration and. Development Total of Prouams $/t 871,675 (8,717) 94 (1) 184,298 (9,21f.) 76 (4) 16;596,939 15446;010 100 91 422,103 373,817 100 84 179,100: 173,000 100 96 1,084,075, 929,304 100 86 296,753 141,385 5100 48 ( 605,840 ) (4 ) (7,476 ) (2 ) (6,920) (4 ) .(18,586 ) (2) (-) 271,713 207,150 (14,501) 100 -76 (5) 1,051;427 100 2,756,370 100 437,933 100 857,576 (102,909) 82 (10) 2,065,230 (1,404,356) 75 (51) 372,425 (48,415) 85 (11) 713,755 491,912 . 100 69 265,032 204,133 100 77 524,313 393,446 100 75 747,140 [' 664,795 100 89 ( - ) Other Personnel Costs $17. 35,000 4 34,654 14 1,086,788 7 61,261 1.4 3,000 2 111,378 10 94,670 32 58,570 22 126,818 12 '517,370 19 48,298 11 139,797 20 (40,827) 42,836 (15) 16 ( ) 75,262 14 (73,127) 49,660 (10) . Other Adminis- tration Ex enditures 15,000 2 25,343 10 364,141 2 7,025 2 3,100 2 43,393 4. 60,698 20 5,993 , 2 67,033 6 173,770 . 6 17,210 , 4 82,046 11 18,063 7 5, 55,605 1.1. 32,685 4, ** 25-- Table 10 EXPENDITURES OF STATE ARTS AGENCIES ER FISCAL 1974 (0ontinued) Total 77r Expenditures for Programs Other Personnel Costs Other Adminis, tration Expenditures Expenditures for Adminis- tration and Development Total of Pro&rams $17. $/7. $/70 Utah. 256,126 208,916 (4,178) 35,170 12,040 100 81 (2) 14 5 Vermont 240,766 173,847 (6,954) 41,893 25,026 100 73 (3) 17 10 Virgin Islands 343,167 268,167 (-) 54,700 20,300 100 78 16 6 Virginia 402,207, 100 353,542 88 (60,102) (15) 35,002 9 13,663 3 ,Washington 470,164 339,992 (-) 81,565 48,607 100 73 17 10 West Virginia 542,280 505,120 (-) 37,160 100 93 7 ,Wisconsin 213,335, 171,108 (5,133) 25,024 17,203 100 80 (2) 12 8 Wyoming 192,784 158,696 (3,174) 16,940 .17,148 100 82 (2) 9 9 Total Expenditures in Fiscal 1974 43,780t286 37 491 082 3.287.847 4'365 811 1 923 393 .100 86 (8) 10 4 Total Without New York 27,183,347 22 345 072 2.682.007 3 279 023 1 559 252 100 82 (10) 12 1/ Expenditures for administration and development of programs are projections from figures on the percentages of program funds used in this area. 49 NATIONAL RESEARCH, CENTER OF THE ARTS, INC A, -26-' )fi)additioa to the expenditures made directly by the state arts agencies, $1,976,886 was expended by separate foundations associated with them; As noted- earlier, the Connecticut foundation is the prlmary grant7-making bod'Y for state funds, and the .$405,264 expended was accounted for by such-grants. Table 11 EXPENDITURES OF 'SEPARATE FOUNDATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH STATE ARTS AGENCIES IN FISCAL 1974 Total Colorado 100,823 Connecticut 405,264 Florida 5,035 Illinois 211,337 Indiana 35,373 Massachusetts 217,100 Michigan 53,446 Nebraska 23,582 New York 857,198 Oregon 19,562 South Carolina .8 4,166 Total 1,976,886 Total Without New York 1,119,688 Bud et SubMissions -27- In the area of budget and finances, the survey explored the proce- dures and processes through which budget requests are submitted to the state legislature, including the period for which appropriations are made. . A majority of agencies receive an annual state appropriation, but slightly more than one-third receive a biennial appropriation, usually with, different:amounts specified' for the two years. Table 12 TYPE OF 'STATE APPROPRIATION Total Agencies # T tal 55 100 Annu 1 A riation 35 64 \ Biennil Appropriation 20 36 Legislaure specifies different amounts for die two years \\ Amount may e expended over the two-year period as agency cho ses Appropriation two years must be divided equally between the 257. of each budge line cannot be spent until last quarter 15 27 3 5 1 2 1 2 Whethtr an agency reCeives an annual or biennial appropriation, most fiscal years begin on July 1, Only four of the 55 agencies have fiscal years beginning on any other day of the year. NATIONAL RESEARCH.CENTER OF THE ARTS, INC. -28- Table 13 FISCAL YEAR COVERING FISCAL 1974 Total Total Agencies It 55 33 111. 100 Annual: 60 July 1, 1973 - June 30, 1974 September 1, 1973 - August 31, 1974 1 2 April 1, 1973 - March 31, 1974 iiennial: 1 2 July 1, 1973 - June 30, 1975 15 27 July-I, 1972 - June 30, 1974 3 5 September 1, 1973 - August 31, 1975 1 2 October 1, 1973 - September 30, 1975 1 2 Type af Budget Submitted In a sgght majority (53%) of the states the budget submitted to the state legislature in fiscal 1974 is, at least in part, a line-item budget, while in 36% of the states the budget islor broad categories only and in 11% only an overall amount is submitted to the legislature. A strong majority of those agencies that submitted line-item or broad category budgets, or a combination of both, were required to make such submissions. 52 -29- Table 14 TYPE OF BUDGET SUBMITTED TO STATE LEGISLATURE FISCAL 1974 Total Agencies II Total 55 100 Budget for Broad Categories 90 36 Requirement 15 2.7 Preference 5 9 Combination of Broad Categories and Line Items 19 35 Requirement 19 35 Preference Line-Item-Budget 10 18 Requirement 16 Preference 1 2 Overall Amount Only 6 11 A somewhat larger proportion of low expenditure agencies -- in which, as previously noted, a larger proportion of state appropriation are for administra- tive purposes -- submit line-item budgets, but no consistent pattern in the type of budget submitted is evident by expenditure size. Q. Table 15 TYPE OF BUDGET15WMITTED TO STATE LEGISLATURE FISCAL 1974, BY TOTAL EXPENDITURES Total Agencies EXPENDITURES . Below $250,000 $250,000- $499,999 $500,000 .1749,999 $750,000 and above # % W % # % # % # % Total 55100 15 100 20 100 10 100 1.0 100 Budget for broad categories 20 36 4 27 8 40 5 50 30 . 3 Combinations qf broad categorical line items 19 35 3 20- 8 40 3 30 5 50 Line-item budget 10 18 5' 33 3 15 1 10 1 10 Overall amount only 6 11 3 20 1 5 1 10 1 10 , NATIONAL RcseARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS,INC. t\ eJ. -30- Agencies that submit line-item budgets most often cited as the line items detailed in those budgets specific activities or art forms (4 agencies), salaries and personnel 'costs, and adMinigtration (3 agencies each). The broad categories most often cited were program areas and program- , ming in general (9 agencies), types of activities andlart forms (7), and administration (6). In most of the agencies with line items in their budge't submissions, 1 funds that are budgeted for one line item can be osed for othe although this ugu \ aliy requires permission from another person r agency. , Table 16 WHETHER'FUNDS BUDGETED FOR ONE LINE ITEM CAN BE USED FOR^ OTHER ;URPOSE AFTER STATE APPROPRIATION HAS BEEN MADE 1: (Base: Agencies whose fiscal 1975 budget supmission was a line-item budget or included lige items) Total Agencies Total 29 100 Funds Can Be Used for Other Purposes 19 66 Necessary to obtain permission 12 42 Not necessary to obtain Fermission 7 24' Funds Cannot Be Used for Other Pur oses 10 34 In 8 of the 12 agencies in which permission must be obtadned, this permission must be sought from the state budget officer or comptroller, in 2 from the department of administration, and in 1 each from the department of finance and from the governor. 54 4 '41*st. .7 Observation Thus, although a majority of agencies sutimitted a line-item budget, at least in part, in fiscal 1974, the types of line items varied widely, and even where funds are appropriated for a line item, in most cases these funds can be used for other purposes. in submitting budgets to the state legislature, a majority (55%) agencies make separate requests for program and for administrative funds, and another 9% request, program and administrative funds together with a percentage of the allocation. Table 17 SEPARATION OF PROGRAM AND ADMINISTRATIVE FUNDS IN BUDGET SUBMISSIONS Total Agencies Total 55 100 Agenciesswith state program funds 40 73 Program and administrative funds requested -7 separately 30 55 Program and administrative funds requested together with percentage allocation 5 9 No separation between program and adminis- trative funds 5 9 No state program funds' 15 27 The Program Planning,Budgeting System (PPBS) or a similar type of system -- in which budgeting is done 'under a system of categories of public service and subcategories of the program results expected in terms of serving the public -- is being used in more than a third of the states. When asked whether they were required to use PPBS or a similar system, 21 agencies (38%) reported such requirements. NAT.ONAL RESEARCH CENTER or THE ART5JNC -32 Methods of Submission of Budget An overwhelming majority of agencies must submit their budget to the legislature through another individual, agency or office -- including most agencies that are autonomous state agencies -- and in most of these the 1 budget is substantially revised by that person or office before final submis- sion to the legislature. Table 18 WHETHER BUDGET IS SUBMITTED TO LEGISLATURE THROUGH NNOTHER INDIVIDUAL, AGENCY OR OFFICE 0 Total Agencies Total 55 100 Budget Is Submitted through Another Individual, Agency or Office 51 93 Budget is revised substantially 28 51 Budget generally submitted to legislature as drawn up 23 42 \ Budget Submitted; Directly to Legislature 7 ' The:state finance or budget department, the governor and the adminis- tration deparLment are the most likely channels through which btkgets are \\N sUbmitted. 56 -33-- Table 19 INDIVIDUAL, AGENCY OR OFFICE THROUGH WHICH &MET* IS SUBMITTEb TO STATE LEGISLATURE Total Agencies in Which Budget Is Submitted through Another Individual, Agency or Office Department of finance/budget/comptroller Obvernor/executive department Department of administration Department of which agency is a pare* Legislative fiscal bureau or committee Department of education Department of cultural affairs State department Department of human resources Petsonnel office Department of Conservation *Volunteered responses to an open-end question. **Includes education, cultural affairs, state, educ ion and planning departments, not listed separately, in which arts a encies are a subordinate agency, division or office. Total Agencies 51_ 93 ....... 34 62 20 36 8 15 7 13 7 , 13 3 5 2 4 1 2, 1 2 1 2 1 2 5/ NATIONAL RESEARCH C ENTER OF THE ARTS. INC -34-- In 95% of the state agencies the director or other members of the agency had the opportunity actually to appear before commissions, committees or subcommittees of the legislature in behalf of the budget requests covering fiscal 1974, with appearance being made before a wide variety of senate, house and joint committees and subcommittees on finance, budget, appropria- tions, ways and means, education, human resources, and the arts. Table 20 WHETHER DIRECTOR OR MEMBER OF THE AGENCY APPEARED BEFORE LEGISLATURE IN BEHALF OF FISCAL 1974 BUDGET Total Agencies II Total 55 100 Did appear before committee, commission or subcommittee of legislature 52 95 Did not appear 3 5 Of the 52 agencies in Which members appeared before the legislature, 33 generally make annual appearances.and 18 biennial appearances, with the time period varying in the remaining agency. Testimony in behalf of the budget requests of the 3 agencies from which no member personally appeared was made by the Director of the Office of Planning and Budget in one case, the head of the department of huMan resources in one, and the head of the budget and fiscal office in the third. In the exploration of budget submissions, the directors were asked what if any trends or shifts in the manner of such submission they foresee in the iear future. Approximately half do feel that such trends and shifts u will occ r. 58 -35-- Table 21 WHETHER TRENDS OR SHIFTS IN THE MANNER OF BUDGET SUBMISSIONS ARE FORESEEN AS COMING IN 3 TO 5 YEARS Total Total Agencies 55 100 . Do foresee trends or shifts 28 51 No trends or shifts 27 49 In response to an open-end question, those who believe trends or shifts will occur mentioned many types of developments they believe may occur often df a very specific nature, such as the breakdown of travel into differeq categories. The trends mentioned by at least two di'rectors, however, are shown in the following table. Table 22 TRENDS OR SHIFTS IN THE MANNER OF BUDGET SUBMISSION* FORESEEN AS COMING IN 3 TO 5 YEARS Total Agencies II Total Agencies That Foresee Trends or Shifts 28 51 Appropriations will be made for program fu'ds 7 13 No longer submit line-item budget 3 5 Increase in line-item budgeting 2 4 Submission of budget in semi-autonomous manner 2 4 PPBS system will be introduced 2 4 Political pressure for geographic distribution of funds 2 4 Increase in administrative funds 2 4 *Volunteered,responses to an open-end question 53 NATIONAL PESEARCH CENTER OF TNE ,ARTS. INC. -36- CHAPTER II PURPOSES, FUNCTIONS AN6 PRACTICES 6 u NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. -37- PURPOSES, FUNCTIONS ANJ PRACTICES This chapter explores the purposes and functions of state arts agen- cies from three primary 1:Tiewpoints: -- mandateil purposes: the first section of the chapter reviews the 1 enabling legislation or executive ,rders under which the state'arts t agencies function, and the purposejs of the agencies'as spelled out in.these. -- functions and practices: The second section details which of a list of 49 possible functions and practices agencies are now engaged in, which they may have been engaged in in the past and discontinued, and which they would like to be ei+aged in but are not now. -- factors affecting functions andipractices: The third section presents the directors' evaluation of the importance of a number of specific factors on the functions and practices of their agencies. Mandated Purposes The basic purposes of state arts agencies are mandated in the legislation or executive orders by which they were created. These mandated purposes, however, are usually broadly stated; their implementation can be brought about through a great variety of functions and practices. Furthermore, in a majority of the states, the mandated purposes are either'identical or very similar to one another. These mandated purposes are based for the most part on the legislatió that created the New York and the Missouri agencies. The legislation for the New York State Council on.the Arts, which was originally established as a temporary commission in 1960 and wns made a permanent agency in 1965, was based in turn_on.-the-ar-ts-agency-experreifeeor-Gi47a-tIn view of 61 -38- '\ the subsequent development in the several states, and especially in light of the recent arts funding levels in New York, it iS interesting to note that New ork's enabling legislation clearly on a significant scale, as the New York provide for an organization appropriate did not contemplate a funding agency State Council\later became, nor did it to that purpoe. When the funding of the New. York State Council was greatly increased, duri'g the early 1970s, the language of the enabling legislation was in effect supe seded by that of the \ appropriation acts, which themselves set forward numercT conditions, includi g the purposes for which the enlarged funds were being prorded, namely, "to the end that &rants hereunder will provide maximum encouragement and assistance for the maintenance and development of the public availability of the cultural resources of the State" (emphasis added). The purposes mandated for the New York agency at the time of its creation were: "1. To stimulate and encourage throughout the state the study and presentation of the performing and fine arts and public interest, and participation therein; "2. To make such surveys as may be deemed advisable1of public ; and private institutions engaged within the state in artistic and cultural activities, including but not limited to music, 41eatre, \ dance, painting, sculpture, architecture, and allied arts and cr:afts, and to make recommendations concerning appropriate methods lo encourage ,itimate 'participation in and appreciation of the arts to meet the le needs and aspirations of persons in all parts of the state; "3. To take such'steps as may be necessary and appropri te to encourage public Illterest in the cultural heritage of our sta e and NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS.R4C, -39- The legislation for the Missouri agency -- first established as a Governor's Committee in 1962 and officially approved as a Council by the legislature in 1965 -- retained those three purposes and added a fourth: "4. To encourage and assist freedom of artistic expression essential for the well-being of the ;arts." The laws setting up most state arts agencies contain,either the three originally mandated purposes of the New York agency or all four of the'Missouri agency. Indeed, a handbook published in 1966,.The Politics of Ari, 'Forming a State Arts Council*, contains a model law which includes the four purposes and which was copied by many states. (The text of the model law 3.6 contained in Appendix A.) The.states in,which the mandated purposes conform generally to this model are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, M ne, Massachusetts,5Michigan, Missiasippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, % Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virgin Islands, 'West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. In Colorado, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania the agencies are in addition mandated to assist communities and/or organizations on the local level in creatihg their own cultural and artistic programs. Tennessee follows the model law but specifies the study and encouragement of "performing, viaUal and literary arts"; furthermore, the Tennessee agency -- like that of American Samoa -- is mandated to administer a museum and govern its opetation. * Published by Associated Councils of the Arts. 6 ,3 -40- *Agencies whose mandated purposes are other than those stated in the New York/Missouri model tend to have either very broadly.conceived general purposes ospecific mandates, for more detailed goals. Among those states with broad, general mandates ------wit-Sf-ddific purposes mentioned other than the encouragement, support, stimulation or deyelopment of the arts with- in the state -- are American Samoa, District of Columbia, Guam, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nevada, Vermont, Virginia and Washington. The Polities of Art handbook also contains a model preamble, defining the conditions or circumstance which require the existence of the agendy. The text of this model is as follwas: "It is hereby found that many of our citizens lack the opportunity to view, enjoy, or participate in living theatrical performances, musical concerts, operas, dance and ballet recitals, art exhibits, examples of fine architecture, and the perfurming and fine arts general1y. It is hereby further found that, with increasing leisure time, the practice and enjoyment of the arts are of inereasing importance and that the general welfare of the people of the state will be promoted by giving further recognition to the arts as a vital aspect of our culture and heritage and ds a valued means of expanding the scope of our educational programs. "It is hereby declared to be the policy of the state to join with private patrons and with institutions and professional organizations concerned with the arts, to insure that the role of the arts in_the-44-fe.-- r_c_ommunit-i-es-willalitinue to grow and will play an even more significant part in the welfare and 'educational experience of our citizens." With minoi variations, a Preamble similar to this is fourdfin the enabling legi81ation or executive orders creating a state council or commission in Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Maryland, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota and the Virgin Islands. 6' cp NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS INC. -41-- A number of states manage to avoid the emphasis\placed in the pre- . \ amble on "lack of opportunity" by describing the more positive purposes for a state arts agency. A number refer to the importance of the arts in develop- \ ing the economy (American Samoa, Idaho, Iowa, Maryland, Rhode island and \ South Dakota) while a smaller number (Guam and Texas) specifically mention the promotion of tourism and, in the case of Texas, the attraction,of permanent residents. A number also refer to the potential for increase in employment (California, Iowa, Maryland and New Mexico), and to the aiaing and tra.\ining of individual artists (Alaska, Illinois and Oregon). Washington, uniquely, points out that it has already produced many artists of nation 1 and international reputation. It is rare that the mandated purposes go beyond the range of the Model text. Again only Washington speaks of the "preservation and development of beauty" as one of its objectives, and only Aikansas.and Florida acknowledge the encouragement of "creativity" as a legitimate purpose for a governmental entity. As might be expected, American Samoa and Alaska make special mention of matntaining and encouraging native or ethnic arts, but a surprisingly large number of states (Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Mar and, New York, Oregon, and TennesLee)_refer to theicialiance of professional artistic standaras or "excellence." A surprisingly small number of states, on the oeher hand, make any reference to the relationship between the arts and education, among them Guam, Delaware, Maryland, Minnesota, Tennessee and Utah -- Delaware going so far..s to refer to the capability of the arts to "inspire" children. The language of the Tennessee legislation is particularly eloquent: "The arts are an Jile-htlal tool for the-cultivation of sensibility, for just as muscular development and intellectual vigor are fruitless unless directed to some worthy humh work, so increased perceptive power is barren without the discrimination of value that is the Creative force of the arts." -42- Beginning in 1965, many state councils or commissions were officially designated as the sta e agency to receive federal fLnds for the arts. These include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Maine; Mississippi, 1 Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Rhode Island, . Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming. Many others had been, or soon became, authorized to apply far, receive, and tisburse federal funds, or to co=,operate or enter into agreements with the federal government. These include California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts,'Minnesdta, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia and ksconsin. A number (Oklahoma, Texas and Washington are examples) are simply authorized to receive funds, grants, or gifts from any source. During the same period of thelate 1960s a number of agencies also either came into being, or redesignated themselves, with the phrase "and humanities" added to their title, reflecting the parallelism of arts and humanities at the national level. These include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Texas, Virginia and West Virginia. In two cases (Guam and Tennessee), it is specifically declared that ants programs under the act are not intended for an elite'but for the general public broadly definvd, Louisiana going so far as to speak of enriching and itful l illing the lives of its citizens. One or two specific programs assigned to an agency also give a sense of purpose, as in the naming of a poet laureate in Washington,sor in the honors program of Oregon. More often, however, it is che powprs,given to, or withdrawn from, the agency that suggest an intention behind this action. For example, a small number (Mississippi, Tennessee and Texas) authorize the arts agency to promote and adyise on the usq of art in state facilities. In terms of Pownrs withdrawn, though many adopt the clause NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE Ants.INC. -43 relating to artistic freedom from the Missouri model, at least one (Colorado) goes,further and includes a strong non-inteference clause prohibit the agency from attempting to influence or determine the artistic decisions of arts organizations. The purposes of a.number of the agencies are set out in a more . . detailed way, although frequently these do parallel the purposes of the model law; -- The Arkansas agency is mandated to carry out a program of grants- inraid to groups or individuals engaged in or concerned with tile arts to enable them to provide or support productions of substantial artistic and cultural significance, giving emphasis to creativity and the maintenance and encouragement of professional excellence, to carry out projects that will encourage and assist artists and enable them to achieve standards of professional excellence, and9 other relevant projects including surveys, research and planning in the arts. -- Under the original 1963 law, the California Arts Commission was mandated to make a comprehensive survey of public and private institutiqns engaged in artistic and cultural activities; to deterfnine the legitimate needs and aspirations culturally and artistically of citizens; to ascertain how resources in ezdstence and those which should be brought into existence Are to serve the cultural needs and aspirations of the citizens; and to asist communities in originating and creating their own cultural and artistic programs. In 1975 the Commission was abolished and,a 1975 legislatiqe act established the California Arts Council for the purpose of encouraging artistic awareness, participation and expression, helping independent local groups develop theirpwn arts programs, prom?ting employment of artists and those skilleein crafts, and providing for the exhibition of art works in public buildings throughout California. , -44- -- In Florida, where the original enabling legislation was based on the model law, a 1975 act mandates the arts agency to provide fine arts 4 grants to supplement the financial stipport of productiOns with substantial artistic and cultural significance emphasizing American creativity, and of productions meeting professional standards thato without such assistance, would otherwise be unavailable to citizens of Florida. -- The Hawaii law states that the agency shall assist in the coordina- , 3 tion of plans, programs and activities concerned with the preseryati= and furtherance of culture and the arts; devise programs.to bring the arts to those who would otherwise not have the opportunity to participate; stimulate, guide and promote culture and the arts ;1. devise and recommend legislative and administrative action for the preservation, and furtherance of culture and the arts; study the availability of kivate and governmental , grants, and accept, disburse and allocate funds from suchsources for the 1 preservation and furtherance of culture and the arts. -- The Illinois lalj, states that the agency should identify existing legislation, policies and programs affecting the arts and evaluate their effectiveness, stimulate public understanding and recognition of the , importance of cultural institutions in Illinois, promote an encouraging atmosphere for creative artists residing in Illinois, and encourage the s!) use of local resources for the development and support of the arts. -- The Maryland agency is mandated to design new or expanded programs in the arts, to encourage and assist in the formation of community arts 111 councils, to provide technical and consultative assistance to arts organizations, to assist in the touring of profassional .0 erformances and exhibitiots from within and without the state, to make awards for ex- cellence the arts, and to make grants to arts organizationsiand individual artists. !LiA IONA;.: Tet `if_ARC ha L. E N TEP Of THE AN rS. INC -45- -- The New Mexico agency is mandated to advise and assist public agencies in planning civic beautification, to foster appreciation for the fine arts, to make New Mexico more appealing to the world, to enclurage creative activity in the arts by residents, and to attract to the state's residency additional outstanding creators in the field of the fine arts. The purposes of theNorth Carolina agency are focused on the \ . study, collection, maintenance and dissemination of factual data and pertinent information relative to the arts; assistance to local organiza- tions and the community at large; the exchange of information, promotion of programs and stimulation of joirit\endeavors he.tween public and non- public programs; the identification of research needs in the arts and encouragement of such research; and the bringing of the highest quality arts to the state and promoting maximum opportunity for the people to experience and enjoy those arts. -- The Ohio agency4ds-Tandated to foster and encourage the development of the arts in the state and the preservation of the state's cultural heri- tage, with specific function set forth in the law to conduct a survey of the state's cuitural and artistic resources and needs and to maintain a continuing inventory of such resources, to develop a plan for better and fuller use of such resources by all the people of the state, and to assess the role of the arts in the growth and development of the state. -- The Oregon law states that the agency's objectives are to comple- ment, assIst and strengthen existing or planned programs.and activities of public and private associations in the arts to promote tha broadest public benefit, to encourage and give greater opportunities and recogni- tion to Oregon artists, and to stimulate and encourage private and local / / \. the creation, 'acquisition, construc ion, erection oi remodeling by \ the state of am work of art.and to \ he artistic character of build- initiative andlinancial support in connection with programs and activities in the arts. -- The South Dakota agency is mandated to promote, stimulate and iencourage the arts, to conduct research and provide a plan for , he dev- , elopment of the arts in the state, to/coordinate activities oL7the fecl7 ileral, state and local governments an the state's institutions in relation I\ to the arts, and to approve projects for federal and state aid for the arts. Tn Texas the agency is mandated to foster the development of a receptive climate for the att's that will enrich and benefit 1 the state's citizens, make visi s to Texas more appealing to the world and atttact additional cy ators in the fine arts eo residency in the state, and to direct oth'r activities such as sponsoring art / lectures and exhibitions and th central Compilation and dissemina- 1 0 tion of inforMation on the arts. The agency is also mandated to act as an advisorto Other state agencies to provide a concentrated effort for the arts, to act in an dvisory capacity,relative to ings constructed, erected or remodele1 by the state. -- The Utah agency., whose or gins reach back to 1899, is mandated \ to e'vance the interests of the fine ar s, including literature and music; to develop the influence of art, iiterature and music in the adult educational field; to associate man facturers, agriculturalists and industrialis0 in these endeavors; to tilizt broadcasting and newspapers in didIseminating information on he arts; and to take all necessary and useful means to stimulate a mo e abundant production of an indigenous arti literature and music. NAT.ONAc RF ARk. Ce" N'E R Of, THE ARTS. INC, -47- -- The Wisconsin agency is mandated continually to study the artis- tic and cultural activities within the state, assist arts activities, assist communities in creating and developing their own arts programs, and encourage and assist freedom of artistic expression. In summary, the mandated purposes of the state arts agency are generally broad in scope and allow f6r diverse activities within the agency. Even those legislated purposes that are more specific in nature tend to in- clude such an objective as "encouragement of the arts", in the ruEfillment of which a variety of functions and practices can be undertaken. Functions and Practices The study of functions and practices in state arts agencies was centered on a list of 49 pc sible functions and practices that was drawn up by consultant agency directors to represent, as far as possible, the broad range of arts agency activities. For each of these functions and practices, agency directors were asked whether they had done it in fiscal 1974 -- on a scale of "did a lot", "did some", "did not do", and "not a proper function and practice of the agency" *tend, if they had done it, whether they planned to continue, or if not, whether they had in the past or would like to in the future. The responses thus indicate the subjective evaluations by directors of their agencies' degree of involvement in the functions and practices listed, and the data should be considered in this light. Of the 54 agencies respruding to this question, all but nine did a majority of the 49 items in fiszal 1974, and on the average agencies were engaged in 32 of the 49 functions and practices. Every agency reported that -48- in fiscal 1974 they did "make expenditures to cultural organizations for specific projects: and did "make accessible qu4ity arts", with the number of agencies doing a listed function and'practic "make expenditures directly to individual artis declining to 14 who did s in the form of awards" and 8 who did "make expenditures to audience groups/sponsors/presenters for them to spend as they wish." The 49 functions and practices and the num- 'bers of agencies who did them in fiscal 1974 are shown on the following table: BEST COPY AVAILABLE NATiONAL, RESEARCH CEN TER OE THE ART. INC -49- Table 23 FUNCTIONS AND PRACTICES OF STATE ARTS AGENCIES Did 1. Make expenditures to cultural organizations for specific projects 2. Make accessible quality arts 3. Make expenditures to cultural organizations to improve artistic excel lence 4: Make expenditures to audience groups/sponsors/presenters for spec i f ie oroject s 5. Make expe ',tures to cultural organizations to improve audience &vet op'ser 6. Make expeo.uitures to cultural organizaticns for educational or teaoh rg :urpsvs 7. Make eApenditures to non-professionals 8. Encoura4e -t t d local education agencies to increase thel.r commitment to the arts 9. Have cooperative programming with community arts. councils 10. Pay professionals for their services to this agency I. Make xpemditures to cultural organizations for their cum residencies combining teahing and performing over an extended period 12. Provide_ amateur groups the funding for hiring a professional, such . as a curat s,r, conductor, or director U. Make expenditures to elementary and secondary schools to enable them to bring professional individual artists or cultural groups to student, 14. Make expenditures to colleges and universities to enable them to hr ing protessional individual artists or cultural groups to students 15. Fund art events or projects such as arts in prison, arts for a drug abuse t enter, for mental patients, etc. 16. Supplement the teaching of the arts in elementary and secondary schools with professional level instruction in such areas as creat ive writing, art , dance, theatre, music, etc. I'. Make expenditures to cultural organizations to improve management 18. Encourage mayors, city councils, county executives, etc. to include the arts in their budgets Ehcourage visual arts groups to secure professional jurors by providing funds for this purpose 20. Insist on recipients of funds paying professional artists whenever they pro\ ta, :ervices 21. Make expenditures to tultoral organizations for ticket subsidy 22. Make expenditures to cultural organizations to experiment on their 0141 23. Make expendres for adult educati n in the arts 24. Make expenditures throigh instituti ns to individual artists in the term of . onmtss ions (not includirig work grants or purchase grants) 25. Fnnd prograns In the environmental arts and architecture 26. Engage in cooperative activities with Musicians Union, Artists Equity, American Institute of Architects and other professional arts organiza- tions 27. Employ dif ferent standards in reviewing fund applications for ful ly professional endeavor, q , semi-professional endeavors and amateur endeavors 28. Make ekenditures for writers' seminars 29. Fund act; programs of organizat ions like Model Cities, community action igenc les etc. 30i Mako t-wen,:itur..3 to schools of fering special training in the arts, suoh as oons.rvaturies, dance schools, art schools, drama schools, etc . 11. Make expenditures to publishing companies and/or scholarly or artistic pre.ses 32, Try to ievel,p i profes.ional cultural organization in your state -- such as a dant e company, opera company, museum, string quartet, drama :ompanv, etc. -- because need for one exists 33; Employ dif ferent standards in reviewing fund applications for dif fer- ent geographi,a I locat ions 34. Make expenditures to cultural organizations for general support 35. Make expendi,ures through institutions to individual artists in the term of work grants 54 54 53 50 50 49 48 48 47 46 46 45 44 43 43 42 42 40 39 39 39 39 37 37 36 36 34 33 32 32 32 31 30 30 30 In Fiscal 1974 Did Did Total A Lot Some # 49 5 43 11 33 20 32 18 22 28 25 '17 24 21 21 27 21 26 31 15 12 34 15 30 23 21 16 27 6 37 19 23 8 34 13 27 11 -28 27 12 10 29 6 33 7 30 b 31 8 28 32 17 17 2 31 8 24 6 26 3 29 9 22 10 20 9 21 5 25 Did Not Do Not A Proper Function 3. 4 3 1 2 3 3 3 6 6 1 7 1 7 1 6 3 7 3 9 2 10 1 3 9 9 3 12 1 14 1 . 13 2 13 2 13 2 13 4 16 1 17 1 16 2 15 5 20 1 20 2 20 2 18 4 17 20 4 19 5 20 4 Not Answered (continued). 1 BEST COPY AVAILABLE -5n- Table ?3 FUNCTIONS AND PRACTICE'S OF STATE ARTS AGENCIE§ (continued) 36. rake non-monetary awards to, or otherwise recognize, individual hrtists 37 Make expenditures to cultural organizations to improve sa'ary levels 38. Make expenditures ,through institutions to individual artists in the form of awards '" 39. Make expenditures for historical preservation 40. Have agencv-administered programs, such as serving as,management, touring, booking agent, etc. 41. Support projects in the humanities 42. Condue: own programs of training in arts management within the state arts agency 43. Make expenditures through institutions to inpvidual artists in the form of purchase grapts 44. Make expenditures for training in arts management, not conducted within the state arts agency 45. Make expenditures directly co indiVidual artists.in The form of work i,rants 46. Make expenditures directly to individual artists in the form of - pur,aase grants 47. Make expenditures directly to individual artists in the form of commissions (not including work grants or purchase grants) 48. Make expenditures directly to individual artists in the form of awards 49. Make expenditures to audience groups/sponsors/presenters for them . to spend as they wish A Did In Fiscal 1974 Did Not Do Not A Proper Function Not Answered Total Did Did A Lot Some # 29 5 24 21 4 28 4 24 19 7 28 3 25 23 3 27 6 21 18 9 27 5 22 23 4 26 7 19 17 11 26 7 19 25 3 26 1 2.5 26 2 22 1 2.1 30 2 20 5 15 28 6 16 3 13 34 4 14 6 8 33 7 14 4 10 33 7 e .2 6 31 15 NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF: THE ARTS, INC. -51- Almost ail of the agencies who were engaging in a function or prac tice in fiscal 1974 reported that they plan to continue doing so. For only 10 of the listed items did any agency say that it would not continue (and a maximum Of 2 agencies for any single item), and for 2 other items a state agency was'hot sure that it would continue. The reasons given by those few agencies not planning to continue centered on limited funds, lower ranking among the agency's priorities and the limited number of people affected. It is evident that state arts agencies do not see their functions and practices as diminishing, cOnsidering the minimal number who plan to dis continue any of the items. Furthermore, as di'Scussed below; many of those agenci,es who were not engaged in a practice in fiscal.1974 would like to do so and are primarily limited by funds. Those agencies that were not doing a listed item in fiscal 17974 were asked whether or not they had done so in the past and, if so, why they no longer did so. Furthermore, they were asked whether they would like to engage in the practice and, if so, why they'are not doing it now. The total , number who did not do the item in fiscal 1974 (not including those who do not believe it is a proper function), those who did it in the past and those who would like to do lt are shown in the followinvtable: .7 4. I. -52- Table 24 WHETHER AGENCIES HAVE PREVIOUSLY ENGAGED IN FUNCTIONS AND PRACTICES MOT ENGAr.ED IN DURING FISCAL 1974, AND/OR WOULD LIKE TO IN THF PUMP. Make expenditures purchase grants 2. Make expenditures commissions 3. Make. expenditures 4. Make expenditures spend a-, they wish directly to individual artists in the form of directly to individual artists in the form.of Did Not Do In Fiscal 1974 If 34 33 directly to individual arti)ts in the form of awards 33 to audience gramsfsponsorn/presenters fur them to 5. ,Make expenditures for training'in arts management, not conducted within the ltate arts agency Makc expenditures directly to individual artists in the form of work )6. grants 7. Make expenditures through institutions to individual artists in the form of purchase grants S. Conduct own programs ot training in arts management within the state arts agency 'Have agency-administered programs, such as serving as management, touring, booking agent, etc. Make expenditures through inStitutions of awards Make non-monetary Make expenditures of work grants Employ different standards in geographical locations 14, Make expenditures to schools offering as conservatories, dance schools, art 15. Fund *arts programs agencies, etc., ' 16. Makv expenditures 17. Make expenditures 18. Make expenditures 19. Make expendittlres 20. "ce expenditures pre,ses 21. Support projects in the humanities 22. Try to develop a professional cultural organization in such as a. danoe company, opera company, muSeum, string company, etc. -- because need for one exists 23. Fund programs in the environmental arts and architecture 24. Engage in cooperative activities with Musicians Union, Artists Equity, American Institute of Architects and other professional arts organizations 25. Make expenditures through institutions CO individual artists in the form of commissions 2,6. Employ different standards in reviewing fund applicatiOns for fully pro- fessional endeayots, semi-professional endeavors and amateur endeavors 27. Znuourage visual arts groups to secure professiopal jururel by providing fur.ds for 'this purpose 28. Make expenditures for adult education in the arts 29. Make expenditures to cultural organizations to experiment on their own 30. %Make expenditures to culturl prganizations for ticket subsidy 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. to individual awards to, or otherwise through institutions to recognize, individual reviewing hind artists in individ6a1 artists in applications the form artists the form for different 31 30 Would Did Like In Past To Do ii ir. 1 I 23 4 25 24 21 28 2 21 26 1 13' 25 2 - 1.7 23 23 21. 20 20 special training in the arts, such schools, drama schools, etc. 20 of organizations like Model ,Cities, community action for writers' seMinars to cultural organizatOns to improve salary levels to Liltural organizations for general support for historical preservation to publishing companies and/or scholarly or artistic your state -- quartet, drama a 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15- 14 13 13 13 1 9 13 4 I 14 10 2 .14 1 14 4 16 12 15 1 10 2 I 15 2 3 9 3 15 3 15 2 13 1 6 2 8 2I 8 2 (Continued) 10 NATICUsiAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS, INC 4 -52- Table 24 , WHEMER AGENCIES HAVE PREVIOUSLY ENGAGED IN FUNCTIONS AND PRACTICES NC.rf ENGAGED IN DURING FISCAL 1974, AND/OR WOULD LIKE TO IN THE FUTURE (C?ntinued) Did Not , Do In Fiscal 1974 # 31, Insist on recipients of funds paying professpnal artists whenever they provide services- . 14 32. Errourage mayors, city councils; county executives, etc. to include the arts in their budgets 12 33. Fund art events or prOjects such as arts in prison, arts for a drug abuse center, for mental patients, etc. 10 34. Make expenditures to cultural vganizations to improve management 2 35. Make expenditures to colleges and universities tolenable them to bring professional individual .artists or cultural groups to students 9 36. Make expedditures to elementary and secondary schools to enable them to bring Opfessional individdal artists or cultural groups to students 7 37. Make'expenditures to cultural organizations for their oum residencies combining teaching and performing over an extended period 7 3_8,_ Pay professionals for their services to this agency 7 39. Provide aMateur groups the funding for hiring a professional, such as a . curator, conductor, or director 6 40. Have'cooper4tive programiling with community arts councils 6 - 41. Eacourage state and local education agencies to increase their commitment to the arts 6 42. Make expenditures to audience egvoups/sponsors/presenters for specific projects . 4 . . _ 43. Supplement the teaching of the arts in eldMentary and secondary schools with professional level instruction in such areas as creative wr,iting, art, dance, theatre, mdsic, etc. 3 44. Make expend'tures to non-professionals , 3 45. Make expenditures to cultural organizations to improve audience development 3 46. Make expenditures td cultural organizations for educational or teaching purposes 2 47. Make expenditures to cultural organizations to improve aetistic excellence 1 4. 7 7 'Would Did Like In Past To Do If 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 . 11 10 9 '5 4 4 4 4 6 2 2 3 -54- Of the few states which reported having discontinued engaging in a function or practice, the primary reason given for no longer doing it was limited funds.. For 15 of the 28 items which at feast one agency did in the past but no longer does, one of the reasons given for stopping was the lack of Tunds. Other reaons given include a lack of applications or interest, a change in polity or legislatidn, and lack of staff or time. Lack of funds was also by far the most mentioned reason for not now engaging in a,practice that an agency's director would like o do: 4 -- Lack of funds was given as a reason for not doing 40 of the 44 items that at least one agency would like to do but did not do in fiscal 1974. .For 28 of those items, lack of funds was ranked at least equal to.or above any other reason. -- Lack of applications, interest or need was the secon'd most mentioned reason. This was ranked highest jps 'a reason for not making expenditures for ticket subsidy, not makini expenditures . for writers' seminars, not providing funds to visual arts groups for professional jurors, not making expenditures for training in arts management, not funding programs or organizations like Model, Cities, community action agencies, etc.,,And with lack,of staff was highest ranked as a reason for not pgaging in cooperatiVe activities with arts unions and professional arts organizations. -- Lack of staff was also ranked highest as a reason for not conducting an agency's own,program of arts management'trainihg, not having agency-administered programs, not having cooperative programming with community arts councils, and was ranked highest along with the lo{4 priority assigned to apractice as a reason for not encouraging state and local education agencies to increase their NATIONAL RESEARCH CEN,en Or THE ARTS,INc -55- arts commitment. --*The fact that the practice is against agency's policy or guide- lines. was.the highest ranked reason for not employing different 6 standards in reviewing fund applications for different levels of professionalism and for not making non-monetary awards to indivi- dual artists. 4 In addition, fOr 324of the 44 items that agencies would like to do but did not do in fiscal 1974, at least one'agency reported tHat they were engaging in the practicesin fiscal. 1975. Trends and Shifts in Functions and Practices When asked whether they foresee'any-trends or shifts in the func- 'tionS and practices of their agencies during the coming three to five years, approximately three in four directors reported that they do foresee such trends br shifts: Table 25 WHETHER TRENDS OR SHIFTS IN FUNCTIONS MID PRACTICES OF AGENCY ARE FORESEEN IN COMING 3 TO 5 YEARS Total Agencies Total 55 100 Do foresee trends or shifts 42 76 No trends or shifts 7 13 Not sure 6 11 -56-- When directors were asked in an ppen-end question what trends are foreseen, the volunteered responses indicated increased activity by che agency in areas in which they are already engaged. Table 26 TRENDS OR SHIFTS IN FUNCTIONS AND PRACTICES* FORESEEN IN ,COMING 3 Td.5 YEARS Total Agencies 'it Total agencies that do foresee trends or shiftJ 42 % 76 Expansion of programs/increased program funding 14 25 Increased funding, services to individual artists 13 24 More community sponsorship/stronger links with community, busineSs and citizens 10 18 Support of major institutions 8 15 Greater involvement of recipients in program planning/ closer relationship with arts organizations 7 13' Increased profes;ional staff, administrative support 7 13 1 Increased participation of community councils 6 11 k Greater definition of goals, more future planning 5 / Mgre sophisticated use of politics/greater community 9 with legislature 5 9 Increased arts programs in schools 5 9 More council-initiated projects 4 7 Upgrading of arts organizations 4 7 \ Greater involvement in regional programming 3 5 Increased coordination of touring 2 4 More residencies 2 4 Greater emphasis on crafts, indigenous arts 2 4 \ Increased professionalism : 1 2 Increased visibility of agency 1 2 Improved evaluation system 1 2 Increased technical asSistance to non-professional groups 1 , 2 Increased grants to the humanities 1 2 Lessening support of the performing arts 1 2 General reduction in flow-through grant programs 1 2 I More emphasis on recreation and parks 1 2 Greater interest in arts for senior citizens 1 2 , More concern for historical preservations 1 2 / More committee meetings 1 2 Regulation of business practice 1 2 Don't know 1 2 *Volunteered responses to an open-end question si 1 6 u NAT4ONAL AR:7.14 CENTER OP. THE AprS INC. -37- A majority of the agencies that believe these trends will occur feel that they will result from increasing public awareness of and demand for the arts: ' Table 27 REA0 S WHY TRENDS AND SHIFTS FORESEEN IN FUNCTIONS AND PRACTICES WILL/OCCUR* Total Agencies Total agencies that do foresee trends or shifts 42 76 Response to increasing nee /pressure for more programs/growing public,awareness 23 42 Increasing funding 10 18 Pising awarenessby agencies of.individual artist 8 15 Directions of council/commission planning 8 15 Gtowth of staff 7 13 Change of leadership, new administration 4 7 Director is optimistic 3 5 Everything changes 2 4 Shifting population 2 4 More responsive, sympathetic legjslature 2 4 Increasing communication between artists, organiza- tions and council/commission 1 2 Increased touring as a result of regional program 1 2 Increased growth of local arts agencies 1 2 *Volunteered responses to open-171. questions Agency directors tend to be optimistic in their perception of the trends in agency functions during the coming years. Except for phe agency that fore- saw a lessening of support for the performing arts, all the trends foreseen ,... are generally positive. OP ..! 'iNIATtrAt. RESEARCH CENTE, OF THE ARTS. INC. . i t . \ . 1 ... s t. / - 58 . .. I ., CHAPTER III PROGRAMS o t .. / , ... -c. -4 i e I. 8,) 4 NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. 11IC -597 PROGRAMS This chapter expilores the overall programs of state arts agencies and the rules and policies of agencies that affect these programs. The ax .ts covered include: / - program emphases: the directors , description of the major program emphases of their agencies - restrictions and mandates: restrictions and prohibitions on the agencies' programs, other activities and fiscal practices, as well as programs that agencies are mandate& to carry out. - subgranting: the use of subgranting to effect those programs or projects an agency is prohibited from doing or prefers not to do directly - earmarked funds: the earmarking or restriction of funds so that an agency has no discretionary power over the final distribution and use of the funds - criteria for funding: the criteria employed for the con- sideration of application for funding, and the causes for the denial of such applications' matchin,.; funds: agencies' policies concerning matching funds, including the percentage requirement for matching funds and the type of funds allowd as matches - non-funding programs: the activities of the agencies in sup- port of the arts other than the distribution of funds to organ- izations, institutions and individuals -60- \ - programs of associated foundations: the progra s of the associated 1 \ ssparate foundations and the earmarking of funds received by the associated fohndations. program EuIpt_lases In the examination of agency programs, directors Were initially asked in an -openend-question what were the various major program emphases of their agencies; the volunteered responses covered bOth broad program areas -- such as touring as well as specific art forms. Thd most wentioned program by far vas support of community arts activities and councils, which a slight majority of 53% of directors listed among the major program emphases. Art- \ ists-in-schools, touring and expansion arts (such as multi-ethhic, prisons, aging, etc.) Were each.cited by approximately one-third of the agencies. NATIONAL RSEAR.i (TEM TER OF THE AR' rs, iNc -61-- Table 28 MAJOR PROGRAM EMPHASES OF STATE ARTS AGENCY Total Total Agencies II 55 100 Support of community arts activities and organi-, zations/development and supportlof community councils 53 Toaring g 33 Artists-in-schools 16 29 Funding of organizations, institutions 0. 14 25 Special groups (multi-ethnic, prisons, aging, etc.) 13 24 Education 12 22 Technical assistance 11 20 Special projects 7 13 Support of major institutions 5 9 VisiLing artists/artists' residencies 5 9 Informational services 4 Audience development 3 e7 5 Training programs 2 4 * ' Support of individual artists .. , in public plac'es 2 1 4 2 ,Art 'Cultural promotion 1 2 Publications 1 2 A Archives/libraries 1 2 Parks 1 2 Communications 1 2. Youth and art 1 2 Performing arts 16 29 Music a 20 Theatre 94 , 16 Dance 8 15 Non-specific pel-forming arts 5 9 lasual arts 4 13 24 Lieerature al Museums 6 11 - Performing arts.(ncn-specif'ied) 5 9 Public media 5 9 Architecture/environmental arts 3 5 Folk arts Crafts a ) 32 5 Arts, non-specific 1 2 None 1 2 Volunteered respones to an open-end question. . -62- Observation: The following chapter will analyze the programs in terms of projects and'actual dollars expended on them. Consultant agency directors indicated, however, that the amount of money spe7t is not necessarily indicative of program empha- ses and "priorieies; e.g., a few project expenditures of rel- ative high amounts to,large,organizations may require little time and effort by the agency and represent a small part of its programs, though the dollar amdunts'are large. 4 Iri judging whether the vogram balance in the future will tend more toward projects providing impact.on various parts of the state, or more to- , ward local.or community projects than at the present time, a Majority of directors estimite that programs 441.11 stay at about the same level as at the tiMe of the surveY, with approximately 1 in 5 agencies seeing a movement in each of the directions. Table 29 are PERCEIVED FUTURE BALANCE OF PROGRAMS' Total Agencies 0 Total 55 29 12 10 3 1 100 Stay about the same Toward qocal/community projects Toward grojects for various parts of st,.te , , Not sure , Not applicable 53 22 18 5 2 Directors who feel future program8 will°tend more toward local or codmunity projects cited the need for and requests for such assistance, the increasing local aötivity and developaent of community councils, and,pressure 86 NATpivio._ RESE ARC.4 CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC -63- . e for per capita distribution of funds. Those who feel the direction is to- . 4 .4 ward statewlde projects cited the commitment of the state in that direction, the development of state institutions and organizations, the needs within the state falling that way, and the general direction of the councilicom- w mission: The directors' concern with.support of community activities was again evident in estimation of program emphases during the coming years. When asked whether they feel.that trends or shifts in,program emphases will .occur in the near future, a substantiar majority of 64% of the directors do foresee such trenas, and in, an open-end.question on what these trends will be 2;7 commnity activities ranked highest among,the trends foreseen. (Although regional programming was not.mentioned in connection with this question, in anothet part of the interview directors indicated,.as, discussed in Chap- ttr V. that they foresee a trend toward mre regional programming.) 4 =64- 1 Table 30 TRENDS OR SUFI'S El PROGRAM EMPHASES OF THE AGENCY FORESEEN IN THE COMING 3 TO 5 YEARS* , Total Agencies # Total 55 100 Total agencies in which trehds or shifts are foreseen 55_ . 64 More development of community arts activities, % organizations ind councils 15 27 q More programs (non-specific) 10 18 Mord emphasis on ihdividual artists 7 13 More funding e 6 11 mom touring . . . 5 9 d agore media programming ,, 3 5 . More emphasis on education/artists-in-schoole 2 4 MOre Bicentennial programs ' 1 - 3 Increased emphasis on: Theatre Literatiire Visual arts Dance Music 2 4 2 4' 4 2 4. 1 2 '.gency will serve as major cultural resource, not just arts programming 3 ossthle restructuning of grant-making procedures . 1 Arts service organizations will grow 1 DePends on needs of community 1 Volunteered responses to an open-end question. a 2 2 2 When asked why such trends or shifts will occur,.directors cited N , reasons centering on the agencies' response to existing needs and desires. a 0. 1 4 NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER or THE ARP'S. 1NC. 4 -65- Table 31 . - REASONS WHY TRENDS OR.SHIFTS FORESEEN IN PROGRAM EMPHASES. OF THE AGENCY WILL OCCUR* -Total Total Agencies 55 35 100 Total agencies in which trqnds or shifts are foreseen 64 To meet needs and'expressed desires, particularly of local cmmmunities 23 42 Jncreased funds available 10 18, To provide more prpgrdao - 4 5 9 '\\ Growing-interest of people in the arts 3 -5 Increased staff 1 . 2 Decreased staff 1 2 Better promotion of the arts 1 I 2 Desire of agency to tmprove 1 2 Growth of community coundils 1 2 Volunteered responses to afi open-end question. 4. Restrictions 'and -Mandates The emphasis of an,agency'p programs will obviously Id signifi- . cantly affected if restrictions or prohibitions are placed upon the agency's activities, or if the agency is mandated to*cotduct specific programs. Di- rectors were questioned about fiscal and pbgram restrictions and mandates. In response to the questions On fiscal l'estrictions, directors of 8 agencies ., reported that the agenci.13Pare I.agally prohibited from'receiving any operat- ing revenues, such as earnfngs from sale of publications, posters, or other 'gods and services. 10 - It '. .LEGAL PROHI TIONS AGAINST RECEIVING OPERATING REVENUES -66-- Table 32 Total Agencies II Total 55 100 Legally prohibited from receiving operating revenues 8 15 Not prohibited from receiving operating revenues 42 76 Not sure 5 9 tb, However, 44% of the agencies reported that there are other fiscal prohibitions under which they operate. The prohibitiOns thast were mentioned in response to an open-end question ranged from general state regulations to specific restrictions. u NATIONAL RESFARCH CENTER. oF THE ARTS, INC, -67- Table 33. OTHER FISCAL PROHIBITIONS UNDER WHICWAGENCY OPERATES * `Total Total Agencies 55 24 100 All other fiscal_prohibitions 44 Ceneral state regulations, e.g., bidding, etc. -4--- 7- Purchases/administrative expenses must be authorized by another agency 3 5 Budget restrictiops/appropri4ion limitation 2 4 ll contractsAxpenditures must be authorized by state agencies 2 %r Legislature must.auphorize receipt,of all funds *1 2 No advances,to organizations, funds on reimbuysement basis only 1 2 No deficit, spending 1 2 No solicitation of funds 1. 2 No entertainment expenditures 1 2 No participation in commercial projects 1 2 No state funds for newsletters 1 2 Annual budget restricts funds to one-year period 1 2 Staff cannot be paid from outside funds 1 2 Funds must be spent only in areas specified imappropriation 1 1.0 Revenue sharing restrictions cause decrease in state funds 2 if federal funds increase 1 2 Legislatrve committee blOcks federal funds requiring, state commitment 2 Staff development must be.authorized by legislature 1 2 General IRS regulations. 1 2 Too numerous to list 1. 2 VolunteeAd responses tO an open-end question. Observation: It should be remembered that the list of other fiscal pro- hibitions was derived from an open-end question, 'and what some directors mentioned as a).prollIbition could also be prohibited in'other states even though dot mentioned in response to this question. For example,4prohibitions against deficit spending, entertainment expenditures, etc. are wide- spread, but may not be thought of by directors in terms of "fiscalt,prohibitions." This is also true in the question concerning program restrictions discussed next. Almost half the agencies report some type of restrrction or pro- Aibition on program activities, with grants to .individual artists volunteered most frequently among types oi such restrictions. t/' NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OE THE ARTS, INC -69- Table 34 RESTRICTIONS OR PROHIBITIGNS CURRENTLY AFFECTING PROGRAM ACTIVITIES* Total Total Agencies # 55 26 % 100 There are restrictions affecting activities 47 Against grants to individuals Restrictions of federal guidelines (e.g., those of the NEA, HEW, etc.) 11 , 3 22 5\ Grants made only to non-profit/tax-exempt . organizations ---- 3 5 Against publication of newsletter 2 4 No grants for capital expenditufes 2 4. Limitation on number of staff /1 2 No purchasing qg works of arts 1 2 No grants to other state agencies . 1 2 No grants to schdols or public uniyersities 1 2 Recipients must not discriminate on basis A of sex, race or reriglon 1 , 2 Against funding of deficits 1 2 Maximum amount pet year to any one organization 1 g Only funds earmarked for administration may by usgd for administration 1 2 Grants must require completion of activity : for,which made . 1 2 A. Official discouragement Of unproVen or controversial programs 1 2 PrintiK muet be done by state i 1 2 Too much'control by other state agencies Loca city or county tax m§ney'cannOt 1 2 b spent on the arts o. 1 2, No restrictions affecting activities 27 49 Not sure 2 4 . -ss Volunteered responses to an openTend questidn. N' 3 Although 4 number of agencies rep 6d either fis,al or progi'am 1. restrictions;no single type Of restriaion was widely cli.t4d. Frthermore, some restrictions cited by agencies are probably not copsidered as'restric- -70- tions generally, ,even though they may be so. For example, most state arts agencies are probably not in a position to grant funds to orianizat.irs un- less they are non-profit and/or tax-exempt, and all work within some federal guidelines, but these were mentioned by only a miniMal number of directors. ...in those agencies where restrictions do atfect programming, activ- ities that cannot be funded directly sometimes receive assistance from the agencies through indirect channels. When asked whether they use subgranting to provide funds to individuals or organizations, 21 agencies reported the use of subgranting; 12 use subgranting to fund individuals or organizations they are prohibited from funding directly and 13 to make grants they prefer - not to make directly (4 agencies subgrant for both reasons). Table 35 WHETHER AGENCY USE ANY MEANS 0F SUBGRANTING FUNDS TO INDIVIDUALS OR ORGANIZATIONS IT IS PROHIBITED FROM, OR PREFERS NOT TO, FUND DIRECTLY 1\ Total Total Agencies 55 21 12 lj 2/ 13 ' 34 100 Total agenoles using subgrantILIR 38 22 24 62 To individuals or organizations 63 whom direct grants are prohibited To indiziduals or organizations agency prefers not to make grants to directly No such use of subgranting 11 -- 3 of these agencies are ptohibited-from making grants to individuals. 2/ --J 2 of these agencies are prohibited from making grants to individuals. 9 .4 NATIONAL RESEARCN CENTER OF THE ART'S. INC -71- TN The means used focus on subgrants through qualified non-profit . organizations, local aFts councils, and an affiliated or independent foundation to individuals or non-qualifying organizations. Subgranting b..). preference is often done to insure better administrative and financial conLrol and reporting of the project. . . Another possible restriction on agencies is the setting of a , maximum amount,that may be granted for a single project. 'However, in only : 157 of agencie,s is such a maximum iftosed and the amount permitted goes as high as $150,000. IP MAXIMO Total \ Table 36 AMOUNT-THAT MAY BE GRANTED FOR amount , SINCI. PROJECT / Total Agencies 55 8 .100 , Thete is a mOcimum 15 $5.,000-9,q99 7 $10,000 1 1 2 - . $20,000 1 $55,000 1 2 $150,000 1 2 , Median am unt: $9,500 No maxlmum a ount 85 Observation: Legal restrictions do not limit state arts agencies significantly, it seems. Even the funding of indivi- / dual artists, which has been seen to be the major restriction, can sometimes be effected through an interiliediary organization. 9Z; -72- The reverse of legal restrictions -- i.e., legal requirements to conduct particular programs -- is even more uncommon. Only two agencies -- New York aad Minnesota -- were,required'at the time of the survey to conduct programs in certain areas or alfs types, and in both stat-s at least a partial amount of funds it required to be distributed'according to a geographl.cal, 1 populltitn basis. (However, it should be remembered that by earmarking funds for speific programs or projeets, legislatures can effectively achieve sim- ilar e 5,a's that of mandating.) When asked about legislative mandates to conduct specific activities or to serve particaar groups, agencies mentioned the broad in the analysis of legislation in Chapter II. However, ten 'areas discussed \/ directors do see trends or shifts in a direction towards mandated activiaes that can lead to less control of programs by the agency. Table 37 WHETHER TRENDS OR SHIFTS IN THE MANDATING BY LEGISLATURE TO CONDUCT SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES ARE FORESEEN EN COMING 3 TO 5 YEARS Total Age ies Total 55 100 DO foresee treads or shifts 10 18 No trends or shifts 39 71 Not sure 6 11 9 b 1 NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS, INC. -73- Table 38. TRENDS OR SHIFTS IN THE MANDATING BY LEGISLATURE TO CONDUCT SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES FORESEEN IN COMING 3 TO'5 YEARS 41. Total Total Agencies # 55 10 % 100 Total agencies foreseeing trends or shifts 18 Specific activities/organizations to be funded 2 4 Population/geographic distribution 2 4 Distributions of funds to local arts councils 1 2 \ Aid to city government on revenue-sharing basis , 1 2 '2 More rural activities 1, .Serving major professional companiel)and museums 1 2 Gieater pubfic participation in art forms 1 2 Direct appeals to legislature by spepial interests 1 2 New administration, not sure of direction '1 2 Volunteered responses to an open-end,question. .P Another way in which programs can be specified, in additiOn to legislative mandate', is through earmarked or Festricted funds, The greater the proportion of such funds -- defined in the survey as "funds whose use is designated and over which the state arts agency has no discretionary granting power" the less the ability of the agency to determine its program dired- , tions. In a slight majority of states -- 29, (*53% -- at least some portion of the legislative appropriation for fiscal 1974 was eaimarked or restricted, kg? either for administrative purposes or for specific program actIvities or recipients, and in 15 of those states the entire appropriation was earmarked. However, of the total state legislative appropriations of $30,756,494, only 7%, or $2,234,628, was earmarked or restricted, with the.remaining 93%, or $28,521,866, being discretionary, unrestricted funds. f, 9.7 -74- Table 39 DISTRIBUTION OF FISCAL 1974 LEGISLATIVE-APPROPRIATION BY EARMARKED VS. DISCRETIONARY FUNDS Total Legislative Appropriation Earmarked or Restricted - Discretionary or Unrestricted S. Alabama 125,000 125,000 100 Alaska 149,600 y000q .60 -59,300 40 American Samoa 60,000 30,000 50 30,000 50 Ariziona- 68,700 68,700 100 Arkansas 166,727 16,727 10 150,000 90 California 1,034,763 1,034,763 100' Colorado 120,963 90,963 75 30,000 25 Connecticut 351,500 137,500 39 214,000 61. Delaware 42,600 30,600 72 12,000 28 District of Columbia 52,000 52,000 100 Florida 289,895 289,895 100 Georgia 220,000 55,000 25 165,000 75 Guam 10,218 10,218 100 Hawaii 221,307 115,000 52 106,307 48 Idaho 10,000 10,000 100 Illinois 600,000 600,000 100 ,jndiana 170,005 170,005 100 Iowa 52,244 31,869 61 20,375 39 Kansas 45,634 45,634 100 Kentucky 153,930 153,930 100 Louisiana , 44,000 44,000 100 - Maine 162,000 f62,000 100 Maryland 0 453,411 129,411 29 324,000 71 Massachusetts 600,000 600,000 100 Michigan 485,800 125,000 26 360,800 74 Minnesota 300,000 300,000 100 Mississippi 107,668 107,668 100 0 Missouri 654,920 654,920 106 Montana 27,550 27,550 100 Nebraska 35,122 25,122 100 Nevada 15,122 15,122 100 New Hampshire 45,679 45,679 100 New Jersey 698,932 /532,932 76 166,000 24 New Mexico 45,300 45,300 100 - (eontinued) I. NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER Or THE ARTS. INC. -75- Table 39 N,G DISTRIBUTION OF FISCAL 1974 LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION bY EARMARKED VS. FISCRETIONARY FUNDS (continued) New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohici Oklahoma ' Oregon Pennoylvania Poerro Rico Rhode Island Sowa Carolina Sou.th Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virgin Islands Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming TOTAL Total Legislative Appropriation Earmarked or Restricted Discretionary .or Unrestricted $, 16,445,000 16,445,000 100 221;231 71,231 32 ,150,00 68 5,100 5:100 100 ,849,847 849,847 100 95,100 95,100 100 54,563 54,563 100 758,000 758,000 100 2,753,267 152,000 6 2,601,267 94 126,231 126,231 100 360,896 360,896 100 61,702 61,702 100 312,500 312,500 100 157,345 157,345 100 104,026 104,026 loo 52;626 52,626 100 120,000 160,000 100 201,702 201,705 100 98,415 98,415 100 263,580 263,580 100 42,227 42,227 100 12,543 12,543 100 30;756,494 2,234,628 7 28,521,866 93 Observation: Restrictea funds are seemingly defined differently by different agencies. For example, appropriations for administrative'purposes may be considered earmarked by some agencies and not be considered so by others. Any examination of restricted/earmarked funds should take this difference of evaluation into account. Funds from other.stat sources, as well as from federal and munic ipal and county sources, Can also be received for specific activities. How ever, the ^only other division by source between earmarked and discretionary funds determined here was made in funds received from private sources. Of the 31 states that received private funds (including earnings) in fiscal 1974, 21 or 67% had at least,a Portion Of those funds earmarked, and in 15 of those states 411 private funds were earmarked. Overall, just under half of total private funds received were restricted. Of the total of $720,115 received from private sources by the 31 states, $347,119 (48%) was earmarked or restricted and $373,850 (52%) was discretionary or us. ricted.. Ut) NATIONAL i'tSEARCH CSNTER OF.THE ARTS. INC. -77 - O Table 40 .DISTRIBUTION OF PRIVATE FUNDS RECEIVED IN FISCAL 1974 BY EAMAARKED VS. DISCRETIONARY Alabama TOtal Private Funds Received Earmarked or Restricted -818 Alaska 70,153 70,153 100 -Arizona 12,155 7,000 58 Arkansas 12,500 12,500 100 Connecticut 1,500 1,500 100 .Delaware 2,402 2,055 86 Georgia 5,000- 5,000 100 Gmam 1,485 1,485 100 ' Hawaii 4,389 4,389 100! Idaho 2,175 2,175 100 Indiana 137,356 Iowa 2,002 480 24 Maine 806 Maryland 6,150 6,150 100; Michigan ,147,275 Minnesota 34-,161 34,161 100; Nebraska 11,441 10,000 87: Nevada 1,191 1,191 100: New Mexico 2,000 2;000 100i NOrth Carolina 2,500 2,500 100 Puerto Rico 47,400 Rhode Island 23,609 'Discretionary or Unrestricted 818 100 5,155 42 347 14 137,356 100 1,522 76 806 100 1,47,275 100 1,441 13 47,400 100 23,609 100 (continued) Table 40 DISTRIBUTION OF PRIVATE FUNDS RECEIVED IN FISCAL 1974 BY EARMARKED VS. DISCRETIONARY (coned) Total Private Funds Received Earmarked or Restricted 'Discretionary or Unrestricted $ South Carolina 21,750 21,750 100 00 South Dakota 476 476 100 Tennessee .3,416 3,416 100 Texas 138,723 138,723 100 Utah 500 500 100 'Vtmont 2,030 2,030 100 Virgin Islands 15,500 14,500 94 1,000 6 Virginia 7,070 7,070 100 Wyoming 2,837 2,337 82 500 18 TOTAL 720.770 347/119 48 373 650 52 Looking at the distribution of earmarked vs. discretionary funds by the type of private sources from which funds were received, it is not unexpected to see that all corporate contributions to state arts agencies in fiscal 1974 were earmarked and almost all contributions from individuals, as well as a majority of funds received from foundations, were given for re.. stricted purposes. However, it should be remembered that these represent only a minor part of funds received from state arts agencies; as noted in Chapter I, total private funds were only 2% of total funds received. 102 NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE APTS. INC. -79- Table 41 SOURCES OF PRIVA1E FUNDS RECEIVED MI FISCAL 1974, BY EARMARKED VS. DISCRETIONARY iotal Earmarked or Received Restricted Discretionary or Unrestricted S , $ Total private fundS 720,77G 347 119 50 348 651 50 Foundations 386,673 223,817 58 162,856 42 Individuals 94312 90,195 98 2,117 2 Corporations 13,160 13;160 100 Other private 37,003 3,869 10 33,134 90 Eaknings 191,622 16,078 8 175,544 '92 The restriction or earmarking Of funds was also studied from amother perspective, i.e., by expenditures. In this aspect of the analy- sis og earmarked funds, only program funds were cons'idered. Although 25% ' or more of program expenditures were earmarked or restricted in 13 of the states, earmarked funds did not account for a significant proportion of total program expenditures in fiscal 1974. Of the total program funds from all sources of $37,491,082, only 8% or $3,104,083 was earmarked, with the remaining 92% or $34,386,999 being expended at the discretion of the agency. 1-U 3 -80- Table 42 DISTRIBUTION OF PROGRAM EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL 1974, BY EARMARKED VS. DISCRETIONARY 6 Total Progrmt Expenditures Earmarked'or Restricted Discretionary or Unrestricted $ % Alabama 259,859 ,259,859 100 - AlaMca 417374 213,074 51 204,300 49 American Samoa 120,000 30,000 25 90,000 75 Arizona 242,785 87,630. 36 155,155 64 Arkansas 441,282 154,358 35 286,924 65 California 1,013,748 37,748 4 976,000 96 Colorado 229,012 49,012 21 qp0,000 79 0 Connecticut 540,917 60,000, 11 480,917 89" Delaware 213,903, 51,903 24 162,000 76 District of Columbia 149,000 149,900 100 Florida 415,798 415,798 100 Georgia 373,617 58,617 16 315,000 84 Guam 77,256 11,703 15 65,553 85 ,Hawaii 720,973 193,038 27 527,935 73 Idaho 163,508 23,508 14 140,000 86 Illinois 733,335 733,335 100 Indiana 360,648 360,648 100 Iowa 248,444 73,744 30 174,700 70 Kansas 200,425 200,425 100 Kerituay 341,509 102,804 30 238,705 70 (continued) 104 NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF' THC ARTS. INC. -81- Table 42 DISTRIBUTION OF PROGRAM EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL 1974, BY EARMARKED VS. DISCRETIONARY (cont'd) Total Progiam--Earmarked or 1 Discretionary or -Jkestricted Unrestricted $ s Expenditures Louisiana 242,150 Maine 311,523 Maryland 633,837 Massachusetts 634,724 Michigan 856,362 Minnesota 591,483 Mississippi 225,630 Missouri 745,847 Montana 195,723' 0 Nebraska 196,211 Nevada 152-,837 New Hampshire 184,91'8 New Jersey 871,675 New Mexico 184,298 New York 15,146,010 North Carolina 373,817 North Dakota 173,000 Ohio 929,304 Oklahoma 141,385 Oregon 207,150 Pennsylvania '857,576 Puerto Rico 2,065,230, 214,852 34' 125,000 15 40,567 7 18,767 3 53,711 27 18,161 12 48,733 26 530,000 61 2,000 1 73,817 20 84,221-- 9 72,150 35 71,537 8 152,000 7. 105 242,150 A , 311,523 418,985 634,,724 100 100 66 \ 100 731,362 \ 85 550,916 '93 30 100 727,080 97 195,723 100 142,500 73 134,676 88 136,185 74 341,675 39 182,298 99 15,146,010 100 '300,000 -80 173,000 100 845,076 91 141,385 100 135,000 65 786,039 92 1,913,230 93 (continued) -82- Table 42 - DISTRIBUTION OF PROGRAM EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL 1974, BY EARMARKED VS. DISCRETIONARY (=it'd) Total Program Expenditures Earmarked or Restricted Discretionary or Unrestricted $ . 47, Rhode Island 372,425- 10;000 .3' 362,425 97, South Carolina 491,912 147', 769 30 344,143 70 South Dakota 204,133 204;133 100 Tennessee 393,446 393,446 100 Texas 664,795 128,965 19 535,830 J81 Utah 208,916 208,916 . 100 Verlhont 173,847 173,847 100 Virgin Islands 268,167 14,500 5 253,667 95 Virginia 353,542 53,542 15 300,000 85 Washington 339,992 .339,992 100 WestNirgin,ia 505,120 72,700 14 432,420 86 Wisconsin 171,108 21,108 12 150,000 88 Wyoming 158,696. 2,837 2 155,859 98 TOtAL 37,491,082 3 104 083 8 34,386,999 92 Observaiion: Again it should be pointed out that differences exist among agencies in defining whether funds are earmarked or discretionary, particularly with'regard to program grants from the National Endowment for the Arts. 1 0 6 !II , 'VATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF .THE ARTS. INC, -83- 'Criteria for Funding or Denial of FundinA The criteria employed in decisions concerning the funding ofspro- 'jects are central in thd determination of'an agency's program emphases. In most agencies these criteria are codified to at least some extent; 89% of the 4 agencies have some fbrm of witten general grants provisions and/or vgulations governing the funding of projects, 75% have written programguidelines cover- - itg the funding of projects, 75% have written program guidelines covering the funding of specific types'of projecti, and 917. at least one of the two. Table 41 WHETHER AGENCY HAS WRITTEN GRANT PROVISIONS OR PROGRAM GUIDELINES Total Total Agencies 55 100 Agency has written general grant pro- visions and/or regulations governing N funding of projects, and/or Oritten program guidelines governing funding of specific types of projects 50 91 Agency has written provisions Agency has written guidelines 49 89 41 75 - Agencies that have guidelines distribute them primarily in response ta requests and to mailing lists (40 of the 41 agencies do this). Other means employed include press releases, newsletters, personal contact and con- ferences and inclusion with grant applicatiOhs. Written grant provisions and guidelines can be of great assistance A to potential recipients of funds, and it is unexpected that as many as one 10 -84- in four agencieo do not have guidelines. Interestingly, the agencies with , larger total expenditures, and consewently the greater likelihood of having to make more funding decisions, are no more likely to have written provisions or guidelinee; 'ain fact, agencies in the highest budget category are even I somewhat less,likely to have this haterial: Table 44 4 EXISTENCE OF WRITTEN GRANT P OVISIONS OR PROGRAM GUIDELINES, BY TOTAL E ENDITURES Total agencies Expenditures Belo $250,000 '$250,0007 '$500,000- $750,000 E49L299 ' and Above # % ..$_422221211_ # % Tbta1 , 55 100 15 100 20 100 10 100 10 100 Has written general grant provisions 49 89 13 87- 20 100 9 90 7 70 Has written program guidelines 41 a A 13 87 14 70 8 80 6 60 Observation: It should be noteH that guidelines generally are directed towards mans and methods of making appli- cations for'funds rather than being descriptive of an agency's program emphases. To determine how decisions are made,concerning the funding of pro- jects, directors were given a list of seven items, with the opportunity pro- , vided for the adding of more items, and asked which are usually a part of the agency's decpion-making process for funding projects. The formal appli- NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS, INC. -85 - cation form or proposal letter and a staff review of applications are each a part of the decision-making process in more than nine in ten agencies, and in a majority of agenties there is a review and clearance by a council/com- ndosion subcomnittee, a decision by the council/commission and/or a panel review. Table 45 ITEMS THAT ARE USUALLY A PART THE AGENCY'S DECISION-MAKING PROCESS FOR OF 0 FUNDING PROJECTS Total Agencies 7. A Total 55 100 ', r Staff review of application, including budget 53 96 Formal application or proposal letter 51 93 Council/commission decision 49 89 Council/commission subcommittee review and learance 34 62 Panel review and evaluation 33 60 On-site visit 22 40 Evaluation by othe.r oUtside consultant(s) 15 27 'Aeview by governor . 2 4 Review by head of department of which agency is a part 1 2 Specific Criteria Used in Funding Decisions Nineteen critsria that might enter into a project-funding decision were drawd up by the National Research Center of the Arts with the advice and counsel of consultants, and directors were asked to rate the importance of each on a scale of very important, soMewhat important, of minor importance and not important at all. Later in the interview, they were asked which of the list were reasons for the denial of formal applications during fiscal' 1 oJ .. . 0 -. . -86- 1974, and which two or three were responsible fur the denial of the greatest number of formal applications. Not surprisingly, the availability of agency funds ranked highest in the number of directors rating it very important in funding decisions, followed by.ability of the individual or group .to accom- plish the project and the quality of the project. The projeces quality or lack thereof was top.ranked as a reason that projects were denied in fiscal ._ . .,1974, followed by availability of funds and artistic quality of appli- J. cants. In contrast, the political implications of the project ranked last both in terms of importance and as a reason for denial of fiscal 1974 appli- cations. p . , 1 a 1. ii (.% r ...-"... ) , I 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 ''i Table 46 CRITERIA INVOLVED IN DECISIONS ON THE FUNDING OF PROJECTS 5 Ratings of "very important" in decisions of agency Reasons for denial of any fomal applications in fiscal 1974 Reasons for denial of greatest number of formal applications in fiscal 1974 m m 1 0 % (Rank) % (Rank) # % (Rank) Total 55 100 .55 100 55 100 Availability of agency funds 51 Ability of individual/group to accomplish 93 (1) 47 85 (2) 26 47 (2) 0 project 50 91 (2) 39 71 (5) 13 24 (4) 1 Quality of project 49 89 (3) 49, 89: (1) 35 . 64 (1) ne Need for project 48 87 (4) 40 73, (4) 10 (6) Integrity of person or persons connected with the project 41 75 (5) 32 58 (10) ,18 4 (14) Artistic 9uality of the individual or 'organization applying 39 71 (6) 44 80 (3) 18 33 (3) Ability of recipients to raise matching funds 37 67 (7) 35 64 (8) 8. 15 (7) Tax-exempt status of the organization applying 36 65 (8) 29 53 (12) 8 15, (7) Financial soundness of the individual or organization applying 33 60 (9) 36 65 (7) 2 4 (14) I Completeness and clarity of the application 28 51 (10) 30, 55 (11) 4 7 (11). Whether applicant and project fall within established guideliftes 28 51 (10) 39 71 (5) 11 20 (5) Extent of community support 28 51 (10) 28 51 (14) 4 7 (1I) Audiences aimed at in the project 26 47 (13) 20 36 (16 3 , 5 (13) Hcip the project relates to basic program priorities of the agency 20 36 (14) 34 62 (9) 1 2 (16) The plofessional or non-professional status of the individual or organization applying 20 36 (14) 22 40 (15) 6 11 (10) Number of people to enefit from the project 18 33 (16) 29 53 (12) 7 13 (9) Importance of grant1.enerating additional support for the projp t 14 25 (17) 16 29 (17) 1 2 (16) Location of the project in the state 11 20 (18) 16 29 (17) 1 2 (16) Political implications of the project 2 4 (19) 8 15 (19) 1 2 (16) o formal applications for funding denied in fiscal 1974 2 4 2 4 UI H2 -88-- Table 46 indica.tes that funding decisions are largely based on 0 quality of projects -- the highest ranked criterion among the two or three - reasons for the dehial of the greatest number of applications -- artistic quality of applicihts, and ability of applicants to accomplish the project, , in addition to the very basic avaikability of funds. Intdgrity of applicants is not a problem: although this criterion ranked fifth in'ratings of very important, it was fourteenth among reasons for denial of the greatest number of applications. Quantity in terms of number of audience memberS is relatively Un- important (ranked sixteenth ip very, important ratings and ninth among reasons for the denial of the greatest numl,Der of applications). Agency directors also do not see their funding role as primarily one of priming the pump to gain additional funds, with the generation of additional support ranked low in both areas; howevei, the ability of recipients to raise matching funds does rank in the upper half of the criteria. Additional criteria volunteered by directors as important in the agency's decision centered on the making of arts accessible to the public and the development of.new and innovative arts forms, while other reasons for denial of applications in fiscal 1974 were headed by the duplication of efforts. NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. -89- Table 47 OTHER CRITERIA IMPORTANT IN DECIDING WHETHER A PROJECT SHOULD BE FUNDED* Total Agencies Total 55 100 Whether project makes arts of quality accessible 7 13 Ability of project to develop new, innovative art forms 7 13 Stability of organization 4 7 Ability of project to generate more funds in future . 3 5 Services,provided for schoolchildren 2 4 Approval by secret,ary of state , 1 _ Non-duplication of services 1 2 Evidence of inter-agency cooperation 1 2 Table 48 OTHER REASONS IMPORTANT IN DENYING FORMAL APPLICATIONS . FOR THE FUNDING OF PROJECTS IN FISCAL 1974* Total Agencies Total 55 -100 Duplication of efforts, activities 4 7 Applicant not type of organization agency supports 2 4 Project not truly arts project 2 4 Failure to comply with guidelines 2 4 Lack of familiarity with project by council/commission members 3 5 LateneSs of application 1 .2 Date conflicts 1 2 Absence of good planning 1 2 Lack of innovation 1 2 Volunteered responses to open-end questions. 114 -90- - Mat-Ching,Punds Matchidg-funds -- those funds raised by recipients of project ex- penditures to equal a percentage_of the expenditure -- are required by approx- imately half the stdte arts agencies for all_project grants, and by almost a least some grants. In response to a-question of matching of only 2 agencies reported not requiring matching kiihds -for all agencies for funds, directors any project grants. Table 49 REQUIREMBNTS_FOR MATCHING FUNDS Total Matching funds required for all project grants Matching funds required for some project grants Matching funds required for no project grants . Total,Agencies 55 27 26 2 100 49 47 4 When a match is requited, it is likely that it must equal the grant; in tw6-thirds of the agencies asking for matching funds the required match is 100%. In the remaihing agencies, the required match varies according to re- cipient, type of grants, etc. Table 50 . PERCENTAGE OF GRANT REQUIRED AS MATCHING FUNDS (Base: Agencies that require Matching funds for at least some projects) Total agencies requiring matching funds 1007. of project graLc required Matcing requirement varies Total Agencies 53 35 18 100 66 34 NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER Or.THE ARTS. INC. -91-- Contributions from the private sector are naturally allowable as matching funds by all agencies, but strong majorities also acCept as match- ing funds operating revenues, services or goods in kind, and/or grants from other government agencies. Table 51 TYPES OF MATCHING FUNDS ALLOWED BY AGENCY (Base: Agencies that require matching funds for at least some projects) Total Agencies Total agencies requiring matching funds 53 100 Contributions from private sources 53 100 -----,Operating revenues 47 89 Servior,goods in kind 47 89 Grants from other government agencies 46 87 --------._ ' In 2 of the agencies, no formal application§-for-the funding of projects were denied during fiscal 1974; in contrast, in 5 agencles 70% or more of the applications received were-denied funding. , Table 52 APPROXIMATE PERCENTAGE OF FORMAL APPLICATIONS FOR FUNDING OF PROJECTS THAT WERE DENIED BY THE AGENCY 1N FISCAL 1974 Total Ageacies # % I Total 55 100 2 .4 17. - 9% 6 11 10% - 19% 5 9 20% - 29% 7 13 30% - 39% 6 11 40% - 49% 10 18 50% - 59% 10 18 601 - 69% 4 7 70% - 79% 5 9 Average percentage of applications denied 38% 116, -92- Observation: Consultant directors indicate that agency guidelines and and pre-screening as well as discouragement of applications by the agency, are important factors in limiting the number of requests that even reach the formal application stage, so that the actual denial of requests for funda at all stages was substantially higher than the 38% indicated in the table. Interestingly, larger budget agencies tend to deny a larger pro- portion of applications. However, the higher proportion of denials at the upper levels is a result primarily of agencies in which per capital expendi- tures 1,7ere less than $.17; thd average percentage of applications denied by -------- - agencies with higher per capita expenditure was equal to or lees than the overall average in all expenditure levels. 8' Average per- entage of ap kications denidd Total 38 Non-Fun' Table 53 AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF APPLICATIONS DENIED IN FISCAL 1974 BY TOTAL EXPENDITURES $250,000-$499,999 less Than $.17 $.17 per and Total Capita Above °X $500,000-$749,999 'Less Than $.17 $.17 per and Total 1 Capita Above % % $750,000 and. above 'Less Than $.17 $.17 per and Total Ca ita Above 40 40 38 40 50 33 45 51 35 Pro rams Sta arts agencies provide support to the arts and culture of , their states in ma other ways in addition to the funding of projects. When asked in an open-end qu tion what they felt are the most important non-fund- ing activities undertaken by .he agencies, directors focused on consultation, technical assistance, public prom tion and information services, and program development/administration, with a wi. range of other activities also vol- unteered as important in addition to grant laking. NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. _ -93 - Table 54 MOST IMPORTANT ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY AGENCY IN ADDITION TO THE FUNDING OF PROJECTS* Total Total Agencies 55 100 t.., Consultation 24 44 Promoting public awareness of the arts 17 31 Technical assistance 16 29 Information/communications 15 27 Program development and administration 13 24 Promoting financial support of the arts from other.sources, educating public/government to needs of the arts 12 22 Community council development and assistance 9 16 Conferences, seminars, Workshops 8 15 Coordination of arts activities 5 9 Inter-agency cooperat.ion 4' 7 providing cultural leadership 3 5 Publications 3 , 5 Development of coordinating/support organizations 2 4 Communication betweeh artists andoponsors 2 4 Management assistance 2 4 Awards , 2 4 Policy-making reference board 2 4 Regional trainfng 1 2 , Legislative budgee 1 2 , ConSttuctipa of facilitieS for the arts 1 2 Identification of professional personnel 1 2 Judging of art exhibitions 1 2 Planning and hanging,exhibitions 1 2 Lending art works , . , 4. 2 Educating ares conlmunity and applicants 1 2 Art Train . 1 2 , General community arts activities 1 2 *Volunteered responses to an open-end question. A. majority of agencies report that these non-funding activities are conducted in every art form, with other agencies mentioning a variety 118 -94-- of specific art forms. SPinilarly, approximately half the agencies say that the non- unding activities are normally conducted for all types of groups, with specific types.mentioned by others. Table 55 ART FORMS IN WHICH NON-FUNDING ACTIVITIES ARE CONDUCTED* Total Total Agencies II % 55 100 All art forms (no specific ,form cited) 31 56 Visual arts 12 22 Performing arts '9 16 Music 7 13 Theatte/dramd. 6 11 Dance 6 11 Art councils 5 9 Environmental'arts 3 5 Literature 3 5 Crafts 3 5 Folk arts 2 4 Museums 2 4 -- Education 2 4 Architecture 1 . 2 Expansion arts 1 2 Mime 1 2 Volunteered responses to open-end questions. 6 NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. 1NEu I T.095- Table 56 TYPES OF GROUPS FOR WHICH NON-FUNDING ACTIVITIES ARE NORMALLY CONDUCTED* ---,..J Total Total Agencies # 55 27 19 . 11 7 7 6 6 5 5 3 4 2 2 1 1 1 ivgl: 1 1 1 7 % 100 All types (no specific type cited) Community arts douncils Performing arts organizations Tndfvidual artists Schools Museums Arts orgrizations, non-specific Individuals estaplishing arts councils or organizations Visual arts groups Theatre groups Music organizatioUs Service organizations Dance groups. Universities 0 . / 'Medla Ethnic groups Opera . . Ars and crafts organizations Government agencies Historical Societies 49 35 20 13 13 11 11 9 ' 9 5 .5 4 4 2. 2 2 . 2 2 2 2 Volunteered responses to open-end questions. The non-funding activities account for a large portion of the man . . hours of state arts agencies': :Although 5 agencies reRort that less than 20% of work time by the director and staff is demoted to such activities, 23 agencies estimate that more than half the time of the staff is spend in tihis work. 1 2 u Total Less than 207, 20% - 29% 30% - 39% 40% - 49% 50% - 59% 60% - 69% 70% - 79% 80% and above . -96- .. Table 57 PERCENTAGE OF WORK TIME BY DIRECTOR AND STAFF DtVOTED TO NON-FUNDING ACTIVITIES Average percentage of work time devoted to non-funding activities _ Total Agencies Expenditures Below $250,000- 1250 000 499 999 $500,000- $750,000 749 999 and Over # % 55 100 . 100 '' 100 100 100 5 9 14 i 10 10 8 15 25 10 10 --- 10 13 23 13 40 20 % 10 4; 6 11 7 5 10 30 11 20 20 15 20 30-' 8 15 7 20 20 10 1 2 - 5 - - 3 5 ..-- 14 - 10 . .. 44% 43% 44% 48% 44% . , Observation: That 42% of the agencies devote more than half of their staff work time to non-funding activities reflects the importance given by the agencies to this "service" aspect of their work, especially since the-average percentage of work time given to non-funding activity remains closely within the same range, regardless of the expenditure level of the agency. NATIONAL OESEARCHCENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. -97- 0 Programs of Associated Foundations As noted in Chapter I, 12.state arts agencies had separate founda- tions associated with them in fiscal 1974,with funds totaling $2,041,251 for the year. In fisca1,1975, 7 (31* of the stAte arts agencies had a' separate foundation assaCia with them, two of which were inactive. Var- ious types of programs and activities' are conducted plrough these foundations, with the foundations most widely used to'raise funds. In a number ok cases, though, they conduct activities either paralleling or extending the activi- ties of the agency itself. Table 58 ACTIVITIES OF ASSOCIATED SEPARATE FOUNDATIM* (Base: Agencies that have associated separate foundation) r." \ 'Total Agencies Total.agencies with associated foundation Fund raising, receiver of gifts and ,donations Grant making '1 Support serviged, general suppport Aid to individual artists 'Pay part of.director's salary Manage, direct artists in programs Performing arts center Governor's awards program Artists-in-schools program Technical assistance program Touring program Small loans to arts organizations Entertainment fund Administrative programs not handled by agency f Volunteered responses to an open-end question. 124 .# 17 % 12a 10 59 4 24 * 4 24 n, 12 1, 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 .6 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 4 Appranimatay half of the agencies with associated fouhdations believe that trends or shifts will occur in the\near future, prinarily in the direction of increased activities and more responsibility for program- 4 ming. Tablat59 WHETHER TRENDS OR SHIFTS ER THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSOCIATED SEPARATE F6UNDATION ARE FORESW IN COMING 3 TO 5 YEARS . (Base: Agencies that have associated separate foundation) Total agencies Do'foresee t No trends 'or with associated foundation nds or shifts shifts Total Agencies # . % 1.7 100 9 53 8 47 Table 60 TRENDS`OR SHIFTS IN THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSOCIATED SEPARATE FOUNDATION FORESEEN,IN COMING 3 TO 5 YEARS* (Base: .1gencies that have assbciated sepA,ate foundation) ToLli_agencies with associated foundation Agencies that foresee Met:e active fund ti More speCial.c More activities n Programs for indi idual artists, Programs funded that are not directly related with agency Limited programming initiated Foundation responsible for programs, agency for administration Funds provlded for spe-ific programs of agency Expect pressure on foundation fram legislature trends or shifts sing role ity projects schools *.Volunteered'responses to an open-end question. Tc?.114....1_12fles 100 9 53 18 . 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 6 1 6 123 NATIONAL.RESEARCH CE4TER OF THE ARTS. INC. ' -99 Foundations are likely to be on the rise in number as yell. Of 's thes38 agencies with no associated separate foundation_as of fiscal 1975, 9 (or 24% of the 38) have plans for the establishment of such a foundation. And of the.foundations in existence, 7 (or 41%) had been founded within the two years prior to the survey. In the'.exploration of the program activfties of asSociated separate foundations, all dir4ctors were asked in an open-end question what they be- , lieved to be the benefits of having such a foundation and the problems in- p volved. The benefits volunteered by directors centered on the existence of fewer restrictions governing the foundation's activities:while problems mentioned most often concerned competition and cdnfusion and relationships with state goveinment. Table 61 BENEFITS OF RAVING AN ASSOCIAiED SEPARATE FOUNDATION* s Total Total Agencies 55 22 100 Fewer restrictions on use of funds . 40 Ability to receive private, nongovernmental funds 17 31 Fewer restrictions qn execution or expansion of programs 15 27 Proviple increased funds, better fund raising 12 22 Cuts red tape, increasei flexibility . 12 22 Involves. more people, broadens),support base 3 5 ' Less political pressure . 3 5 Provides opportunity for public relations support 2 4 Functions as-rdcord keeper of funds spelt 2 4 Involves influential businessmen 1 2 Allows increased federal funds 1,' 2 Funds may be invested to draw interest 1 2 * Volunteered responses to an open-end question. Ir -100- Table 62 PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN HAVING ASSOCIATED SiPARATE FOUNDATUN * Total Total Agencies 55 8 7 7 7 4 3 3 100 Competes for funds with arts organizations Reduces funding respOnsibility of legislature Confusion in responsibilities of liency vs. foundation Funds without state control disliked by state authorities Administrative/logistical problems Autonomous foundation would be inoperable Funding problems Might become too autonomous, operate outside 15 13 13 13 7 5 - 5 guidelines 3 5 Coud overshadow/dictate to agency 2 4 Communications difficulties withsnon- - professional staff 2 4 Incorporation/legal/tax difficulties 1 2 Duplication of effort 1 2 Would no longer receive administrative services 1 2 ,Another board would mean more opinions to deal with 1 2 Greater administrative costs 1 2 Possibility of self-interest 1 2 .Problems with public relations image of . agency 1 2 Freedom and flexibility may cause suspicions 1 2 , Volunteered responses to an open-end.question. Although fewer restrictions on the use of funds was the most cited benefit of having an associated separate foundation,,more than half the funds received by the 12 active foundations in fiscal 1974 actually were earmarked. Surpe,singly, only 6% of corporate contributions to associated foundations were earmarked (incomparison with 100% of corporate funds direCtly to the state arts agencies); in,contrast, all of the funds from the state govern- ment, other than the state arts agency, were earmarked: NATIONAL RCSEARCH L..ENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. -101- . Table 63 .SOURC-ES OF FUNDS RECEIVED BY ASSOCIATED SEPARATE FOUNDATIONS 1l<1.5FISCAL 1974, BY EARMARKED VS. DISCRETIONARY Total funds ',received Total ReceiVed Earmarked or Restricted (12 agencies) 2 041 251 1.2.1.41111 11 State artsagency 659,806 535,306 81 National Endowment for the Atts 526,450 458,150 87 Foundationsl 136,962 66,552 49 55,074 11,649 21 Corporations\ 49,725 3,200 6 Otner ate \ 16,424 16,424 100 Other pr vate 82,281 2,000 2' Earnings. 500,772 8,890 2 Other 13,757 11,400 83,, I Diacretionary or Unrestricted' 927 680 A_, 45 124000 19 , 68,300 13 70,410 51 43,425 79 46,525 94 - - 80,281 98 491,882 98 2,357 17 In two states with associated foundations -- Florida and Michigan by the foundation were discretionary, while in South Caro- 1 line all ofthe f nds were earmarked, as were all but a very minimal amount of funds received \by Ole foundation in New York. pall funds receive DIS t SEPARATE FOUND Colorado Connecticut Florida , Illinois. Indiana Massachusetts Michigan Nebraska New York _Oregon South Carolina Wyoming TOTAL Table 64 R.IBUTION OF FUNDS RECEIVED BY ASSOCIATED TIONS IN FISCAL 1974 BY EARMARKED VS. DISCRETIONARY *Less than 0.5% Total - Received Earmarked or ',Restricted Discretionary or Unrestricted 93,993 92,993 99 1,000 1 530,275 46,300 9 483,975 91 7,238 7,238 100 156,357 55,299 35 101,058' 65 49,825 1,000 2 48,825 98 217,100 24,300 11 192,800 89 85,969 85,969 100 23,667 23,000 97 667 3 808,549 805,613 100 2,936 * 19,562 16,900. 86 2,662 14 48,166 48,166 100 550 550 100 2 041A251 1,10_25_4 55 L9.2.7.2..6.8..0 _A------ NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. CHAPTER IV' PROJECT EXPENDITURES 12? NATIONAL RCSEARCH CENTER or THE ARTS.INC. =103- PROJECT EXPENDITURES This chapter discusses the project expenditures including grants, contracts, etc. made by the agency in fiscal 1974. (In the definition used in the survey, "a project refers to a specific individual project usually within a program area, such as a specific dance company's tour in the state, the assignment of an adliisor to provide technical assistance to a particular , arts organization, the support of concerts by a particular symphony orches- tra, the assignment of an artist to a school, etc.") The expenditures are analyzed in terms of four major areas. These are: -- Sources of funds, the'sources from which the.funda for pro- , jects were derived, i.e., the amount.of funds for expen- ditures received by the state arts agency from its legis- lative appropriations, from Other state funds, from the National Endowment and other federal sources, and ftom local and private sources. -- Recipients, the individuals or organizations to whom the expenditures were made. Two different groups of recipients were identified in the research: (1) the primary, or-direct, recipients, those individuals or organizations who received the funds,directly from the state arts agency, and (2) secondary, or indirect, recipients, the individuals or organizations to whom %primary recipients distributed.some Part of the expenditures. -- Art lorm, the art form for'which the expenditure was made, such as music, dance, literature, visual!.arts, etc. -- Type of activity assisted, the use for which expenditures were made, such as basic support, touring,,research, etc. Two different levels of activities were identified: (1) the ohe primary activity, themain use for whlich the expenditure -104- was made; and (2) secondary aztivities, other activities for which the expenditure was used in addition to the main use. In addition to these four major areas, the project expenditures are also discussed in terms of: -- How the project was initiated, i.e., whether the project was initiated by the grantee, the state arts.agency, or a combination of the two. 7- The location Of the project, in urban, suburban, or rural area The.previous funding of the project, i.e.,whether the expen- diture was made for an ongoing project, was, one-time funding, or was for a pilot project. As the final stage in the.analysig of Ilroject expenditures, the funds generated by the expenditures ag matching funds and,the total costs of the projects are discussed. Throughout the chapter the project expenditures are shown in total for all 55 state arts agencies; in most areas of analysis, the . expenditures.are also detailed for each arts agency individually. It was felt That such an agencY-by-agency breakdown was the most significarit one for project expenditured, and for this reason the analytic-grouping;Of total expenditures used elsewhere in the report are referred to Only where significant variations occur. (Because'of the dispropor'tionate amount of pro- 1 2 NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER Or THE ARTS. INC -105- ject expenditures made by the New York agency, it is not included in the analytic groupings in this chapter.) In addition to the state-by-state breakdowns, the art forms and types of activity for which expenditures were made are also analyzed in terms of who received the expenditures and the sources from which the funds for these expenditures weraderived. Toiai Expendituies The state arts Agencies expended a total Of $433780,286 in fiscal 1974. Of this amount, $6,289,204 represent6d personnel and other adminisirative expenditures, with the remaining 07,491,082 expended for programs. Ninety-two percent of these total program expendi-. tures -- or $34,553,000 -- was actually distributed by the agencies in grants, contracts, etc. (This inCludes Only funds expended by the agencies, and, , does nct include recipients" matching fundg nor funds from other sources.) . . The $34,553,000 was distributed by the agencies to 6,903 projects, or'an average of $5,000 per project. Project expenditures of the New York State Council on the Arts alone accounted for $15,113,000 during fiScal 1974, ox 447. of the total project'expenditures, with Openditures mde for 996 projects in New York, State. Removing New York from the calculation, thiremaining 54 agencies expended $19,440,000 for g total äf'5,907.projects, or an average of $3,000' per project. The remaining 8% of program expenditures:vas expended primarily in the area of program development.and administration.nu 4: PEST COPY AVAILABLE -106- Table 65 PROJECT EXPENDITURES AND NUMBER OF PROJECTS IN FISCAL 1974 Dollars !timber $ ir- 'Alabama 267,000 154 398,000 127 .Alaska American.Samoa 120,000 17 Arizona , 229,000 62 Arkansas 415,000 79 California 938,000 151 Colorado. 217,000 87 Connecticut 938,000* 259 Delaware 186,000 66 District of Columbia 139,000 .21 Florida 421,000 73 Georgia 368,000 62 Guam 63,000 31 Hawaii 872,000 98 Idaho 164000 58 Illinois 730,000 373 Indiana 385,000 94 254,000 i1 ,Ia4a Kansaa 209,000 67 Kentucky 342,000 88 Louisiana 124,000 =1 58 MaiAe 312,000 142 Marland 510,000 ' 150 Massachusetts 558,000 150 Mi4igan 715,000 414 4innesota 439,000 162 Miesissippi - 209,000 119 Midsouri 742,000 66 MOniana - 142,000 104 Nebriska .7 178,000 128 Nevada 134,000 53 New Hampshire 201,000 66 Nes/Jersey, 582,000 111 New Mexico 175,000 74 New York 15,113,000 996 Horth.Carolina 364,000 100 North Dakota 169,000 66 Ohio .929,000' 173 Oklahoma 140,000 ,148 Oregon ...,:, 207,000 106 Pennsyliiahia 738,000 166 Puerto Rico 286,000. 22 Rhode Island 316,000 91 South Carolina 528,000 185 SOuth Dakota. 165,000 96 Tennessee 398,000 182 ITexas 617,000 91 Utah 205,000 49 Vermont 174,000 67 Virgin Islands 243,000 78 Virginia 295,000 .86 Washington 359,000 96 West Virginia 506,000 108 Wisconsin 176,000 . 73 WYoming 149 000 49 Total $34 553 000 6 903 Average expenditure per prolate: $5,000 . . Total Without New York §19,440,000 Average expenditure per project:. $3,000 5907 . Includes projectexpenditures made by the Connecticut Foundation%for ihe Arts. Based on incomplete data. 13i NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. -107- Highlights of the Distribution of the Prolect Expenditures 4 . The distribution of project expenditures described in this chapter refers to the dollar amounts of those expenditures bather than the number of projects, and the analysis of project expenditures will be primarily concerned with these dollar amounts, since they more accurately reflect the flow of financial support. For example, one agency mighonsider funds granted to a single recipient but covering several phases of a project as one projeot expenditure, while afiother agency could consider the same amount as constitu- ting three proj,ect expenditures. It is true that the number of institutions or organizations in a state will determine to some extent the number of pro- jects, while the size of the institutions within a particular field will determine to some extent the dollar amounts of the project expenditures, but the latter nevertheless provides a more realistic view of support from state arts agencies. The performing arts accOunted for the largest portion of the agen- cies' project expenditures in fiscal 1974. Twenty-seiren percent of all ex- penditures was received directly by performing artS organizations, and per- forming arts organizations were among e secondary recipients of another 167. of project expenditures made directly o other recipients. Furthermore, in the distribution of the funds by art forms a full 50% pf the expenditures was made in one or more of the performing arts, th music accounting for 23% of total projects expenditures, theatre for 12%, diqe for 10%, and combina- tions of the three for another 5%. The majority ject. but for the mote Twenty-nine percent of of the expenditures wereinot made fob a specific pro- \ general support of organizations or.institutions. the funds went to program support of the organizations -108- or institutions, 16% for staff salary support, and another 14% for basic operating support. Significant amounts were directed to individual artists, although these funds were not likely to be,granted'directly to these individuali. Only 1% of projept expenditures was made directly to individual artists, but professional artists were among the secondary recipients of 13% of project expenditures and non-professional artists among the secondary recipients of 2% of Oe expenditures., (Secondary recipients, however, may not receive the total amount of funds; they may share funds with the primary recipients and there may also be a number of secondary recipients sharing the funds.) Agen- cies also repoited that 12% of the expenditures was made for the direct sup- port of individual artists for specific services and another 1% for direct support pf individual artists in pursuit of their art. A majority of the project expenditures made in fiscal 1974 repre- ented continuing support of ongoing projects, with 67% being expended for such funding. . Furthermore, an additional 6% represented first-time expendi- tures in planned ongoing funding. The projeCt expenditures ofsthe agencies generated more than the total amount expended'in matching funds, and the expenditures accounted for less than one-third of tbe total costs.of projects supported, and for only 13% of the total operating budgets of those organizations and institutions which received basic suppor\ Sources of Funds for Proiect'Expenditures Approxiiately $2.00 ou of every $3.00 (66%) of the $34,553,000 in project expenditures in fiscal \1974 was derived from the state appreprir. \ 133 NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER th* THE ARTS, INC, -109- -ations to the state arts agencies, with 29% coming froM funds from the Na- tional Endowment for the Arts. Xs noted in the analysis of sources of total funds in Chapter I, however, the high proportion of funds from the state is strongly affected by, New York State, where 99% of the total project expendi- tures of $15,113,000 came from the state appropriations. Without New York, state appropriations accounted for only 40% of project expenditures. -- $22,709,000 (66%) came from state appropriations and another $471,000 (1%) fromother state sources. -7 $10,088,000 (29%) waS from National Endowment for the Arts funds: $7,638,000,(22%) 'from the basic state agency .g.xants, $50,000 (less than 0.5%) from Treasury Fund grants, and $2,400,000 (7%) from other Endowment grants. -- $296,000 (1%) from other federal funds. $21,000 (less than 0.5%) frOm local governments. -- $968,000 (2%) from private funds: $494,600 (1%) from fou6da- -- tions associated with the state arts agencies and $474,000 (1%) from other private sources. , . . The.sources of funds for proj ect expenditures naturally parallel ,the sources of the agencies' total funds. The proportion of project \ \expenditures Aerived from state appropriations, as notea, ranges from \ 99%in New York State -- where state appropriations also constituted 99% of tTl funds received -- to 0% in Arizona, the District of Columbia, Guam, i4aho, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, isconsin and Wyoming, states in which a relatively low percen- \ tage of to al funds were received from state appropriations. \I N.J 134 -110- The basic state agency grant distributed by the National Endowment -- for the Arsts to all states is a major source of funds for project expendi- t tures; not including New York State, the basic state agency grant'eccounts for almost as large a proportion as the state'appropriatian (39% and 40%, respectively). Oc. Table 66 SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR PROJECT EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL 1974 (Dollar amounti in thousands) Total Project Expenditures Total AgeOcies Total Without New York Con- District Ala- Ari- Arkan- Cali- Colo- nect- Dela-. of Flor- bawl Alaska Samoa zona sas fornia rado icut ware Columbia ida Geor-. Ma $368 Guam ia -- . .." . Illi- Hawaii Idaho nois 022 $164. $_m_ 34 553 $19.440. $267. $398 §2.22 $229,1415 $938 NV_ ..$938. MA $139, $421 x. z z z z % % x z % % ,-'% 2 2 2 2 ..- 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 - 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 . . 4 State 4 State appropriation 22'009 66 40 20 17 50 , 39 84 14 27 8 . - 49 44 25 "80 1 / Other- 471 1 2 s, - - . 7 _ 20 Federal National Endowment for \-.. thi Arts: 0, Bsiic State agency grant 7,638 22 39 55 39 50 62' 3,6 16 69 16 74 100 36 40 de 98 20 96 19 Treasury Fund grants 50 * - - .. 7 - . - - ... - - Other 2/ Ot r federal:- .2,400 296 7 , 1 12 2 23 2 29 2 28 5 17 1.4 17 - . 12 - 16 2 14 1 15 1 . 4 - 11 2 1. Lacs Government t t 21 2 Private Foundation aisociated with agency 494 1 3 5 - 43 Other private 474 1 2 8 3 2 2 1 1 1/ Other atate funds include, funds for purchases of art for public buildings and places,. ,$327,0O0r-Governor s fund*, $45,000; State Bicentennial Commisaian $29,000; Department of Economics and Co=unity Development, $26;000; Department of Conservation, $20,000; Portrait CommissiOn, ,$10,000; Stitt! UnivesitY, $8,000; and'Education, $6,000. . 6 2./ Other-federal futids indlude Office of .Education, $181,000; Department of Labor, $2,800; American Revolutionary Bicentennial Commission, $97,000; National Parks' Service, $6,000; Bureau of Indian Affairs, $7,000; and the Smithsonian Instituion, $3,000. (continued) /36 137 .11 15 0 0 z -a 0 Fr tro I feel C4' .ftvol ' C:) se< 114 301 Ca Pr Total Fri:deem Expenditaes $ z WO State State 9ppropriation 22,76 66 Otherl 471 1 Federal National Endowment for the Arts: Basic state agency grant 7,638 22 Treasury Fund grfints, 50 * Other 2,400 7 2 / Other federal- 296 1 Local. Government 21 * *Private Foundation associated with agency 494 1 Other private 474 1 , liBased on Incomplete data. 133 MEI " Table 66 SOURCES OF FUNDS rOR PROJECT EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL, 1974 (Continued) (Dollar amounts in thousande) Massa- His- New Ken- Loui- 1/ Mary- chu- !itch- Hinne- $is- His.. Hop- Ne- . Hamp- 'New New . New Indiana Iowa Kansas tucky siana Maine land setts igan sota slept scurf tana braska Nevada shire Jersey Mexico York .., . $385 $254 $209 $342 $124 $312 $610 $558 '' $715 $439 $209 $742 $142 $178 $134 $201 $562 $175 $15,113 PT z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z . z z 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 3= an a. an I 21 9 11 28 32 1C2 68 ... .10 3 3 35 53 72 41 77 49 31 26 - ..) .- - . , - - - 7 35 17 20 23 16 2 6 . -- 3 - 1 - - - 11 26 4 v * . 100 100= 100 ...F= 100 100 100 100 100 100 , 0 . 39 43 .1. 12 76 69 * ' 6 . ,- .- - 21 33 61 20 100 77 100 68 25 - - - - - 6 - 32 11 26 3 8 32 5 - - 1 - 2 - 1 4 1 3 1 5 6 6 IIIIII) 111111 =IV AIM ail MB Mir (Continued) 100 /. 100 -99- 80 1 20 1.39 Total Project Expenditures ,* State State appropriation Othet- 1/ Federal National Endowment for the Arts; Basic state agency grant Treasury Fund grants Other Other federa121 Local Goverment Private Feundation associated with agency Other private Total Agencies 34 553 22,709 66 471 1 7,638 22 50 2,400 7 296 1 21 494 1 474 1 1 4 0 Thble 66 SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR PROJECT EXPENDITURES.IN FISCAL 1974 (Continued) (Dollar amounts in thousands) North Penn- South West Caro- North Okla- syl- Puerto Rhode Caro- South Ten- Vet.- Virgin Vir- Wash- Vit- Wis- Wyom- lina Dakot{ Ohio homa Oregon vania Rico Island lina Dakota nessee Texas Utah mem Islands ginia ington ginia conain ing $364 2 112 1222 ..41 11112 14e A4i§ .41 Ile .4 Ilia .44 .11+ 442 -r --% 122 Lg2. too 40 4 7; 40 88 15 - 20 6 9 2 1 21i2. too too 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 4 '2 81 52 28 36 13 54 9 26 * 38 42 1 48 3 8 - - 96 71 18 48 52 28 83 29 24 66 77 62 51 41 30 81 76 - - _ - - - - - 2 25 1 6 22 9 18 8 21 7 45 19 19 24 - 2 - - 1 - 27 - 2 - 13 1 - 3 - - 8 13 * 22 141 -114- Primary,or Direct,Recipients of Project Expenditures The differences among states in the distribution of project expendi- tures to primary recipients are naturally a result of many factors, including legal restrictions or mandates, the earmarking of agency funds, council/com- aission policies, the ability of recipients to generate matching funds, the state's cultural resources, etc. These controlling factors should be remember- ed in the consideration of the distribution of project expenditures. Performing arts organizations received the largest amount of funds \expended by the state arts agencies in fiscal 1974, with more than $1.00 out of,every $4.00 (27%) going to performing arts organizations. The state arts agencies themselves were the recipients of 12% of project expenditures, while museuMs received 10% of funds,expended. The amount of funds distributed to the primary recipients -- i.e., the organizations or individuals who received the funds directly from the agencies -- were: ,Arts and cultural organizations -- $9,197,000 (27%) went to performing arts organizations. Most of this amount, $7,949,000 (23% of total project expenditures), went to professional performing arts organizations, with only $1,248,000 (4%) to non-pro- fessional performing arts organizations. -- $3,343,000 (10%) to museums, of which $1,651,000 (5%) went to art museums, $950,000 (3%) to general museums, $411,000 (1%) to science museums, and $331,000 (1%) co history museums. NATIONAL FtESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. -115- $2,151,000 (6%) to cultural centers. -- $1,755,000 (57.) to community or municipal arts counr.ils. -- $1,097,000 (3%) to foundations not associated with the state. -- $1,063000 (3%) to visual arts organizations other than museums. -- $699,000 (2%) to foundations associated with state arts agencies. ' -7 $644,000 (2%) to regional organizationg1/ andanother $8,000 . (less than 0.57. to other state arts.agendies. -- $497,000 (1%) to arts 'fairs or festivals. -- $5,925,000 (17%) to other arts and cultural organizations, including such groups as performing arts presenters (con- cert associations, opera guilds, etc.), libraries, poetry societies, arts associations, etc. Other organizations -- $2,473,000 (7%) to educational institutions, of which $1,447,000 (4%) went to colleges and universities and $1,026,000 (3%) to schools or school.systems. -- $311,000 (17.) to civic groups. - - $265,000 (1%) to public radio or public television stations. Individuals - - $285,000 (1%) to. individuals, of which $271,000 (1%) went to artists and $14,000 (less than 0.5%) to non-artists. 1/ It should be pointed out that the term "regional organization," as used by states in reporting project expenditures, refers to organizations serving or representing a region within the state, as well as to regional organi- zations of state arts agencies. In the questionnaire, directors of state arts agencies reported a total of $104,812 contributed only to regional organizations of state arts agencies in fiscal 1974. 143 71' -116- Other -- $4,137,000 (127.) to the state arts agencies for projects ' undertaken by themselves. -- $142,000 (less than 0.5%) to other state.agencies within the state. -- $217,000 (1%) to i combination of recipients. -- $343,000 (17.). to miscellaneous other recipients. Observation:, Museums, which are a larger induStry nationally in dollar terms than the performing arts, are getting only appioxi- mately a 'third Of the project expenditures from the state arts agencies that the performing arts organizations re- ceive. However', it should be remeMbered that in many parts of the country museums are governmental or quasi7governmental institutiana In Museums USA it'was found that 1 in 3 museums (34%) are government run: 67. of museums are federal museums, 12Zare state muSeums ,and 16% municipal Or county museums. Being, under government control, these :Ili:semis are naturally More likely to receive funds through government channels other than the state arts agency than are the performing arts organizations. Primary RecipientS by State The proportional distribution of the ,primary reciPients of project expenditures differed sharply among individual states. Professional perform- ing arts organizations, which received 23% of total project expenditures, were not primary recipients of any project money in Alabama, Alaska and North Dakota or in American Samoa and Puerto Rico. In contrast, a majority of pro- ject expenditures went to professional performing arts organizations in 1 SNATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. -117- MisSouri (84%), Maryland (63%), Utah (59%), the District of Columbia (55%),. and Perinvlvania (51%). Non-professional performing arts organizations were recipients of a majority of prOject expenditures in North Dakota (52%). The proportion of ,funds received by museums alSo varled'signifi- cantly by state, with the 10% of funds received by museums overall rising. to 16% in Massachusetts, and 19% in Tennessee where a unique museum program ; is uriderway; even more importantlY, 17% of project expenditures.in New York State -- whose projett expenditures totaled $15413,000 -- went to museuMs (7% to art museums, 5% to general museums, 3% to science musehms, and 2% to histbry museums). Sharp variations were also seen in the proportion of funds to cu1-7, tural centers -- Che overall'average of 6% rising to a plurality (39%) Of project expenditures in Arlcanias; to community ,councils -- recipients of a plurality of funds in both West Virgini'a (29%) and Georgia (34%), in com- parison with 5% of project expenditures overall; and to colleges and waver- sities -- recipients of 4% of project,expenditures overall Nit higher plur- alities in Nevada (25%), Idaho (32%),,and Nebraska (42%). .The Addest differences in distribution of project expenditures, how7 ever, occurred in the proportion of expenditures received by the state arts agency itself. The state arts agency was not a recipient of project expend- itures in 11 states (Alabama, California, District of Columbia, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, and the Virgin Islands). In contrast, a majority of project expenditures went to the state arts agency for its own projects in Arizona (51%), Hawaii (51%), Iowa (51%), Vermont (59%), Louisiana (62%), South Carolina (667.), Alaska (67%), Puerto Rico (68%), and Texas (73%)., C -118- The differences in the proportion of expenditures that is made to the agency itself is dependent upon the'degree of agency-administered pro- grams.. Many state arts agencies nnidoubtedly see it necessary to undertake projects that are not otherwise being done privately or for which no other qualified organization exists. Thu, the state agencies may conduct their own touring programs of present afts events under their own auspic'es. For exami5le, state arts agencies in such states as Alaska and Puerto Rice admin- .ister most of the projects in those states. Furthermore, such programs as artists-in-schools are generally run by the agency. 'Observation: The existence or non-existence of cultural resources ,..., within a state -- such as the lack of professional performing arts organizations, or seience museums, or local councils -- will obviously be reflected in the distribution of project expenditures. This is re- flected, for example, in the higher than average pro- portion of expenditures to non-professional performing arts organizations in North Dakota, where professional recipients are limited or non-existent. It is such diversities among states that is more likely to affect the distribution of project expenditures than such common qualities as size of total operating budget. Thus although a higher than average 10% of expenditures of agencies in the lowest budget category of below $250,000 went to non-professional performing arts groups -- a result of the fact that those agencies are generally located in states with fewer professional resoufces -- in all budget size gfoups performing arts organizations (in- cluding professional and non-professional) received a greater proportion of expenditures than any other type of recipient except the state arts agency itself. --bk. -111111 111111 z -1 o z Table 67 >r PRIMARY, OR DIRECT, RECIPIENTS nr PROJECT EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL 1974, BY STATE i Z (Dollar amounts in thousands) . P10 in>z , 0 X Amer- Con- , District Total ican Ad.- Arkan- Cali- Colo- nect- Dela- of 0 , rwl Agencies Alabama-Alaska Samoa zona sas fornia rado icut ware Columbia Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Idah. Illinois Z $ z -I rwl Z Total Project Nvenditures 34A5$3 VIZ $398 ala $229 kla $5-8 $217 $938 $186 si39 yal Em $.161 $672 12..6.i. 30 C). X % % % X % ' % % z z % z .1 li:CP 100 ion no jog no' le 100 100 100 100 jso laa jgo az 100 100 10 -1x run , r, ):. COI z "11Arts and Cultural Organizations ... -1 . W Professional performing arts F Qrganizations 7,949 23 Non-profeal:lonal performing , arts organizations 1,248 4 Art MUSEIUMS 1,651 5 General museums 950 3, Science museums 411 1 History museums 331 1 Cultural centers 2,151 6 .Community or municipal arta councils 1,755 5 Foundations not associated with state arts agencies 1,097 3 Visual arts organizations o;her than museums 1,063 3 Foundations associated with state arts agencies 699 2 Regional organizations 644 2 Artssfairs and festivals 497 1 Other state aits agencies 8 * Other arta and cultural organizations 5,925 17 Other Orge:lzations Colleges and universIties 1,447 4 Schools and school systems 3,026 3 Civic groups 311 1, Public radio or public television stations 265 1 441 * Less than 0.5% 6 16 20 lo 18 16 ss 31 17 30 23 24 19 CO 12 7 4 10 16 8 4 10 3 A 14 4 3 6 2 25 * 6 2 3 4 3 * 2 4 - 1 - 2 1 1 - 3 * i 4 _ - * 1 * * 3 1 C, ir 3 30 7 . 5 19 11 11 1 . 2 5 r so o . 12 9 3 2 9 f 5 3 7 34 3 5 4 * 1 1 * * - * 1 2 2 1 * 4 * 1 2 20 * 1 1 3 - 1 1 1 * 6 _ * 1 13 . - * _ 19 - - - - - 23 2 4 3 0 11 2 8 3 14 3 13 7 9 20 15 6 24 6 18 2 2 1 7 1 3 2 6 7 6 2 1 8 5 1 2 1 3 1 6 21 3 5 32 7 * C 4 - 8 3 3 - * 3 1 * 2 (Continued) 1/ Louisiana project expenditures are incomplete. 41 141 143\ PRINARY, ''IRECT, RECIPIENTS OF P=PENDITURES IN FISCAL 1974, BY STATE (contimied) (Dollar amounts in thousands) District To Amer- Con- al ican Ari- Arkan-,Cali- Colo- nect- Dela- of ,,-... Agencies Alabama Alaska Samoa zona sas fornia rado icut ware Columbla Florida GeorRia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois $ % ' Total Protect Expenditures 34 553 $267 ),1298 la $229 $415 .$938 VII $938 $186 t139 ELL lass .26 $672 $164 1730 Z Z , Z %. 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 122 al no no loo , , , . Individuals ----- Professional artists 234 1 * - .- - 4 10 * 19. 1 2 * Non-professional artists 37 * * . - * 1 - Non-artists 14 * * - * 1 * Others Own state arts agency 4,137 12 - 67 42 51 25 38 26 17 24, 17 32 . 51 * .. Other state agencies within state 142 * 4 33 - * 3 - 1 1 * * Combination of recipients 217 1 - 1 * 2 1 1 Other 343 1 1 1 * 1 * 7 1 * ., 5 , 1 4 1 1 1 4 J (Continued) 1111111_ MIL MIL MIL MIL Total Project Expenditures ?urts and Cultural Organizations Protessional performing arts orgnilrations N,n-prot..h.tonal performing art, organizations Art museums General museums Science museums History museums Cultural centers Community or municapal arts councils Foundations not associated with state arts agencies Visual arts organizations other than museums Foundations associated with state arts agencies Regional organizations Arts fairs and festivals Other statt arts agencies Other arts and cultural organizations Other. Orilaization,. Total Agencies 34,553 100 ===. 7,449 23 1,248 4 1,651 5 950 3 41/ 1 331 1 2,151 6 1,755 5 1,097 3 1,063 3 699 2 644 2 497 1 8 5,925 17 4.,Ileges and universities 1,447 :1shoo1s and sohool ,v,tems 1,026 group 311 1 Pobli_ radiO or public television itations 265 15.1 Table 67 PRIMARY, OR DIRECT, RECIPIENTS or PROJECT EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL 1974, BY STATE (continued) (Dollar amounts In thousands) ,Miassa- His- New Ken- Loui- Hary-thu- Mich- Minna- sis- His- Hon- tic- Hasp- New New Indiana Iowa Kansas tucky giant. Maine land setts igan sota sippi souri tans brash Nevada shire JerseY Nexico $385 $254 $209 $342 $124 $312 $510 $556 $715 $439 $209 $742 $142 $176 $134 $201 .1,...,1" =MGM % % -7 % % % 2 2 2 I 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100\ 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 $582 $175 * 2 100 100 New York 24,12 100 \ 15 7 36 7 20 19 63 21 9 28 11 84 7 3 13 '29 49 26 24 1 3 4 14 2 6 6 2 i 15 4 8 2 15 5 3 7 * 4 2 10 2 5 8 6 4 13 * 2 1 5 * * 3 7 t 3 4 a * 1 * - 1 1 5 a; - - - - 3 3 * 1 6 A 1 * ... 2 2 1 1 1 4 2 2 7 1 5 4 9 8 10 15 10 3 11 1 1 7 2 6 * 9 6 4 2 8 3 1 2 * 1 * * 3 6 4 3 5 3 1 10 1 1 3 4 * 1 4 2 i * 3 1 1 a a : * 12 12 5 * 9 3 3 4 * 1 1 1 * 1 2 * 4 - 19 A 7 1 1 - 5 14 6 4 6 4 7 44 3 1 S 1 28 22 3 5 19 25 s 1 7 li 5 12 4 5 s 9 12 8 18 1 28 42 - 25 7 1 6 1 20 * 8 1 22 1 3 9 13 * * 2 11 1 2 1 * * * 2 1 1 1 * 3 * 2 2 1 5 1 2 2 1 A 1 2 10 1 (Continued) Total Proj ect Expend itures Total Agencies 14,553 1 0 Ind ividuals Professional art ists 234 Non-prof essional art ist s 37 Non-art ists 14 Others Own sta te arts agencv 4,137 12 Other state agencies within state 142 Combinat ion of rec ipients 217 1 Ot her 341 1 I/Based on incer.plete data. I 5 J Table 67 PRIMARY , OR DIRLCI, RECIPIENT,' OF PROJECI EXPENDIIURES IN FISCAL 1974 BY STATE (oonainued) (Dollar amounts in thousands) Massa- Mis- New Ken- Lou i- Mary- chu- Mich- Ninne- sis- His- Mon- lie- Ramp- New New New 1:0 Indiana Iowa Kansas tacky siana Maine land setts igan sota sippi sour i tana braska Nevada shire Jersey Mexico York rri $385 $254 $2 2 $1 2 $5 09 $3424 $1110 $558 $71.5 $439 , % z , , z t 1/4 1/4 1/4 100 100 100 100 - 1 6 - 1 * - 6 51 :?7 26 2 100 100 100 100 100 100 - 1 2 7 * * * 62 15 8 - 6 2 1 * 6 1 3 N $209 $742 $142 $178 $134 $201 $582 $175 1/4 100 1/4 ,114. % 222 7. 100 1/4 100 1/4 100 1/4 100 1/4 100 - - -- - - * 15 1 12 - 8 - 23 22 2 1 1 3 2 * 1 2 4 1 3 1 (Continued) 5 ; :MI Total Piolat Expenditures Arts and Cultural Organizations Professional performing arts organizations Non-professional performing arts organizations Art auseuns General tmseums, Science museunm Hiotory 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 arts agencies Regional organizations Arts fairs and festivals Other state arts agencies Other arts and cultural organizations Colleges and universities Schools and SX1tOol Systeni Civic groups Publit radio or publIt telev14Ion stations 15u Table 67 PRIMA10, OR DIRECT, RECIPIENTS OF PROJECT EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL 1974, BY STATE (continued) (Dollar amounts in thousands) North Penn- South Total Caro- North Okla- syl- Puerto Rhode Caro- South Ten- Agencies lino Dakota ohlo Lictsa_ Oregon vania Rico Island 1122 Dakota nessee Texas 34,553 122 7,949 23 1,248 4 1,h51 5 950 3 A1 1 331 1 2,151 6 1,755 5 1,097 3 1,063 3 699 2 644 2 497 1 8 A 5,925 17 1,447 4 1,026 3 311 1 265 1 as 442 "42 Jai"qz lip "i"4"AiA 141 PI 122 1°° 18 1 23 6 4 3 4 122 122 AL) IL) .1s2 191 17 38 6 14 51 2 51 7 18 1 22 4 12 1 1 1 1 2 4 3 5 1 2 18 ' 7 19 4 * 2 1 3 5 17 2 1 15 4 7 1 1 * 2 * 1 1 3 19 * - 2 7 5 7 S 3 6 1 19 13 6 1 1 2 4 4 * 4 1 S 1 6 2 1 6 1 4 9 2 2 *. 3 1 9 6 20 122. 122 Ver- Virgin Vir- Wash- Vir- Wis- Wyom- ash mont Islands ginii ingtOn ::::a consin 4421 NI at IP gr:9 222 ma 0 ma ma 122 am 112 8 7 59 12 1 2 4 1 3 8 4 2 2 19 2 5 3 2 4 11 1 \ 2 1 5 * 3 5 10 3 11 4 4 1 4 5 11 8 1 29 1 6 19 9 17 4 4 2 1 8 17 1 1 14 10 1 *. 1 1 A 1 8 7 7 18 3 29 2 1 1 2 1 1 7 1 24 7 21 11 28 3 1 2 2 1 13 5 23 1 3 1 3 2 1 (Continued) 1.56 Total Project EX enditures Individuals Professional artists Non-professional 1 i Non-artists Others Ovn state arts agen Other state agencies within state Combination of recip ents Other 15 Total Agenci,es ,$ 3 553 1122 234 1 37 14 4,137 12 142 217 1 343 1 44 11 Table 67 PRLHAM, 0B flKL(T, hi(IP1INIS OF PROTECT EXPEN1)1TUR1 1 i11.4'.11 1974, RY STATE (continued) (Dollar amountq in thousand,) North Penn- South West Caro- North Okla- syl- Puerto Rhode, Caro- South Ten- Ver- Virgin Vir- Wash- Vir- Wis- Wyom- lina Dakota Ohio homa Oregon vania Rico Island lina Dakota nessee Texas Utah mont Islands ginia Ington ginia conain $364 112 $929 4 42 Ea 122 12E4 144 144 1;41 4jil 12i1 4.11,2 SiA 110 2*9. --t- 4 4 4 142 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100, 100 100 - - 11 2 2 1 - 6 1 4 1 - - * _ 1 10 1 - - * - - 1 39 4 16 4 28 - 68 26 66 24 36 73 13 59 9 49. 10 21 14 - 2 * 1 .- - 2 * - * 5 * * 2 21 * - * 3 - I * q 3 2 1 1 1 1 * k * 1 - 1_ 5 0- NAWNAL RESEARCH CENTER or THE ARTS. NE. -125- It is important to note Chat, as mentioned previously, project expenditures of the New York State Council on the Arts accounted for 44% of total project expenditures of the 55 agencies. The distribution of project expenditures by the New York State Council naturally affects the overall distribution to a large degree, yet removing New York State from the total does not change the distribution of primary recipients significant/y. The exceptions are that the proportion received by museums drops from 10% of the expenditures of all 55 agencies to only 4% of the project expenditures of the 54 excluding New York, while the proportion going to the state arts agency itself rises from 12% to 21%. -126- Table 68 PRIMARY, OR DIRECT, RECIPIENTS OF PROJECT EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL 1974, BY ALL STATES EXCEPT NEW YORK (Dollar_amounts in thousands) Total Agencies Total Without New York 1. Total project expenditures 34 553 100 19 439 100 Arts and cultural organizations Professional performing arts organizations 7,949 23 4,380 23 Non-profeSsional performing arts organizations . 1,248 4 1,233 6 Art museums 1,651 5 663 3 General museums 950 3 85 * Science museums 411 1 1 * History museums 331 1 191 1 Cultural centers 2,151 6 729 4 Community or municipal arts councils 1,755 5 1,,247 6 Foundations not associated with o state arts agencies 1,097 3 196 1 Visual arts organizations other than museums 1,063 3 504 3 Foundations associated with state arts agencies 699 2 207 1 Regional organizations 644 2 239 1 Arts fairs and isstivals 497 1 413 2 Other state arts agencies 8 * 8 * Other arts and cultural organizations 5,925 17 1,729 9 Other organizations , Colleges and universities 1,447 4 1,345 7 Schools and school systems 1,026 3 842 4 Civic groups 311 1 225 1 Public ratio or public television stations 265 1 143 1 Individuals Professional artists 234 .1 234 1 Non-professional artists 37 37 Non-artists 14 14 Others Own state arts agency 4,137 12 4,137 21 Other state agencies within state 142 * 142 1 Combination of recipients 217 1 217 1 Other 343 1 238 1 * Less than 0.5% o NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC -127- , Sources uf Funds for Expenditures to Primary, or Direct, RecipientS\ The distribution of project expenditures among the different types of recipients was not greatly affected by the sources of the funds for \those P expenditures, with a few exceptions. Federal funds used for project expenditures were much more likely to be directed to the state arts agency itself than were state funds. Only', 5% of the total state funds of $23,181,000 used for project expenditures went' to the state arts agency, compared with 24% of the funds for project expendi- tures derived from the National Endowment for theArts (a. total of $10,088,000) and 92% of the funds derived from other federal sources (a total of $295,000). A large portion of the project expenditures to the state arts agencies them- selves derived from the Endowment are accounted for by grants for artists- in-schools programs that are administered by the agencies. Coleges and universities also accounted for a higher proportion a Endowment funds (9%) than'of state funds (2%). In contrast, the proportion of state funds directed toward museums was higher than that of federal funds, with 13% of state funds used for project expenditures going to museums com- pared with 3% of Endowment funds. This difference, however, is a direct re- sult of the previously noted higher proportion of New York State project ex- penditures made to museums. 161 , Table 69 PRIMARY, OR DIRECT, RECIPIENTS OF,PROJECT MENDITURES IN FISCAL 1974, BY :SOURCE OF FUNDS (Dollar amounts in thousands) \, Total Projec Expenditures Total Agencies State Federat Other- Total National Endowment For the Arts Other Federal Total Basic State Other.1/ Agency Grant Grants 34 553 $23 181 $10,383 $10 088 $7 638 $2 450 $295 $989 100 100 100 100 100 100 , 100 100 Arts and Cultur 1 Organizations Profe6sional 0,erforming arts organizations 7349 23 27 171 .17 21 3 18 Non-professional performing arts organizations 1,248 4 2 7) 7 10 5 Art museums 1,651 5 6 2 3 1 3 General museums 950 3 4 1, Science museums 411 1 2 History museums 331 1 1 1 1 Cultural centers 2451 6 8 3 3 3 * 1 1- co Conatunity or municipal arts councils 1,755 5 4 7 7 8 3 3 Foundations not associated with state arts agencies\ 1,097 3 4 1 - 1 * Visual arts organizations other than museums 1,063 , Foundations associated with state arts agencies 700 3 2 3 2 3 3 1 4 1 * 2 1 Regional organizatios 644 2 2 3 3 3 2 Arts fairs and festivals 497 1 2 1 1 1 2 Other state arts agencies 8 * * * - Other arts and cultural organizations 5,925 17 21 10 10 11 9 2 9 Other Organizations --- Colleges and universities 1,447 4 2 9 9 10 5 2 3 Schools and school systems 1 1,026 3 2 6 6 4 12 4 3 Civic groups 311 1 1 1 1 2 * 3 Public radio or public television stations 265 1 1 * * * 1 Individuals 234 1 1 1 1 5 Professional artists Non-professional artists 37 * Non-artists 14 * ^ Other Own state arts agency 4,137 12 5 24 24 12 58 92 34 Other state agencies within state 142 * 1 1 1 * Combination of recipients 217 1 1 1 1 * 10 Other 343 1 1 1 1 2 .* 1 ^ 1 I Includes Endowment Treasury Fund grants and other grants. 2/ Includes local government grants and private funds. Lees than 0.5%. NATIONAL RESEARC.H CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. 1129- Secondary, or Indirect Recipients Portions of funds that are granted directly to some types of re- cipients may ultimately find their way to important secondary recipients; often there are one or more such secondary recipients of project expenditure's . in addition to the primary recipients already described. For example, an, expenditure to a concert series may ultimately be channeled to a performing' arts group presented by that association, or a grant to a college may be channeled to an indi dual to serve as an artist-in-residence. In considering the.proportions of expenditures_received by second- - - ary recipienta4it should be kept in mind that they are likely to be receiv- ing only a portio f the funds in question, with the expenditures possibly shared with the primary recipient and/or other ondary recipients. Not surprisingly,.individual ar ists did figure much more promi- nently as secondary redipients of fiscal 1974 project expenditures than as primary recipients. Although among primary recipients plofessional artists accounted for only 1% of project expenditures and non-professional artists for less than 0.57., professional artists were among the secondayy recipients of 13% of project expenditures and non-professional artists among the second- ary recipients of 2% of the expenditures. Project expenditures made directly to the state arts agencies them- selves and to schools and to colleges are the most likely.to'be chänpeled to individual artists as secondary recipients (looking only at direct primary recipients that received at least $1,000,000 project expenditures); -- Individual artists were among the secondary recipients of 35rof the expenditures to the state arts agencies la= themselves, 22% of expenditures to schools and school 16; -130- systems, and 20% of expenditures, to colleges and univer- sities. As will be seen later in this chapter, one- quarter of the project expenditures made to the state arts agencies were for artists-in-school projects, ac- counting for the relatively thigh proportion of indivi- dual artists and schooPs as secondary recipients. Performing arts organizations were' also among secondary recipients of a significant part of the project expenditures, with professional performing arts organizations among secondary recipients of 13% and non-professional performing organizations of 3% of project expenditures. Professional performing arts organizations were among secondary recipientq of at least $1.00 in every $5.00 that went directly to non-associated foundations, cultural centers, colleges and mis- cellaneous other arts organizations: -- Professional performing arts organizations were among the 4 the secondary recipients of 49% Of expenditures to founda- tions not a7soclated with state artd4 agencies, 38% of expenditures to cultural centers, 33% of expenditures to colleges and universities, and 22% of expenditures to miscellaneous other arts and cultural organizations. Colleges and universities and schools and school systems were also more likely than average to be secondary recipients of expenditures to the state arts agency itself, with schools being among the secondary rcipients of 27% and colleges and universities among the secondary recipients of 147. of such expenditures. 1 6 NATIONAL RE 'F,EARCH CENrE or THE 'ARTS.INC -131-- Observat ion: The very high149% of expenditures diectly to non- associated fotiindations that went to professional performing arts organizations as secondarY recip- ients reflects to some ext,ent the large number of i such foundatiOns, particularly in N w York State, established to obtain support for L-ice companies, as will be seen also in the discusSion of the dis- tribution of expenditures by art fiorm. 1 / / 1 / 1 1 I i I SECONDARY, OR INDIRECT, RECIPIEN1S OF PROJE4tP;(4ITURES IN FISCAL 1974, BY PRIMARY REC1PIEN3SY (Dollar amounts in thousands) Primary Recipients Non- Foundations Professional. "Other" Community Professional Not Performing Arts and Own or Colleges Performing Associated Visual Schools Arts Cultural State Municipal and Arts with State Arts and Total Organi- Organi- Arts Cultural Arts Art Univer- Organi- Arts Organi- School Agencies zations zations Agency Centers Councils Museums sities zations Agencies zations Systems $ % --......_ Iotal Project Expenditures 34,553 $7,949 $5,924 $4 137 Secondary Recipients: Z.' % ,.', _ 100 100 -- 100 100 Arts and Cultural Organizations Professional performing arts organizations 4,592 13 2 22 14 Non-professional performing arts organizations 1,102 3 3 9 Art museums 325 1 * 2 General museums 119 * - 1 1 Science museums 201 1 - 1 History Museums 193 1 * 4 Cultural centers 253 1 x 4 Community or municipal arts councils 875 3 5 1 6 Foundations not associated with state arts agencies 44 * - * * Visual arts organizations other than museums 332 1 1 3 Foundations associated with state arts agencies 52 * 1 Regional organizations 59 * - * Arts fairs and festivals 817 2 1 2 4 I :Other state arts agencies 99 * 1 Orher arts And cultural organizations 1,29. 4 1 7 7 1 Other Organizations Colleges and universities 1,485 4 6 1 4 Schools a 1,941 nd school systems 6 3 I 27 Civic groups 373 1 1 * 1 Public radio or public telelnision 1 etrions 54 * * * * $2 151 $1-- 755 '1,651 $1 447 $1,248 $1 097 $1 063 % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 _-_ 38 13 2 33 3 49 * 1 6 1 12 1 1 * 4 3 2 1 2 * 1 * - 2 * 1 - ; 1 - - A 1 - \ * 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 * * * 1 * * 2 1 2 - 1 3 - - - - - * - - 1 * 2 g 6 1 8 1 2 * 1 - - - 3 1 3 2 3 3 * 2 1 2 2 * 4 1 5 * 7 6 2 4 * 2 1 1 1 2 4 * 1 - 1/ - Only primary recipients that received at least $1,000,000 in project expenditures are shown. 81,026 % 100 .1:0 rids te) 14 imicwil 5 C?) \ r:, avi - - to4: \ * ,..., ' * ts) 1 (Continued) Table 70 SECONDARY, OR INDIRECT, RECIPIENTS OF PROJECT EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL 1974, BY PRIMARY RECIPIENTS- (Continued) Individuals Total Agencies /- Pr Lzsry' $-Diell Non- Foundations Professional Net Performing Associated Visual Arts with State Arts Organi- Arts Organi- zations Agencies zations Schools and School Systems. I I-,ww t 0 0 0m Z -im Z 0 .-1 I m > A' 0 i P Colleges and Art t;a1.,- Museums sities Professional Performing Arts Organi- zations "Other" Arts and Cultural Organi- zations Own State Arts Agency Community or Municipal Cultural Arts Centers Councils 4,620 13 573 2 647 2 205 1 79 115 992 3 137 9 1 1 1 1 * 18 1 1 1 - * 1 1 35 3 6 1 - 1 a 2 % 4 11 * 3 1 3 * 1 * * 1.- 4 1 * % 4 20 * 6 1 3 * 1 1 1 * - 1 * * 10 7 9 4 * 2 1 1 1 1 * 1 * * 3 3 - * 1 - 22 * * * 2 3 4 * Professional artists Non-professional artists Professional non-artists Non-lrofessional non-artists Other Own state arts agency Other state agencies within state Combination of recipients Other UP rill VI messai C11) aitt ID< 21/ 44 :OW g MI ME ( -134- Di.Stribution of Project Ex enditureg by Art Forin The dominance of the performing arts in project expenditures of the state arts agencies -- which was indicated in the top ranking of performing arts organizations among recipients -- is clearly seen when the expenditures are analyzed in terms of the specific art forms in which they were made. The performing arts accounted for half of the project expenditures in fiscal. 1974, with 23% of expenditures made in music, 12% in theatre, 10% in dance and 5% in a omnbination ,of performing arts forms. The amounts of the project expenditures made for each art form were: $7,771,000 (23%) in music, with 137. in orchestral, chamber music; etc., 4% in opera, 1% in jazz, folk or ethnic, 1% in choral, less than 0.5% each in rock, popular and in other types of music, and 4% in combinations of forms within music. $4,19,5,000 (12%) in theatre, with 12% in plays and musicals and less than 0.5% in other forms of theatre. $3,547,000 (10%) in dance, with 3% in modern dance, 2% in ballet, less than 0.5% each in ethnic, folk, 'n mime, pantomime, and in other forms of dance, and 4% in/combinations of forms within dance. $1,741,000 (5%) in combinations of the performing arts. -- $4,909,000 (14%) in the visual arts, with 1% each in painting, NATIONAL, RE SEARC H C ENTEP OF THE ARTS, INC. -135- drawing, graphics, in crafts, and in sculpture, less than 0.5% in photography, 1% in other visual arts, and 10% in combinations of the visual arts. -- $1,673,000 (5%) in public media, with 2% each in film and in television, and less than 0.5% each in video, in radio, in other forms of public media and in combinations of forms within public media. -- $1,097,000 (3%) in literature, with 1% in poetry, less than 0.57. each in playwriting, in fiction, in transla- tions and in other forms of literature, and 2% in combina- tions of forms of literature. - $962,000 (3%) in architecture and environmental arts. - $291,000 (1%) in folk arts. - $184,000 (1%) in multi-media. -- less than 0.5% in ott;er art forms. - $6,042,000 (17%) in combinations of art forms. $1,745,000 (5%) in the non-arts humanities field. It should be remembered, however, that the dollar amounts expended are governed to a cerpAn extent by financial needs; e.g., a visual arts or literature project may not cost as much as a musical project, museums may have more readily available support elsewhere, etc. Another important factor is the amoant of funds requested in each art form. As will be seen later, the large majority of project expenditures is made for projectg initiated by the 172 -136- grantee who has requested the funds. The distribution of requests, therefore, will significantly affect the distribution by art form, as well as by recip- ient. Furthermore, the factors previously mentioned will also significantly affect the distribution by art form, such as restrictions or mandates, ear- marking, the state's cultural resources, etc. Observation: Many project expenditures were made for a combination of art forms, with 5% of expenditures being spent for a combination of performing arts forms and 17% for a com- bination of art forms generally. It is impossible to determine at this level exactly which art forms are in- volved in these combinations. In the former instance, for example, a state arts agency may make a grant to a local civic concert organization to support the perform- ances of a timber of different\types, such as theatre performances, ballet performances, musical recitals, etc. In the latter instance, a grant may be made to a community council, for example, whose programs encom- pass a wide range of performing and visual arts. Distribution by Art Form by State When the distribution of project expenditures by art form is viewed state by state, sharp differences are again apparent, with the emphasis on some art forms varying widely among individual states. -- Music, in which a plurality of 23% of total project expen- ditures was made, accounted for only 8% of expenditures in Texas, 77. in Tennessee and 4% in Puerto Rico. In con- trast, a majority of the expenditures were made in music in Missouri (77%), Pennsylvania (57%), Guam (52%) and Mary- land (51%), and half (50%) of the expenditures in New Jersey. NATiONAL RESEARCH CENTEF? OF THE ARTS.INC, -137- -- Theatre, in which 12°1 of total pro'ect expenditures was made, accounted for more than one-quarter of the expenditures in Kansas (30%), North Dakota (33%), and South Dakota (29%), a plurallty of the expenditures in each of those states. -- Similarly, more than one-quarter of project expenditures were in dance -- which accounted for 10% of expenditurqs overall in Louisiana (a plurality of 28%, based on incomplete information), Virgin Islands (28%) and Wisconsin (a plurality of 43%)': -- Visual arts, in which 14% of total project expenditures was mada, accounted for more than one-third of expen- ditures in American Samoa (35%), pluralities of 36% in Puerto Rico, 37% in Tennessee and 39% in Wyoming, and 50% in Oregon expenditures, and a majority of 577. in Hawaii: -- More than 10% of expenditures was made in public media -- which accounted for 5% of expenditures overall -- in New Hampshire (12%) and South Carolina (13%). -- More than 10% of expenditures was made in literature -- which accounted for 3% overall -- in Delaware (11%), Utah (11%), Arizona (12%), North Carolina (12%), South Carolina (19%) and Wyoming (a much higher than average 22%). . t 174 , Table 71 1/ DISTRIBUTION BY ART.FORM OF PROJECT EXP6DITURES IN FISCAL 1974,- BY STATE (Dollar amounts in thousands) Total Project Expenditures Total A2encies Amer- Con- District loan Ari- Arkan- Cali- Colo- nect- Dela- of Alabama Alaska Samoa tons sas fornia rado 4cut ware Columbia Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinols 34 553 100 23 13 4 1 1 * 4 12 12 * 10 3 2 * * * 4 5 14 1 1 1 * 1 10 5 2 2 * * * p26? m % 100 azo. $229 als §938 P217 $938 $186 ° t139, $421 i $368 al % IN $672 % 1.22. 12 11 P ; _ * 7 7 _ 9 5 3 * 1 57 - * 55 2 1 - * 1 (Continued) $164 $73(7 ----- t $-- t..) co .1 Music. 771 % 100 30 21 2 5 1 - 1 14 14 * 7 .3. 1 4 4 11 1 1 8 2 2 % 100 47 10 - _ 35 - 2 1 ° 1 _ - - 358' 28 3 4 3 3 - % 100 10 9 1 10 10 9 7 1 7 18 1 * 7 7. % 100 24 21 3 - * 5 5 _ 2 1 * 4 * 4 1 1 * 7. 100 24 10 6 _ 2 - _ 6 15 15 _ 10 1 4 1 4 12 10 4 - 2 2 % 100 11 8 2 * 2 2 _ 5 W 1 * * 9 6 2 2 * % 100 147 2 3 * * _ 2 17 17 11 7 2 * 1 9 4 * * * % 100 23 5 6 2 - 10 15 15 - 12 - 12 23 14 2 * _ 2 % 100 17 9 - 8 24 24 - 21 1 7 13 23 23 m - _ % 100 38 30 6 2 * _ _ * 14 14 _ 7 - _ 7 6 - 3 * * _ - _ _ X ago 11.4 11 * 2 1 11 .11 _ 14 1 8 _ 5 29 2 17 - .-: _ % loo 15 11 2 1 * 1 % 100 28 2 19 2 - 5 5 5 - 10 5 * 1 4 5 14 * 1 * 12 8 7 _ 1 * 52 28 - - 6 9 9 3 3 .. 3 3 - 26 9 5 !.. 16 9 4 - 1 1 Orchestral, chamber, etc. Opera Jazz, folk, ethnic Choral Rock, popular Other Combinations within music Theatre _a7___ 4,326 1,213 40Z 217 ,12 139 1,452 4 195 20 12 20 12 20 9 1 10 3 1 * 9 4 - 13 14 - 1 A * 9 11 6 10 3 5 1 4 * -, Plays, musicals Other Dance 4,074 121 3 547 Modern Ballet Ethnic, folk Mime, pantomime Other Combinations within dance Combination of Performin Arts 1,069 852 77 34 143 1,372 1 741 4 009 484 417 177 141 245 3,445 1,E2 803 686 68 18 9 89 Visual Arts Painting, drawing, graphics Crafta Sculpture Photography Other Combinations within'visual ar_s Public Media Film Television Video Radio Other Combinations within public media 4 1/ - Because of the large number of components of less than 0.5%, percentages may add to less than 100%, and with type of art form to less than total. * Less than 0.5% CO rill CA: Novi CI, CP 12 ..<g / / 1 2. / r '24' i 4* > ±1 ri t Table 71 CPin DISTRWTION BY ART FORM OF PROJECT EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL 1974 ,I1BY STATE (Cont 'd) A 2. .. (Dollar amounts in thousands) 0I C) e tle ri - Disr t Amer- Con Z Total ican Ari- Arkan- Calia Colo- neat- Dela- of . ri - i Agencies Alabama Alaska Samoa zona sas fortiin rado icut ware Columbia Florida Gerrgia Guars Hawaii Idaho Illinois 73 to. $ Z X Z Z X X X Z Z X X X X X X z x o Literature 1,097 3 * 8 12 1 4 1 2 11 = 7 3 _* 5 1 I-I CO Poetry iv 469 1 * "4" 5 1 3 I 2 5 7 3 * I -,t- m ***of Plaprriting 8 A i - * - - - - * > Fiction 7 * * - - - * Pi Translations 3 * ? CZ, - - F "0 'Co it mbinations within lerature 605 2 4 t - 1 * 6 - 1 Other Art Forms . __ 12_833 5 * * 7 6 * _. 6 3 1 * m. 9 3 7 7 1 4 Architecture and environmental 321! arcs 962 3 5 2 1 * 1 ' 2 1 * 2 44:: Folk arts 291. 1 7 3 1 - 1 4 7 1 2 Multi-media 184 1 * 3 * * * * 3 - . 2 - * :B20 Other 396 * * - e 1 5 - rw4. Combinations of Ar t Forms _, _6 07.2 17 31 20 7 s3 60 22 48 43 12 15 11 26 4 2 8 16 Non-Arts Humanities Field 1,145. A * 2 = = = -* CO 9 ,-.. g ko 4 1 or 17 J. Table 71 1/ DISTRIBUTION BY ART FOttM OF PROJECT EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL 1974, BY STATE (Cont'd) (Dollar amounts in thousands) Vital Project Expenditures Total Agencies $ 34,551 reousdoaas. 100 Must,: 7 771 23 Orchestral, chamber, etc. 4,126 13 era 1,213 4 az, folk, ethnic 402 1 taoral 217 1 Rock, popular 12 * Other 139 Combinations within music 1,462 4 Theatre 4 195 _4-_- 12 Plays, musicals 4,074 12 Other 121 * 1 Dance 3 54 10 Modern 1,069 3 8a1ket 852 2 Ethnic. folk 77 * Mime, pantomime 34 * Other 143 * Combinations within dance 1,372 4 Combination of Performing Arts 1 741 5 Visual Arts 4 909 14 Painting, drawing, graphics 484 l' Crafts 417 Sculpture 177 1 Photography 141 Other 24S 1 Combinations within visual arts 3,44S 10 Public Media 1 673 5 Film 803 2 Television 686 2 Video ' Combinations within public media 89 * l Hase- s / . New ' Ken- Loui: Mary- chu- Mich- Minne- sis- MisL Mon- Ne- Ramp- New New Indiana Iowa Ksneas tucky siana Maine land setts igan soca sippi souri tans braska Nevada shire Jersey Mexico $385 $2541 $204 $342 $124 $312 $510 $558 $715 $439 $209 $742 $142 % 100 100 14 18 12 10 1 1 1 1 6 7 10 7 10 8 6 4 - 3 3 1 * I _ - 1 1 28 11 S 8 1 3 * * * _ 4 5 4 - 3 ,P"wer % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 \% 100 13 21 11 17 51 16 12 10 9 1 15 46 10 10 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 2 * * 1 4 - * * 1 1 1 5 9 1 1 1 30 12 7 6 19 12 11 30 12 7 6 19 12 11 * * 9 4 28 7 7 6 12 7 4 3 2 6 3 12 2 3 3 5 1 1 - * * * - 1 - 1 * - - S 4 15 1 1 3 20 5 7 3 2 1 21 IS 25 18 11 13 12 14 2 5 1 5 7 6 4 3 * 1 1 - - - 1 3 1 3 - - * 1 8 22 9 9 7 7 5 2 2 :. * 3 2 T 1 1 . 1 - 1 1 % % % % 100 100 100 100 23 17 77 23 14 7 73 11 3 3 1 1 * 1 * 1 1 1 * _ 1 - 5 4 2 10 15 10 13 . 18 14 10 13 18 1 * 21 4 7 5 18 1 3 * 3 * * * * * 1 - 3 6 1 4 7 2 10 27 1 19 1 1 7; 3 * 6 * 1 1 1 * * 1 * 6 19 1 13 1 7 ts.. 4 1 3 * 3 _ _ - - 0w . York $178 % 100 $134 $201 2.582 100 $17S 144.111 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 24 32 22 50 2S 20 - 14 14 18 32 17 8 3 7 - 13 6 4 * 1 1 * 1 2 1 6 - 1 2 1 4 4 2 2 2 5 15 8 11 5 13 12 15 8 11 5 13 11 - - 1 16' 4 7 7 3 11 4 - - i 4 5 4 4 2 * 1 '' * _ _ * z- 1 1 - - 1 6 - 3 5 1 4 1 20 6 2 1 6 12 28 10 8 22 12 3 3 _ * 2 * 2 4 1 4, * _ * * 1 * * - 1 1 1 * 1 1 2 9 7 2S 6 5 15 9 1 12 3 3 8 1 "--- 9 1 3 5 3 - - 4 * 2 _ _ (Continued) n. Total Agencies Table 71 If DISTRIBUTION BY ART FORM OF PROJECT EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL 1974,- BY STATE (Cont'd) (Dollar amounts in thousands) Massa- His- New Ken- Loui- Mary- chu- Mich- Minne- sis- His- Mon- Ne- Hamp- New New New Indiana Iowa Kansas tucky siana Maine land setts Agan sots aippi souri tana braska Nevada shire Jersey Mexico York 2 L.terature 1 097 3 .PeetrV 469 1 Playwriting 8 Fiction 7 IranslatOns 3 Other 6 CoLbinations within literature 605 Other Art Forms Archit.tcture and environmental arta Folk arts Multi-aedia Other I 831 962 3 291 184 1 396 Combinations of Art Forms 6 042 17 Non-Arts Humanities Field -x1 74 5 ---5 1/ Based on incomplete data. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 * 2 S 1 2 A ' * * 2 2 _ 7 1 -; * A * A '1* - * * 4 - 2 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 3 2 2 _2_ 2 -: * * -- 2 1 9 6 * 1 28 3 13 -- 2 7 2 1 * * 2 * 8 2 * 4 4 * 1 - , .. * 1 : * 1 * * 28 3 II * 2 ° 1 * * 1 6 - 2 30 39 14 24 19 37 2 32 41 14 13 * 26 4 17 20 28 12 2 7 12 4 2 1 104. (Continued) -12.2111_!.r,> ec_itEtm.Ictures Table 71 DISTRIBUTION BY ART F0/01 Or PROJECT EXPENDITURES IN.F1SCAt 1974,1/13y STATE (Cont'd) (Dollar amounts in thousands) rota 1 Aurnt ies S. 34,553 100 ONNIRIMMENNO 7 771 23 OrQ'lestral, chaaber, etc. 4,326 13 Opera 1 ,213 4 Jazz, folk, etlmic 402 1 Choral 217 1 Roc'A popular 12 * Ot her 139 * combinat lens within music 1 ,462 4 Theatre 4 195 12 Plays, mush- .1i 4,074 12 Ot her 121 * Dance .3_25.42_ 10 Modern. 1,061 3 Ballet 852 2 Ethnic, folk 77 Mime, pantomime 34 Oc her 143 * Combinations within dance 1,372 4 Combinations of Performin'g Arts 1 741 5 Visual Arts 4 909 14 Painting, drawing, graphics 484 1 Crafts 417 1 Sculpture 177 1 Photography 141 Other 245 1 Combinations within visual arts 3,445 10 Publ ic Med ia 1 673 5 .., Fila ''' 803 2 Telev is ion 686 2 Video 68 * Radio 18 * Other 9 * Combinations within public media 89 * s North Penn- South West Caro- North Okla- Syl- Puerto Rhode Caro- South Ten- Ver- Virgin Vir- Wash- Vir- Wis- Wyom- lina Dakota Ohio homa Oregon vania Rico Island lina Dakota nessee Texa. Utah mont Islands ginia ington ginia_ consin ir__ 8364 S169 5929 4140 .,r. 22 100 100 100 12 28 31 27 ; 21 26- it') 1 4 3 4 2 1 4 * 1 - . 1 .. 1 1 13 20 21 7 33 20 21 16 2 8 1 1 1 4 6 * * - 15 * 3 * 11 21, 19 12 . 7 2 3 - - I * - - 1 4 1 3 1 9 15 15 5 5 - 1 4 2 - 1 2 2 2 - * I_ * MIK NM =lb , 1111111-1111111_ ANL 14.7. 100 146 100 111P 103 142 100 14141 lAga 100 4*"Aillzia .4q1 "i2 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 lAik wo 100 15 57 4 11 10 18 7 So 27 16 39 33 11 31 19 12 37 5 7 7 3 4 22 10 8 29 7 13 12 2 1 2 1 4 2 1 * 2 2 4 4 3 1 1 - - 5 - I 1 * 1 * 3 1 _ 1 1 - - - - - - * - 4 1 * 18 4 4 9 1 2 5 19 1 1 11 1 10 7 12 11 11 29 _3 7 20 5 6 24 4 10 13 10 7 12 11 11 28 3 7 20 5 4 24 4 10 13 1 - 2 - - - - 5 16 13 8-I 10 7 7 12 24 1 28 12 16 6 43 1 1 1 1 4 1 3 1 TO. 1 12 11 1 3 2 4 21 * 10 6 7 - 1 I - A _ - - - * _ A - 1 1 - - 3 - - - * - 1 - 3 2 2 5 6 2 3 7 17 6 15 6 23 50 6 36 7 22 13 37 11 17 10 4 9 12 15 4 1 23 ; 3 1. 6 1 5 3 2 1 I * 2 1 2 * - 26 * * 1 5 * * * 1 * ; 5 - 1 3 - 1 * * 1 * ; *- 1 - - 47 4 13 6 13 11 5 10 11 3 1 3 10 14 2 1 1 3 13 1 2 3 1 2 2 3 3 7 1 1 9 1 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 5 - - 1 * - 4 - 2 - - * * - - - 3 - - 1 - - (Continued) 100 184 Litrulas Total Agencies Table 71 DISTRIBUTION BY ART FORM OF PROJECT EXPENDITURES (Dollar amounts in thousands) North Penn- Caro- North Okla- syl7 Puerto lina Dakota Ohio hama Oregon, vania Rico % 2 t 2 2 % 2 1 10 1 12 2 2 * -7, 2 * 8 1 - - - * - 6 * * 2 * -:. 7 4 * 5 * 4 -- * 4 * * 1 * 4 - 7 * * 4 35 5 13 28 1 11 1 2 7 IN .ISC,AL 1974,1IBY STATE (Cont'd) South West Rhode Caro- South Ten- Ver- Virgin Vir- Wash- Vir- Wis- Wyom- Island Iina Dakota nessee Texas Utah mont Islands ginia ington glnia csin ing- > )70 I 0 piZH 0 11 HXM mH ,(fi-: P 1 098. 3 1 * . * 2 5 3 1 1 * 17 5 2 2 2 2 % 2 2 2 2 % 2 A % ' 19 -r. 4 3 11 3 1 3 9 6 * 22 6 -- 1 7 4 3 * 2 * 3 9 6 21 - 1 - - * - -- 12 * la * * 2 9 4 5 21 1 * 3 -Z. * -Z. 2 3 1 * * 5 21 1 2 * * 1 * '; 1 - 2 I 8 4 - 56 \ 2' 27 34 33 * 58 11, 7 42 29 16 -Z -Z 1 -.Z 1 Poetry Playwritiag Fiction Tran,lations Other Combinations within literature Other Art Forms 469 8 7 3 6 605 1.833 Architectore and environmental arts Folk arta Multi-media Other Combination; of Art Fornis 962 291 184 396 6 042 Ion-Arts Hulanities Field 1 745 186 ril Ci)e. momst g 3:11 :FM Immill -144-- As with the distribution of,expenditures by recipient, the diver- sity among states in the proportion of expenditures in the various art forms,- seems a result of circumstances in the individual states rather than a re- A, flection of some common attribute. Looking at the distribution by art form by the total budgets of the agencies, fot ex'ample, shows little change from budget size to budget size, except for a slightly highey percentage of ex- penditures in the visual arts in the smallest budget group, and a higher per- centage in music in the highest group. Table 72 DIkRIBUTION BY ART,FORM OF PROJECT EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL 1974 BY TOTAL EXPENDITURES (Dollar amounts in thousands) Expenditures (Number of agencies) 'Total Project Expenditures Total Agencies Below $230,000 $250,000- $500,000- $499,999 $749,999 $750,000 and above* (55) $34 553 (15) $2,293 (20) $5,501_ (10) $5 313 (9) $6,333 % 100 100 100 100 100 .0 Music 23 23 19 22 32 Theatre 12 13 11 12 12 Dance 10 12 10 10 10 Visual arts . 14 20 14 14 17 Public media 5 3 2 3 3 Literature 3 4 4 6 2 Combinations of performing,arts 5 4 6 6 3 5 Combinations of art forms 18 16 31 23 15 Other art forms 10 5 3 7 4 Without New York State NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. -145-- The project expenditures of the New York State Council on the Arts did not differ greatly in fiscal 1974 from the distribution by art form of all 55 agencies in total, so that removing New York from the calculations does not significantly change the overall distribution. For no single art form did the total without New York differ bY more than three percentage points from the total of all 55 state arts agencies. 188. -146- 0 Table 73 DISTRIBUTION BY ART FORM OF PROJECT EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL 1974, BY TOTAL AGENLIES AND BY TOTAL AGENCIES WITHOUT NEW YORK (Dollar amounts in thousands) Total Agencies Total Project ExpeadHtures 34 553 100 ---, Music 7 771 23 Orchestral-, chamber, etc. 4,326 13 Opera 1,213 4 Jazz, folk, ethnic 402 1 Choral 217 1 Rock, popular 12 * 00er 139 * Combinations within music 1,462 4 Theatre 4 195 12 Plays, musicals 4,074 12 Other 121 Dance Modern .Ballet . Ethnic, ,folk Mime, pantomime Other Combinations within dance 3,547 1,069 852 77 34 142 1,372 'Combinations of Performing Arts 1 741 Visual Arts 4 909 -Painting, drawing, graphics 484 'Crafts - 417 Seuleture 177 Photography 141 Other 245 ."'Combinations within visual arts 3,445 10 3 2 4 5 14 1 1 1 10 Public Media 1 673 5 Film 803 2,. Television 686 2 Video 68 * Radio 18 * Other 9 * Combinations within public media 89 * / Literature 1 097 3 Poetry 469 ,1 Playwriting 8 * Fiction 7 *' Translations 3 * Other 6 * Crbinations within literature 605 2 Other Art Forms Architecture and environmental arts Folk arts Multi-media ' Other Combinations of Art Forms Non-Arts Humanities Field' 1 833 5 962 3 291 1 184 1 396 6 042 17 1 745 Total Without New York 19 440 100 4 789 25 3,176 16 561 3 178 '1 185 1 9 18 662 3 2 314 12 2,301 12 13 1 937 10 422 2 633 3 46 12 790 4 890 5 3 055 16 426 2 342 2 137 1 33 8 2,104 It 537 318 73 68 18 9 51 3 2 723 4 441 2 A 4 6' 265 -1 728 344 /2 151 / 184 1 49 4 265 22 202 1 NATIONAL RESEARCWCENTER OF THe ART5..INC. -147- Distribution by Art Form of the Recipients The art forms in which project expenditures were made naturally vary by the recipients of the expenditures. Not unexpectedly, for example, 85% of project expenditures to art museums in fiscal 1974 was in the visual arts and 94% of the expenditures to visual arts organizations other than museums. Correspondingly, 99% of expenditures made to ilro- fessional performing arts organizations and of expenditures to non- . professional performing arts organizations was in the performing arts. Some interesting patterns do appearlhoweverin looking at the distribution of art 7forMs by those primary recipients that reteiNed at least $1,000,000 in project expenditures. Expenditures made to thg state arts agency itself focused on the visual arts (23%), with a lower than average 5% in music'and 4% in theatre. A relaiive.ly high 36% of expenditures to the state arfs agency itself was in a combination of art forms. Similarly; half (50%) of project expenditures to local cduncils assisied a combination of.art forms, i.e., the funds weire for_the support of a number of art forms. One of the sharpest divergences from the overall distribution of project expenditures by aft forms was seen in the foundastions not associated with arts agencies. A majority (59%) of experiditura to these foundations was in dance, which accounted for only 10% of total project expenditures. * . As noted earlier, many dance companies.have formed foundations associated with them as a means of obtaining finandial support, and thus in those cases the project expenditure may be made to the foundation rather than to the performtng arts orgatization itself. Total IlUitS.C.i..21Pladitureq Music Orchestral, chamber, etc. Ope ra Jazz, folk, ethnic 9roral Rock, popular Other Combinations within music Theatre Plays, musicals Others ,Dance Modern Ethnic, folk Mime, pantomime Other Combinations within dance Combinttions of Performing Arts Visual Arta Painting, drawing, graphics Crafts Sculptur Photogra Ity Other .Combinati ns within visual arts 'ulslic Media Film . Television 1 9 :Video -1Radio Other Combinations within public media = , Table 74 DISTRIBUTION BY ART FORM OF PROJECT EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL 1974, BY PRIMARY RfCIPIENT! , . (Dollar amounts in thousands) Total Agencies Priparx itlocipicntp, + Professional "Other" Communicy Performing Arcs and Own or Colleges Arts Cultural St..te Municipal and Orani- (Irgani- Arts Cultural Arts Art Umiyer- zations zations Agency Centeis Coanalls Museums sities ..., Z12112 S7 950 85,92 $4 137 $2 151 ql 755 S1,651 $1 447 100 100 100 7 771 23 4,325 13 1,213 4 402 1 218 2 12 1139 1,462 4 - /41195 12 4 074 12 ;121 31547 10 1,069 3 852 2. 77 ' 34 143 1,372 s4 5 f ITILL 4 909 14 484 1 1 417 1 177 1. ? 141 245 1 31,445 10 11673 5 803 2 686 2 68 18 9 89 * 52 20 -37 9 9 1 2 1 1 1 * * 1 1 2 '7 31 6 31 5 * 1 14 5 * 5 1 5 * * * 2 Non- Foundations Professional Not Ppio.ming Associated Visaal Sch ols Arts with StaLL Arts nd Organri- Arts Organi- ool zations Agenclus zations S4stems 511,248 $1 097 $1 063 $1.026 100 5 1 2 1 2 4 4 10 2 * - -.. 8 . 3 23 2 3 1 * - 17 3 , 3 -* * - * 100 22 1 1Z * .. _ 9 5 5 * 15 * 1 * 13 14 7 1 * * 'ft - 6 8 5 3 * - * % 100 9 * 1 * * 2 4 -3 1 . 4 1 1 * 2 6 15 1 3 1 * 2 8 2 1 - 1 100 , * ,- * * * * 1 1 - - -_ 85 7 * * 1 9 68 3. 1 1 * 1 . ''.. t .100 26 2 3 1 * * 5 17 17 *-- . 13 . -3 2 1 * * 5 . 10 12 2 1 1 * ,. i * 8 i 45 3 1 * * * o, . z 100 100 7 * - * * * 5 7 1 59 32 14 * * 12 1 5 * * * * 4 10 7 . 2 // / _ 10 =-. / * * -- - - 10 10 1 6 * 67 2 1 40 7 1 4 * * 3 34 * 22 2 1 3 1 o 1 4 3 - * ... ... _ _ (continued) % 18 ION, * 1 rilli 1 CA * ammi * 11 Ca). riga 0 ;1-', Table 74 DISTRIBUTION BY ART FORM OF PROJECT EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL 1974, BY PRIMARY RECIPIENTS (continued) a) vi (Dollar amounts in thousand's) Wm A 21 ,,,, . Q 0 .4 I 0m Prima7 Recipients Z -i Non-. Foundations M 11 Community Professional Not -0Wn ----- or Colleges Perlming Associated Visiail Schools 0 State and with State Arts and Municipal -4 rirl Arts Cultural Arts Art Univer- Arts, OrganiT School Agency Centers Councils Museums sities l'ait51:in-s Agencies zatioAS Systems V) 7. ' % Z 7 - '4 X Literature Total Agencies Professional Performing Arts Organi- zations "Other" Arts and Cultural Organi- rations $ 1 097 % 3 1 * * * * 2 5 2 1 1 i 5 % * * * * * 1 % 7 I * * * 6 a 5 1 * 2 24 Poetry ' Plvwriting Fiction ' \Translations Other, Combinations within literature Other Art Forms . ......1.--... 469 8 , 7 3 6 604 1 833 Architecture and environmental arts a FOlk hs Multi-media Other Combinations of Art Forms --4__ 962 291 184 396 6 042 Non-Arts Hu;anities Field . 1 745t-- 10. -E.: * - 4 5 3 1 * 1 36 1 1 * * * A. * 1 * 1 _ 25 2 1 1 * * * 1 2 50 _ - - - 5 2 3 * - 5 -- 3 1 * 1 4 _- * * 3 1 9 - . - *_ - * -- _._>- ; 2 - - - 5 5 * - * * 1 _ * _ -- 7 6 - *. 1 9 6 1 2 . - 1 . 1 I- x- .o t II ....Z II Ci IV M101 g CO 1.93 a 19; -150- Sources.of Funds for Expenditures in,Art Forms The distribution of project expenditures-among-the2Various_art torus differed only slightly by the sources Of the funds for those ex- penditures.. Of the relatively small'amount of funds ($295,000) deriVed- from federal sources othe'r than the National Endowment for the Arts, a higher than average 25% was in literature, all oT it in poetry.* Similarly, of the $989,000'derived from local government grants and private funds, a higher than average 1'4% went into architecture and the *environmental arts. Otlierwise, however, there was no pattern evident in the dis- tribution of funds by source among the art forms. "ma *As moted in Chapter I, a large proportion of funds from federal sources other than the National Erdowment for the Arts was accounted for by Office of Edu- ,,cation grants made through the St. Paul Council on the ,*rts for the poetry program. -0 . Table 75-, DISTRIBUTION BY ART FORM OF PROJECT WENDITURES IN FISCAL 1974, BY SOURCE OF FUNDS (Dollar amounts in thousands) end itures Total Agencies $ 34 553 100 Music 7 771 23 Orchestral, chamber, etc. 4,326 13 Opera 1,213 4 Jazz, folk, ethnic 402 1 Choral 217 1 Rock, popular 12 Other 139 Combinations within music 1,462 4 Theatre 4 195 12 Plays, musicals .2. 4,074 12 Other 121 * Dance 3 547 10 Modern ---1--- 1,069 3 Ballet 852 2 Ethnic, folk 77 * Mime, pantomime 34 * Other 143 * Combinations within dance 1,372 4 Combinations of Posicaalag_irts 1 741 5 --2--- Visual Arts 4 909 14 Painting, drawing, graphics 2-- 484 1 Crafts 417 1 Sculpture% 177 1 Photography 141 * Other 245 1 Combinations within visual arts liublic Media 3,445 1 673 10 Film a 803,,. -;"?.. 2 Television 686 2 Video 68 * Radio 18 * Other 9 ' * Combinations within public media 89 * 196 Federal State Total 'National Endowment For the Arts Other Federal Total Basic State OtherAl Agency Grant aants : 23 181 $10 383 $10 088 $7 638 $2 450 $295 % 100 100 -- 100 -__-_-_-. 100 100 100 -z-...-_..- .-x-_-- _ 25 21 21 Th- 13 12 13 16 2 - 4 3 3 3 2 - 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 * - * * * * * - 1 * * * - - 5 3 3 . 4 1 - 12 12 12 14 5 - 12 12 12 14 5 - * * * * - - 9 12 12 9 22 - 3 2 3 1 7 2 3 3 4 2 - * * * * * - * * -* * * - 1 * * * - - 3 6 3 13 - 5 4 4 5 3 14 14 14 15 12 - 1 2 2 2 1 - 1 1 1 ' , 2 1 -1 * 1 1 1 1 - 1 * * * * - 1 * * * * - 10 9 40 10 9 - 6 '7 , 3 3 3 5 - 2 2 s - 3 ie * * - - * * k* * _ * , * * * * * * * * * * * _ I , (continued) 4 .Table 75 DISTRIBUTION BY ART FORM OF PROJECT EXPENDrTORES IN FISCAL .1974, BY SOURCE OF FUNDS (continued) (Dollar amounts in Thousands) Federal Total National Endowment For the Arts_' Basic State Otherif Agency Grant Grants Other Federal Total Agencies State Total 7/ Other- % Literature 1 097 3 2 4 4 2 9 25 8 Poetry 469 1 1 3 2 1 7 25 2 Playwriting 8 * , Fiction 7 * Translations 3 Other 6 * Combinations within literature 604 2 1 2 6 Other Art Forms _1,833_ 5 6 4 4 6 2 1 14 . Architecture and environmental arts ____ 962 3 3 2 2 3 14 Folk arts 291 1 1 1 1 1 Multi-media 184 1 1 1 2 1 Other 396 * 2 1 Com4lations of Art ForMs 6,042 18 ......... 14 25 425 20 34 73 18 ---\.; 4. Non-Arts Humanitie,, Field 1 745 5 7 _1. 1. 1 1 1 1/ Includes Endowment Treasury Fund grants and other grants. 2/ Includes local government grants and private funds. 7 Less than 0.5%. 193 19J % NATIONAL RES.EARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. Types of Activity Assisted by Project Expenditures In addition to determinin3 the recipients of project expenditures and the art forms in which the expelditures were made, the survey asked the agencies to specify ttse activities assisted by the expenditures, i.e., the use to which the funde were put. .The types of activity were spelled out to the agencies in a list of 29 activpies drawn up in cooperation with the consultant directors and other experte. Approximately $3.00 in every $10.00=of project expenditures in fiscal 1974 was primarily made for the ftogram support of an ihstitu- tion or organization, by far the: largest amount for a single type of activity. Another $1.60 of each $10.00 went for staff ialgy support, $1.40 for basic or general operating support of an institution or organization, and $1.20 for direct support of individual artists for specific services. The amounts of prolect expenditures by the primary .activity for which they were made were: $10,120,000.(29%) for program support of institution or - organization. --.$5,571,00g (16%) for staff salary support: --,$4,876,000 (14%) for baeic (or general operating) support of institution or organization. -- $4,294,000 (12%) for direct support of individual artists for specific servicest such as classroom teaching, park programs, etc. $2,330,000 (7%) for touring, with $1,532,000 (4%) for in-state touring, $703,000 (2%) for touring from ()Zit of State into -154- the state, and $95,000 (less than 0.5%) from .within the state to out of state. , -- $1,743,000 (5%)--to aitists-in-schools projects. ----- -- $902,000 (3%) to artists-fh-residence projects. . .,,,.. , $754,000 (2%) to miscellaneous edudaition projects (scholar- . ships,..fellowships, lectures, courses, etc.). ' -- 1% each for informationa 'publications, conferences and other information sources ($478,000), commissionby \ organization of visual arts creations ($437,000),"com- mission by organization of performing arts creations ($312,Q00), conservation and preservation ($310,000), audience development ($304,000), improvement of the visual environment ($281,000), community or neighborhood arts development $239,000), support of prokramming via the media -($237,000), technical asbistance 0230,000), direct .support of individual artists in pursuit of thdir art ($218,000), and research ($200,000). -- less than 0.5% each for experimentation within art forms ($156,000), documentation (oral history, etc,)($130,000), diterary publications ($109,000), establishment of new cultural organizations ($98,000), purchase by_arts organ- ization of vidual arts objects ($71,000), arts management training ($43,000), communication/collaboration between sections of ;he cultural community ($27,000), humanitied projects ($18,000) and m cellaneous other activities ($65,000). S. \ NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. -155- The "program support" category, for which a plurality of expend- itures were made; 1.6 a somewhat all-encompassing type of activityl and the . large Proportion of expenditures made for.this purpOse indicates that state. arts agencies tend to view project expenditures going more for general types of activlties than for the specific uses listed. This could be interpreted' as a leaning Eoward general rather than project support, an interpretation reinforced by the relatively high 16% of expenditures for staff salary sup- port and r4%.that actually'did go.for basic operating supPor. The 13% of project expenditures made for direct support of indivi- dual artists (12% for services and li in pursuit of their work) is another indication that despite the_small percentage of artists among primary recip- . ients the states were making an effort to support the individuaiartists as / secondary recipients,-Furthermore, a substantial 8% of project expenditures are largely for individual.artists, 5% through artists-in-schools projects and 3% in artists-in-residence projects. The only other type of activity accounting for a major proportion 'of pwject expenditures was touring, with more than half of the 7% expended on touring being used for tours entirely within the state boundaries. Types of Activity Assisted by Proiect Expenditures, by State Some states describe a'very "large proportion of their project el- penditures under the "program support" category; 75% of the fiscal 1974 project expenditures in Puerto Rico was characterized under this category, as was 79% in California, 90% in Utah, and all 100%'in Alabama. The proportion of funds going to some of the types of activities varied greatly among individual states.. Staff salary support, for example, which was an activity assisted by 16% of total project expen- -156-- ditures, accounted for none of the expenditures in 19 agencies, but rose as -high as 307. each in.New Mexico and New York. Vven sharper differences were seen in pmject expenditures for basic support of institutions and organi1.10 zations: 18 agencies made no project expenditures for,q)tsic support and , 'another 26. sgent less than*$1.00 in.$4.00 for this, but the proportion rose as high as 49% of expenditures foebasic support of institutions and organi- 2 ,gations in Missouri ahd 73%,in North Daknta. Touring was another activity for which the proportion txpended.dif- fered*sharp1y among itates. Touring withi51 the state, which accounted- fer only 4% of project expenditures overall, received at least $1.00 in every $4.00 in Kansas (27%),'Wisconsin .(28%), Indiana (41%) and Maryland (47%)? indicating the movement of indigenous cultural're'sources throughout those .states. In contrast, states with a lack of cultural resources were naturally more likely to bring in outside touring organizatiqns or individuals, and touring from out of state into the state -- 27 of overal project expendi- tures ----accounted for' -33% QS the eXpenditures in Alaska and 257 in Guam. I New York State, a high 264 of project expenditures was for direct support of individual artists for specifiC services;.in this Nppect it should s be remembered that individual artists were not primary recipients of any Pro- ject 'expenditures of the New York agency. The entire 267. was subgranted. .0 As noted in Chapter I, in Hawaii 1% o the funds for the construe- d tion of state buildings is spent for art.works, and these funds ard reflected -in the high 50% of project expenditures in Hawaii going for the commission of visual 'arts creations.. 1 0.7 Table 76 PRIMARY ACTIVITY ASSISTED BY PROJECT EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL 1974, BY STATE (Doller amounts in thousands) 0 <1. Amer- Con- District Total lean Ari- Arkan- Cali- Colo- nect- Dela- of s Agencies Alabama Alaska Samoa zona sas fornia rado iota ware Columbia Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois $ X Total Protect Expenditures 34 553 $26.2 $398_ §.129. $229 $415 $938 $217 $938 $186 $139 $421 Eats Qc".1 $672 $164 $730 .==.... -- z X X X % X % % % X X X X 2 X X 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 la) .191 loo loo loo Program support of institution or . organization 10,129 29 100 8 7 16 56 79 65 16 29 49 38 46 15 25 21 62 a Staff salary,support 5,571 16 1 I 9 1 7 4 10 - - . _ - 3 Basic (or kzeneral operAting) . , support of institution or 4 organization 4,876 14 t 1 25 ,21 7 * 30 22 16 6 17 Direct support of individual ayt- \ ists for specific servioes, such as elassrodm teaching, park programs, etc. 4,294 12 * - 7 * 3 1 1 - . 1 2 19 * 2 1 Touring 2,330 7 44 47. 16 2 * 5 7 19 13 7 35 9 11 1 (Touring within state) (1,532) (4) (-) (9) (-) (11) (2) (*) (1) (1) (17) 1-) (6) (7) (-) (2) (4) (I) 4 (Touying (rom out of state into state) (703) (2) (-) . (33) (14) (5) (-) (-) (4) ?5) (2) (-) (7) (-) (25) (7) (6) (-) (Touring from within state to out of state) , (95) (*) (-) (3) (33) (-) (-) (-) (-) (1) (-) (-) (-) (-) (10) (-) (1) (-) Artists-in-schools projects 1,743 5 16 - 9 26 * 14 9 12 15 19 17 1 11 3 t Artists-in-residence projects , 902 3 7 - 2 1 - 2 5 9 1 5 - - 3 5 i- vg. Other educacion projects (scholar- 1 ships, fellowships, lectures, 904ples, etc.) 754 2 10 11 5 5 2 2 4 18 3 1 1 * 16 6 Iniormational publications, conferences spd other informatiogal sources 478 q - 1 1 1 3 5 8 * 1 1 2 5 Commission by organization of visual arts creations 437 1 1 10 - 1 * 50 7 1 Commission by organization of t performing arts creations 312 1 2 1 * 1 1 * Conservation/preservation 310 1 1 _ _ 1 2 * Audience development 304 1 - * 6 - 1 7 11 1 6 Improvement of visual environment 281 1 - * . - 0 Communy or neighborhOod arts development 239 1 1 * * 2 3 .5 2 2 Support of programming via tge media 237 1 2 1 * - ; 2 1 Technical assistance 230 1 - * * 2 4 1 2 * * Direct support.oE indiyidual arttsts .." fn pursuit of their art 218 1 * 3 1 . 3 * 5 * 2 * t Research 200 1 4 1 1 - - * Experimentation within art forms 156 * - 1 2 3 6 1 * Documentation (oral history, etc.) 130 * 1 3 * - 2 - 2 2 1 Literary publications 1 109 * - 1 * 2 * * 4. - * Establishment of new cultural . organizations 98 * ? 1 2 * (Continued) 2U,1 0 13 0 0 rri :)Ciii Table 76 PRIHARY ACTIVITY ASSISTED BY PROJECT EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL lyia, oF alATL (Coociauvd) (Dollar amounts in thousands) Total Proiect Expenditures Total Agencies Amer- * Con- ican Ari- Arkan- Cali- Colo- nect- Dela- Alabama Alaska Samoa zona sas fornia rado !cut ware District of Columbia Florlda Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois 1111 moot (.1""). 1.44/ 7:18 /4 :1121/ 34 § 553 100 $398_ MO $229 $415 §938 $217 $938 $186 il39 $421 $368 $61 $672 $164 % loo op Purchases by organization of visual arts objects Arts management training Communications/collaboration between sections of cultural .- community Humanities project Other 71 43 27 18 65 % loo % % no no % loo * z 100 % loo 1 Z loo 2 * % loo am. '* % loo % loo % % loo .100 loo % loo 1 * 1 1 * 6 * V (Continued) c;4* * 20k; 2U7 Total Project Expenditures Tots2 Agencies $ 34 553 Program support of institutioJor organization J 10,120 29 Staff salary support* 5,571 16 Basit (or general operSting) support of institution or organization 4,876 14 Direct support of individual art- ists for specific services, such as classroom teachIng, park ,programs, etc. 4,294 12 Touring 4 2,330 7 (Touring within state) -(1,532) (4) (Touring from out of state into state) (703) (2) (Touring from within state to out of state) (95) (*) Artists-In-schools projects 1,743 5 Artists-in-residence prejects % 902 3 Other education projects (scholar- ships, fellowships, lectures courses, etc.) 754 2 Informational publications, conferences and other informational sources 478 1 Commission by organization of visual arts creationl .437 1 Commission by ogAnization of performing arts creAtions 312 1 Conservation/preservation 310 1 Audience development 304 1 Improvement of visual environment 281 Community or neighborhood Urts development 239 I Support of programing via the media 237 1 Technical asistance' 230 1 Direct support of individual artists in pursuit of their art 218 1 Research 200 1 Experimentation within art forms 156 Documentation (oral history; etc.) 130 . * Literary publications 109 Establishment of new cultural organizations 98 100 2 u Z:> --I . Table.76 o nultAky ACTIVITY ASSISTED BY PROJECT EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL 1974, BY STATE (Continued) Z (Dollar amounts In thousands) ir Il PI 1/ Massa- Mis- Ken- Loui- Ramp- New New New MM kary- au- Mich- Minner sis- His- Hon- Ne- New > Indiana lowa Kansas tucks/ miens Maine land setts igan sott sippi souri tans bricks Nevada shire Jersey Mexico York 170I $185 $254 $209 $342 $124 $312 $510 5558 5715 $439 $209 $742 $142 $178 $134 $201 5582 $1.75 Iliyila % , % % % ; Z % % % % 7: % % % % % % % r) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 I ZM -1M 2 54 30 '40 66 25 21 59 20 29 46 35 24 28 45 39 42 31 16 X 11 4 4 17 11 8 * 18 8 - 17 - 1 11 3 30 30 01 -1 W ' ., m 7 4 - - 20 2 32 1 6 49 29 31 33 29 17 rri ). V) -I 6 * 3 5 1 - 3 1 1 1 a 6 - 6 3'. * 26 P 47 1 41 .5 29 47 5 11 26 15 9 24 31 14 3 3 5 * F C) (41) (1) (27) (4) (-) (16; (47) (5) (11) (18) (2) (3) (16) (13) (14) (-) (3) (5) (5) P CP (5) (*) (9) (-) (-) (13) (*) (-) (*) (8) (13) (6) (8) (18) (-) (3) (-) (-) (-) "0 i so ..., .... (') (-) (5) (I) (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) (-` (-) (-) < (-) (-) (-) va 1 2 6 5 10 3 * 8 1 * , 15 2 121 2_2 1 "ON 12 19 8 12 3 15 3 9 14 8 * 1 - * I 1 4 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 3 * 7 * 2 3 2 WO 7 4 2 * 7 9 3 4 3 * 1 2 1 % 2 1 1 1 * 3 * 1 1 . 1 * W ( * 1 * * * 1 * 1 * 1 * - 1 1"111 1 - 5 3 * * _ 1 4 1 rri 4 1 * a a * a * i 1 4 2 * a * 1 2 2 1 1 1 * 1 2 * 3 * 3 1 * 3 * 1 * * 2 1 3 * - . - 1 1 1 7 * 2 * 6 * 6 4 1 * a 1 2 * 4 - 1 1 - * * * 2 1 _ 1 * * 1 * 1 1 1 a 1 1 1 * a - 1 1 2 1 1 * 2 2 * * (Continued) 20J $7,1, Total Project Expenditures Total Agencies X 34,553 100 == PUrchases by organization of visual arts objects 71 Arts management training 43 Communications/collaboration between,sections of cultural community 27 * Humanities project 18 * Other 65 * 1/ Based on incomplete data. 21 Table 76 PRIMARY ACTIVITY ASSISTED BY PROJECT EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL 1974, BY STATE (Continued) (Dollar amounts in thousands) Massa- Mis- Ken- Loui- Mary- ghu- Mich- Minna- sis- Mis- Mon- Ne Indiana Iowa Kansas_tucky siana Maine land setts igan sota sippi souri tana brask New Hamp- New ilew New Nevada shire Jersey Mexico-York $385 $254 $209 $342 $124 $312 $510 $558 $715 $439 $209 $742 $142 $178 $134 .% 100 $201 $582 Z, 100 % 100 X 100 X 100 X 100 % 100 %-- 100 1 --% % 11----192_ 2 1 Z" }.1)0 X 100 % 100 % 100 1 100 11 X 100 2 X 100 (Continued) $17; 24.1129 X 100 1 too COlk ...qt 21i C"). Total Agencies Total Project Expenditures 34, _553 122 Program'support of institution or organization 10,12.0 29 Staff salari support tasic (or general operating) support of institution or organization 5,571 4,876 16 14 Direct support of individual art- ists for specific services, such as classroom teaching, park programs, etc. 4,294 12 Touring 2,330 7 (Touring within'state) (1,532) (4) (Touring.from out of statZ,. into state) (703) (2)' (Touring from within state ' to out of state) (95) ( * ) Artists-in-schools projects 1,743 Artists-in-residence projects 902 3 Other education,projects (scholar- ships, fellowships, lectureS, courses, etc.) 754 2 Informational publicationsi conferences and other informational sources 478 1 Commission by organization of visual arts creations 437 1 Commission by organization of performing arts creations 312 1 Conservation/preservation 310 1 Audience development: 304 1 Improvement of visual environment 281 Community or neighborhood arts development 239 1 SuPPort of programming via the media 237 1 Technical assistance 230 1 Direct support of individual artists in pursuit of their art 218 1 gesearch 200 1 Experimentation within art forms 156 Omcnsentation (oral history, etc.) 130 piterary publications 109 Establishaent of new cultural t organizations 98 N. 212 ,-Table 76 PRIMARY ACTIVITY ASSISTED BY PROJECT EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL 1974, BY STATE (Continued) (Dollar amounts in thousands) North Penn- Caro- North Okla- syl-, Puerto Rhode lina Dakota Ohio homa Oregon vania Rico Island 42, 12,42 zo; 122 loo Ijo 22 17 14 9 3 3 1 3 1 5 2 6 1 11.22 1.2i2 1.41 100 loo 24 53 52 42 65 75 18 8 9. 7 2 1 73 3 1 1 22 4 17 2 8 8 5 27 7 12 9 (-) (5) (19) (4) (-) (12) (6) (-) (-) (8) .(3) (-) (-) (3) (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) 10 21 6 2 5 8 27 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 5 3 2 3 5 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 West Caro- SouEh Ten- Ver- Virgin Vir- Nash- Vic= Nis- lina nessee Texas Utah mont ialands ginia ington ginia coxisin 100 11fA 100 100 100 100 IN /j4e4 loo 100 100, 100 122 8 20 48 26 90 49 31 49 42 42 17 35 6 * 4 4 - 2 5 I .. 2 15 19 9 37 7 7 3 - * 2 * 25 - 1 14 27 2 12 1 17 17 16 28 14 (7) (21) (1) (10) (*) (-) (6) (3) (16) (16) (28) (12) (5) (6) (1) (2) (-) (-) (11) (-) (1) (-) (*) (2) (2) (-) (-) (-) (a) ( -) (-) (-) ( * ) ( -) (-) (-) 12 4 14 30 8 25 12 5 3 1 7 34 8 7 3 1 3 24 31 3 1 20 3 3 2 14 1 1 2 2 1 a 2 5 1 2 1 1 5 1 21 10 1 2 2 a 2 1 5 1 3 1 a 6 1 1 7 2 1 a a 1 4 2 6 6 1 6 1 * 12 1 1 11. 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 I. 2 1 (Continued) 213 321 ras Table 76 PRIMARY ACTIVITY ASSISTED BY PROJECT EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL 1974, BY STATE (Dollar amounts in thousands) Total A encies North Caro- North Ok1a- lina Dakota Ohio homa Penn- syl- Oregon vania $ Total Project Expenditures 14,551 $364 4169 .22i2 42z 4 ;. 12.2 422 422 100 220 no Purchases by organization of visual arts objects 71 Arts management training 43 * 2 Communicationi/collaboration between sections of cultural community Humanities ptoject 18 Other 65 0 (Continued) \s/ South Weat Puerto Rhode Caro- South Ten- Ver- Virgin Vir- Wash- Vir- Wig- Wyom- Rico Island lina Dakota nessee Tèxas Utah mont Islands ftbila..ington ginia consin ing 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 4 4 4 4 .241 4 to '2, 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Igg 100 loo 422 rn 1 2 1 1 1 C:31 P :3Z11 re" NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF me ARTS; INC. -163- No major differences in the distribution of project expenditures by primary activity was seen by tile' size of the total budgets of agencies, except that a somewhat larger proportion (51%) of project expenditures of the larger budget agencies ($750,000 and over in total expenditares), not including New York, were for program support, and a smaller proportion (5%) for touring: Taiie 77 PRIMARY ACTIVITY ASSISTED BY PROJECT EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL 1974, , BY TOTAL EXPENDITURES (Dollar amounts in thousands)- vw Total Agencies Expenditures Below $250 000 $250,000- $499,999 $500,000- $749 999 (Number of agencies) Total project expenditures (55)" $34,553 (15) $2 293 (20) $5 501 (10) $5 313 100 100 100 100 Program support of institu- tion or organization 29 32 43 31 Staff salary support 16 4 6 6 Basic (or general operating) support of institution or organization 14 17 6 4 11 Direct support of individual artists for specific services 12 2 4 2 Touring 7 14 14 17 (Touring within state) (4) (8) (10) (11) (Touring from out of state into state) (2) (4) (4) (5) (Touring from withlestate to out of state) (*) (2) (*) (1) ArtisSts-in-schools projects 5 9 12 11 Artists-in-residence,projects 3 6 4 5 Other eddcation projects 2 4 2 2 a Percentages do not total 100 because onlytajor activities (those.that received at least $500,000 in project expenditures) are listed. **Without New York. 21d $750,000** and above 100 51 4 -164- Primary Activity by Art Form' Some'sharp differencs in the distribution of project expenditures by primary activity is seen within the art forms in which We expenditures 0 were made. Higher proportions of the expenditures were made for basic sup- port within the performing arts (music 23%, theatre 227., and dance 14%)than - in public media (97.), visual arts (5%), or 1iteratufe('3%). Darect suppott of artists for specific services accounted for larger proportions of expendi- tures in the perfoxming arts' (17% each in mUsic, theatre and dance), and in 0 literature (16%), compared with only 4% in public medik and the visual arts. A much higher than average 26% of expenditures in literature was for artists- in-schoOls projects, accounting for a plurality of such project expenditures. In other art forms, however, a plurality of expenditures were made for program .0. support. BEST COPY AVAILABLE KAT1O1L RESEARCH CENTER Or THE4ARTS. INC. -....0, . 0 * OM -165- Table 78 PRIMARY ACTIVITY ASSISTED BY PROJECT EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL 1974, BY ART 'FORM (Dollar amounts in thomends) 4 rotal Project Expenditures Total Agencies Music Dance Theatre , Literature 1.2116111 .% 100 I7771 -l412.1 % 100 116922. % 100 1% 5 3 16 41 - Program support of institution or organization Staff salary supPort Sasig (or general operating) support of iristituOin or organization . , Direct support of individual artists for specific services, such as classroom teaching, park programs, etc. % 100 ,22.1.5.47 % 100 25 5 14 17 29 16 14 12 31 7 23 ' 17 30 11 .22 17 rouring 7 11 16 8 * (Touring within, state) (4) (8) , (6) (7) (-) (Touring from out of state into state) -L./ (2) (2) (10) (1) (*) (Touring from within state to out of state) (*) (1) (*) (*) (-) Artists-in-sChools projects 5 1 6 2 26 Artists-in-residence projects 3 2 8 * 5 Other education projects (scholzraLps, fellow- ships, lectures, couis,ek, etc.) 2 1 - 3 1 7 Informational publications, conferences and other inforeation ioutces * 1 , 1 2 Coneasslon by o63anization of visual arta creatiohd. ,11. 1 Commission by organization of performing arts creatiohs 1 .. 3 2 * * Conservation/preservation 1 - * Audience development 1 1 2 2 - ImproVement of visual environment ' 1 4 - . Community of neighborhood arts development 1 * * 1 * Support cf programming via the media 1 41 - * ' 1 Technical assistance 1 ,* * 2 1 Director support of individual artists in pursuit of their art 1 * * !1 4 Research 1 * ,e * Experimentation within art forms * * * 1 6 ,...Docatentation (oral history, etc.) * * * * Li;eraly publicattOns * * 5 Establishmkst of new cultural organization * 1 * * * Purchases by organization of visual arts objects. * - - Arts management training . * * * Communications/collaboration betwgen sections of cultutal community Humanities projects. Other .4" 21 c5 o . °that. ,Public Visual Art _bedia Arts 2,2111.- Zia 1141122 Alai . 4^ 1 100 34 21 9 4 * (*) (*) (-) 100 % X 122, , 32 23 11 11. 2 (1) (1) (-) 32 27 5 4 5 (4) (1) (-) 5 5 7 4 3 1 . 4 3 2 2 1 2 1 8 * , * 1 * 2 * * * * 2 * 1 ,1 10 * * * 1 1 1 3... * . * 1 1 1 * * 1 * 1 * 1 * - * * * . 1 - * * . '* 1 % -166- / Primary Activity by Primary Recipient As would be expected, the type of activity assisted differs wit,h1 the recipient of the funds. For example, 48% of project expenditures made to att museums was for llaff salary support, compared with only 2% of expend-: e iture6 to'colleges and universities for such support. The channeling of fun& to individuals through intermediary-grantees is again evident here, with 18% of the expenditures made to professional performing arts organizations, 22% of the expenditures to foundations not assOciated with the s.tate arts agen- cies, and 29% of the expenditures to miscellaneous arts and cultural organi- zations being made primarily for the direct support of individual artists for specific services. Artists-in-schools projects accounted for a plurality of 25% .of protject expendituras made to the state arts agencies themselves and 36% of funds to schouls and school systems. AM. 21 Table 79 PRIMARY ACTIVITY ASSISTED BY PROJECT EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL 1974, BY PRIMARY RECIPIENTS a (Dollar amounts in thousands) . .. Total Prolect Expenditures Total Agencies Professional "Ocher" Performing Arts and Arts Cultural Organi- Organi- zations zations Own State Arts Agency Cultural Centers 34 553 4bo $7.950 85 925 $4 137 $2 15: Program support of institution or loo loo loo loo organization 10,120 29 28 27 23 40 Staff salary suppOrt 5,571 16 10 17 4 19 Basic (or general operating) support of institution or organization 4,876 14 26 10 23 Direct support of individual artists for sp%cific services, such as classroom teaching, ptark programs, etc. 4,294 12 18 29 I 9 Touring 2,330 7 , 10 2 42 1 (Touring within suite) (1,532) (4) (8) (2) (5) (1) (Touring from out of state into state) (703) (2) (2) (*) ',6) (*) (Touring from within state to out of state) (95) (A) (*) (*) (1) (-) Artists-in-schools projects 1,743 5 1 1 25 1 Attists-in-residence projects 902 3 1 2 5 1 Oiher education projects (scholar- ships, fellowships, lectures, =trans, etc.) 754 2 1 3 1 2 Informational publications, clon- terences and other information seprces 478 1 * 1 5 Commission by organization of visual arts creations 437 1 * ....9., Commission by organization Of performing arts creations 312 1 3 * * 1 Conservation/preservation 510 1 1. 3 Audience development 304 1 1 - 1 2 Improvement of visual environment 281 1 * * Community or neighborhood arts development 239 '1 * 1 1 * 22) z \ (11 0X Non- Foundations i , Professional Nor.' 0 I Community M I or Colleges Performing Associated Visual Sesaols Z 'Municipal and Arts with itace Arts and M \ -i Arts Art ;it:V.:et- Organi- Arcs Organi- S.:hod]. A Councils Museums sities zations Agencies zations Systems 01 I \ -4 '$1 755 $1 651 $1.447 $1 248 $1 097 $1 C63 $1 026 M, loo loo loo loo no no .,__. loo ..4 rin 0 ce) ommi C.) 38 29 43 54 13 49 20 g:;) 25 48 2 11 9 ,28 10 1:1 4 9 3 12 39 7 1 4144 . 3 2 5 1 22 4 15 3% 4 16 13 i 2 5 = (1) (3) (10) (11) 0) (2) (3) (2) (1) (6) (1) (*) (-) (1) g (-) (-) (-) (1) (4.) (-) (1) CC, 2 - 2 1 1 36 gc 4 * 8 1 1 4 2, 1 5 2 1 5 4 . 4 3 cts 1 2 1 1 2 * 1 1 3 1 * 1 1 - 1 1 * 1 * * 1 1 1 (Continued) Table 79 ?RIMY ACTIVITY ASSISTED BY PROJECT EXpENDIEURES IN FISCAL 1974, BY PRIMARY RECIPIENTS (Continued) (Dollar amounts iii thousands) Total Akencies $ Support of programming via the media 237 1 Technical assistance 230 1 Direct support of individual artists In Pursuit of their Ort 218 1 Research 200 Experimentation within art forms 156 Documentation (oral history, etc.) Literary publications Establishment o? new cultural organization Purchases by organization of visual arts objects Arts management training Communications/collaboration between sections of cultural community Humanities projects Other 2 '22 j30 1. "109 98 71 43 27' 18 65 Non- Foundations Professional "Other" Community Professional Not Performing Arts and Own . or Colleges Performing Associated Visual Schools Arts Cultural State Municipal and Arts with State Arts and Organi- Organi- Arts Cultural Arts Art Univei- Organi- Arts Organi- School rations rations Agt_y_lc Centers Councils Museums sities rations Akencies 'rations Systems % % % % % % % * gl 1 CO, *lit 1 vwct :11421 * 1 1 * * 1 - 4 1 * * 1 1 * * 1 * 1 1 * * 1 * 6 * * * * 223 NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. -169- Primary Activity by Source of Funds The primary activicy fo'Vwhich a project expenditure was made differed significantly by source of funds. Only 6% of funds from the National Endowment for the Arts used for project expenditures was made for staff salary support, compared with 21% of state funds. Similarly 9% of Endowment funds went to basic support of organization's and institutions compared with 17% of state funds, and only 2% of Endow- ment funds was for the direct support of individual artists for specific services, comPared with 17% of state funds. Artists-in-schools projects, on the other hand, depended greatly on federal'funds. Twelve percent of total Endowment funds -- but 41% of funds' from the Endowment other than basic state agency grants -- used in project expenditures was for artists-in-schools projects, as was 44% of funds from other federal sources, but only 1% of state funds was f6r this type ofactivity. Table 80 PRIMARY ACTIVITYVASSISTED BY PROJECT EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL 1974, BY SOURCE OF FUNDS (Dollar amounts in thousands) 'Total Project Expenditures Program support of institution or Staff salary support Basic (or general operating) or organization Direct support of individual services such as classroom etc. Touring (Touring within state) CTouring from out of state (Touring from within state ArtIsts-inschools projects Artists-in-residence projects Other education projects (scholarships, fellowships, organization support of institution artists for specific ' teaching, park programs, into state) to out of state) lectures, courses, etc.) Federal Total Agencies State Total National Endowment For the Arts Other Federal Other2/ Total Basic State OtherV Agency Grant Grants $ 34 553 $23,181 $10,383 $10 088 $7 638 $2 450 $295 $989 % % % 7. 7. % 100 100 , 100 100 100 100 100 100 10,120 29 28 39 39 43 12 41 20 5,571 16 21 6 6 6 5 6 , 0 4,876 14 17 9 9 10 6 13 4,294 12 17 2 2 2 5 4 1 2,330 7 3 13 14 12 17 15 (1,532) (4) (2) (8) (9) (9) (6) (-) (12) (703) (2) (1) (5) (5) (3) (10) (-) (3) (95) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (1) (-) (*) 1,743 5 1 13 12 '3 41 44 8 902 3 2 5 5 4 9 4 2 754 2 2 3 3 4 1 2 1/ Only those activities for which expenditures of at least $500,000 were made are shown. 2/ Includes Endowment Treasury Fund grants and other grants. 3/ Includes local government grants and private funds. Less than 0.57. J r la r . 0 NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS.INC. -171- Secondary Activities . In addition to the one primary activity or use for which projects expenditUres were made, agencies were asked to inditate'any secondary activ- ities or uses that were also assisted by a project expenditure. As with setondary recipients, the proportion of project expenditures shown as being used for a secondary activity inaitates only that these funds were expended jm, part for such a purpose; the segondary actiVity is only a-supplemental use, and there may be multiple secondary,activities for ahy proiect expendi- ture.- Amofig secondary activities, the general category of program support again ranked highest; however, some types of activities that ranked low on the primary activity list are among the higher secondary activities, partic- ularly support of individual artists for services,educational projects, .tildience development, and community or neighborhood arts' development. 22 i -172- .01. / Table 81 SECONDARY ACTIVITIES ASSISTED.BY PROJECT EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL 1974 (Dollar amounts in thousands) Total ProlectExpenditures Total Agencies 34 553 2.- 100* Program support of institution or organ- ization Direct support of individual artists for specific services, such as classroom teaching, park programs, etc. Other education projects (scholarships, fellowship, lectures, courses, etc.) Audience development Community or neighborhood arts Aevelopment Touring: Touring within state Touring from out of state into state ',Touring from Within state to out of state Technical assistance Staff salary support Communications/collaboration between sections of cultural community Informational publications, conferences and other information sources Artists-in-schools projects Direct support of individual artists in pursuit of their art Artists-in-residence projects Basic (or general operating) support of 2 institution or organization Experimentation within art'forms Documentation (oral history; etc.) Research Purchase'by organization of visual arts objects Improvement of visual environment Conseryation/preservation Commission by organization of performing arts creations Support of programming via the media 10,751 7,347 6,932 5,508 5,255 4,463 655 340 3,512 3,141_ 2,658 2,044 1,726 1,432 1,387 1,124 1,103 1,098 1,028 796 , 676 628 627 477 31 21 20 16 15 13 2 1 10 9 8 5 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 (continued) NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THT'S. INC. -173- Table 81 SECONDARY ACTIVITIES ASSISTED BY PROJECT EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL 1974 (Dollar amounts in thousands) (continued) Total agencies % Literary publitations 310 1 lEstablishment of new cultural organization 288 1 Arts management training 208 1 Commission by organization of visual arts creations 205 Humanities projects 122 * * Other 1,398 4 * Percentages add to more than 100 since multiple responses were possible. ** Less than 0.5%. Initiation of Projects The great majority of project expenditures made in fiscal 1974 was for projects initiated by grantees: -- 72% of expenditures was in response to _grant requests submitted for grantee-initated projects. -- 9% was for projects that were a joint effort of the state arts agency and recipient. -- 8% .was for projects offered by the state arts agency to recipient. -- 11% was for pkojects initiated and administered by the state arts agency. 223 -174- VP At least half of project expenditures in 37 states was made for grantee-Anitiated projects, and in Alabama, the District.' of Columbia, and Pennsylvania, 100% of expenditures was,for projects iatiated by the grantee. Expenditures for projects offered by the agencies, to recipients accodnted for relatively small proportions of funds in almost all states, 4 rising to at least $1.00 in $4.00 only in Maine (25%), Puer'to Rico (33%), .Virgin Islands (34%), and Rhode Island (36%). Joint efforts, on the Other hand, produced projects fbr which a substanfial percentage of expenditures were made in a number of states: more than $1:00 in'$4.00 supported pro- . jects that were joint efforts of the agency and recipient in 12 states, the proportion rising as high as 41% of expenditures in New Jersey, 42% in Ten- nessee, 45% in Michigan, and 487. in Mhryland. Sharp difierences were also seen among states in dile proportion of/ expenditures for agency initiated.and administered projects. No expenditures were made for agency initiated and administered projects in 13 states, but at least half of the funds'were for such projects in Alaska (50%), Louisiana (50% of incomplete project expenditures), Vermon (58%),. South Carolina (61%), Puerto Rico (67%), Hawaii (69%), Texas (72%), and American Samoa'*(10,0%). n 3 , % . 13 , r M0 . Table 82 M INITIATION OF PROJECTS FOR WHICH IPENDITURES WERE MADE IN FISCAL 1474, 8Y STATE Z , (Dollar amounts in thousands) 0 . .. iotal Proiect Expenditures .--.., , Total Agencies $ 34.551s -......-- - 2 .. 100 Grantee initiated project and submitted grant request 24,957 72 Pcoject was offered by state arts agency to recipient 2,795 8 Project was a joint gffort of state arts agency and recipient 3,099 9 Project was initiated and administered by state arts agency ' 3,702 11 231- I 0 ..pt Z District -I .,. Amer- , Con- M XI Ivan Ari-,Arkan- Cali- golo- nect- Dela- of . Alabama Alaska Samoa zona sas fornia 1.ado icut ware Columbia Florida .Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois 1 -1 I $167 $398 ma $229 $415 .7 038 $217 $938 $186 $.139 $421 tag 0.1 $El $a $730 1 ID VC' 2 2 2 7 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 100 100 f00 100' no 100 42 - 25 75 4 - 2 4 * 4 32 - 50 100 41 25 ibo 99 1 - - loo 56 2 21 21 loo 60 10 4 26 loo 59 - 21 20 AD 100 la 76 1 10 13 au 32 13 35 20 Aa IN 1-5 2 14 69 100 37 1 27 35 78 18 4 (Continued) 232 Total Project Expen4itures Grantee initiated project and submitted grant request Project was offered by state arts agency to reciplent Project was a joint effort of state arts agency and recipient 'Project was initiated and administered by state arts agency Total Agencl'es 34,551 solot.0- PON-7 24,957 100 72 2,795 8 3,099 9 3,702 11 1/Based on incomplete data. 2 3 Table 82 INITIATION OF PROJECTS FOR WHICH EXPENDITURES WERE MADE IN FISCAL 1974, BY STATE (Continued) , (Dollar amounts lb thousands) if Massa- Mis- New Ken- Loui- Mhry- chu- Mich- Minna- sis- Mis- Mon- Ne- IJew Indiana Iowa Kansas tu, ky siana Maine land setts igan sota sippi souri tans braska Nevada :ffr); J:Taley Mlelfico York $385 $254 $209 $342 $124 $312 $510 $558 $715 $439 $209 $742 $142 $178 $134 $201 $582 2,122 Apia % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 100 100 100 100. 100 100 100 100 100 100 100. 100 100 100 100 ===. 53 43 70 80 23 50 48 74 33. 59 64 99 75 92 92 14 2 15 19 10 25 15 1 8 3 4 27 12 15 1 17 3 48 26 45 36 20 * 10 4 6 43 - - 50 22 4 7 4 8 1 12 8 ir."7:11, (Continued) 03 1;11 100 100 100 100 77 36 78 86 rn 11 Ca) 23 41 3 "17 * 23 22 2 3 i Total. Project Expenditures Grantee initiated project end submitted grant request Project was offered by atat'e arts agency to recipient Project was a joint effort of state arts agency and recipient Project was initiated and admintsteied by state arts 'agency 2 3 :5 Total Agencies 34 ,553 womMeolliam 24,957 141 72 2,795 8 .3,099 9 3,702 11 Table 82 INITIATIOr, OF PROJECTS FOR willo EXPENDITURES WERE MADE IN FISCAL 1974, BY:STATE (Continued) (Dollar amounts in thousands) North Penn- South West Caro- North Okla- syl- Puerto Rhode Caro- South Ten- . Ver- Virgin Vir- Wash- Vir- Nis- Wyom- lina Dakota Ohio homa Oregon vania Rico Island lina Dakota nessec Texas Utah mont Islands ginia ington ginia consin ing ' 142 zis 1122 112 .1.280 Ail 12e 141 11i1 11i2 .12fa 2,41 12e 141 142 111 141 lip --7:- 112 122 100 no loo 100 loo 100 100 loo loo 100 loo 100 10 loo loo too too 100 60 98 84 92 9,4 100 86 25 22 77 20 21 77 42 50 65 33 74 79 65 17 1 4 2 33 36 10 15 1 8 2 14 4 67 2 * 8 34 3 13 14 1 7 6 42 7 2 * 14 26 , 36 8 21 21 38 61 17 1A 72 '13 58 2 6 18 4 14 , 4-1787 Only minor differences occur in the initiation of projects by size of total expenditures, with agencies in the $500,0007$749,999 group having ,the largest proportion a agency administered projects (28%) of the smallest , grantee-initiated (50%). Table 83 INITIATION OF PROJECTS FOR WHICH EXPENDITURES WERE MADE IN FISCAL1974 , BY TOTAL EXPENDITURES (Dollar amounts in thousands) (Number of agencies) Total_Project Expenditures Total Agencies Total Expenditures Below $250 000 $250,000- $499 999 . $500,000- $749,999 $750;000 and above* (55)- $34,553 . (15) $2 293 (20) $5501 (10). $5 313 (9) $6,333 % % f. 100 100 100 100 100 Grantee initiated project and submitted grant request 72 69 59 50 70 Project was offered by state arts agency to recipient 8 2 12. 5 4 Project was a joint effort of state arts agency and recipient 9 10 14 17 11 Project was initiated and administered by state arts agency 11 19 15 28 15 Without New York , IIXTIONAL RESEARCH, CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. -179- ,Location of Projects The state arts agencies were also asked to indicate the type ot location -- urban, Suburban, or rural -- in which each project funded took place. Many of the projects covered more than one type of location; for example, a touring projeCt might'go to all three types of locations, an artistsin-schools.Project might be conducted in a school system located in two of ,the.typesr.etc. This overlapping-in locations is reflected in the fact that the distribution by types of location adds to mofe than 1002: - - $30,196,000 (87%) was expended for projects in urban locations. $15,507,000 (45%) went to projects in suburban areas. $10,499,000,(30%) went to projects in rural areas. -- $391,000 (17.) was expended for projects in other types of locations (prisons, islandwide, etc.). - - $998,000 (3%) was for projects fo- which location was not applicable (certain research projeLzs, publications, etc.). The overlapping of locations is evident if the 87% of funds ex- pended for urban projects is analyzed in terms of other locations in which projects receiving those funds also took place. Projects receiving almost half (46%) of the funds designated as going to urban locations also took place in suburban locations, and in addition some of these took place in towns and rural locations. Projects receiving 28% of the funds designated as going to urban locations alsp took place in town and rural locations. The budget size of the agency did not significantly affect the location of projects for which expenditures were made. The proportion of -180- funds for projects that took place at least partially in Urban locations ranging only from 737. and 72%, respectively, in the below $250,000 ana $250,000-$499,999 agencies to 83% and 81%, respectively, in the $500,000- $749,999 and $750,000 and oVer agencies. Table 84 LOCATION OF PROJECTS FOR WHICH EXPENDITURES WERE MADE IN FISCAL 1974, BY TOTAL EXPENDITURES*** (Dollar amounts in thousands) (Total Number of Agencies) enditures Total Agencies Expenditures Below $250 000 $250,000- $499 999 $500,000- $750,000 $749,999 and Above** (55) 34,553 (15) $2,,293 (20) $5,501 (10) $5,313 (9) $6,333 100 100 100 100 100 Urban 30,196 87 73 72 83 81 Suburban 15,507 45 42 52 55 59 Rural 10,499 30 47 54 55 41 Other 391 1 6 4 * * Not api)licable 998 3 3 6 3 7 * :Less than't).5% .** Except NeW York. *** Percentages add to more than 100 because multiple responses were possible. 'NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. -181- Previous Funding of, Projects Approximately $2.00 in every $3.00 in project expenditures in fiscal 1974 went to the continued funding of ongoing projects, with an additional 6% being made as the first expenditure in planned ongoing funding by the agencies: $2'3,194,000 (67%) was expended for the continued funding of ongoing projects. $,734,000 (14%) was for the antici ated one-time fundin of projectg. - -'$4,396,000 (13%) was expended for pilot projects. - - $2,109,000 (6%) was the first expenditure in planned ongoing funding of projects. Observation: Clearly patterns of distribution of project expenditures have been established and govern the granting of funds to a large extent. Althopgh ongoing funding accounted tor the major part of expen- ditures overall, pilot projects or one-time funding accounted for a greater proportion of expenditures in some states. - - Pilot projects accounted for a plurality of 47% of funds in Florida and 48% in South Carolina, and a majority of 86% in Indiana. -- Anticipated one-time funding accounted for a plurality of 42% of expenditures in Massachusetts and majorities of 51% in Washington, 55% in Iowa, 56% in Mississippi, 57% in Okla- homa, 577. in Georgia, 62% in Delawar'e, and 877. in California. 24 u Table 85 WHETHER PROJECT EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL 1974 WERE CONTINUED FUNDING OF ONGOING PROJECTS, ONE-TIME FUNDING OR PILOT PROJECTS (Dollar amounts in thousands) Total Protect Expenditures Total 4 Agencies 14,411=, 1/ % 100 e Continued funding ot ongoing projects 23,194 67 Anticipated one-time funding 4,734 14 Pilot pcojec.ts 4,396 13 First expenditure in planned , ongoing funding of projects 2 109 6 Incomplete data. D\\Does not include American Samoa. Information not obtained. 7:/ Ac the time of the survey the California Arta Commission, whose grants peogram was still in its early stages, expected to be dissolved and replaced with a new agency, which subsequently happened. * Lees\than 0.5%. Amer- Con- District ican Ari- Arkan- Cali- Colo- nect- Dela- of , Alabama Alaska Samoa zona sas fornia. rado icut ware Columbia Florida Georgia, Gam Hawaii Idaho Illinois 131,2 A 100 66 7 9 18 e$398. 3/ $229 % 100 55 15 11 19 $.11.15 §938 $217 V18 $186 $139 $421 $368 §ig zIn 55 20 6 19 $672 1loo . 81 12 * 7 $164 % loo $730 % 100 % 100 58 4 17 21 z 100 1 87Y 10 2 % 100 62 17 18 3 % 100 46 26 14 14 % 100 28 62 7 3 X 100 78 7 15 X 100 44 * 47 9 % ago 29 57 5 9 % loo 42 42 9 7 , 54 28 2 16 61 16 116 1 7 24.1. %. (Continued) 24 Toal Project Expenditures Continued fundtag of ongoing praject i \"Ankle pat,A one-time funding Pilot \)roIects First 4xpenditure in 'planned ,ongoeng funding of projects Total Agencies X .10.1.1111 23.194 67 4,734 14 4,396 13 2,109 6 11 eased on incomplete data. 243 Table 85 NUETMER' PROJECT EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL 1974 WE8E CONTINUED FUNDING OF ONGOING PROJECTS, ONE-TIME FUNDING OR.PILOT PROJECTS (Continued) (Dollar *amounts in thousands) Massa- His- New Ken- Lou 1- Mary- chu- Mich- Minne- sis- (Mis- Mon- Ne- Ramp- New New New Indiana Iowa Kansas tucky siana Maine land setts igan sota 21221 souri tana braska 'Nevada shire Jevey. Mexico york $385 X $254 $209 $342 '$124 $312 $510 X X X X X X 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 6 34 70 46 57 58 75 * 55 21 40 3 29 13 86 1 1 7. 23 1 3 8 10 6 7 17 10 9 $558 $715 $439 $209 $742 $142 $178 X 1 X X X 1 X X X X X $134 $201 $582 $175 giFila 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 27 39 51 22 90 77 48 81 55 78 77 42 30 26 56 10. 4 13 12 11 9 13 4 19 5 7 * 13 36 * 22 6 8 27 12 18 15 * 6 3 7 - 12 2 (Continued) 100 0 ;J- 73 rn eA rn .> ro. rn 0 ta riss > A7 V) 87 1 12 c= "ct .44 2:81/ Table 85 WHETHER PRO.ECT EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL 1974 UERE CONTINUED FUNDING OF ONGOINt; PROJECTS, ONE-TIME FUNDING OR PILOT PROJECTS (Continued) (Dollar' amount, in thousands+) Total Agencies T ,11 Project Expenditures 1S22 Continued lunding ot ongoing pr)lects 67 Anticipated onv-time funding 4.734 14 Pilot proletA 4,396 13 Firmt expenditurq;, in planned ongoing funding of projects 2,109 6 t 2 4 Ic North Penn- South West Caro- North Okla- syl- Puerto Rhode Caro- South Ten- Ver- Virgin Vir- Wash- Vir- Wis- Wyom- lina Dakota Ohio homa Oregon vsnia Rico Island lina Dakota nessee Texas Utah mont Islands ginia ington ginia consin ing $364 4 422 1.10 loo loo loo 62 71 42 31 18 9 11 57 b 2 11 14 11 36 6 142 loo 60 29 11 12?1 19.2 82 10 4 loo 100 loo 28 17 48 7 12i1 loo 68 24 3 4 112 loo , 39 29 Ifs 16 .14.1 loo 97 1 2 loo 66 10 11 13 1201 loo 55 19 15 11 loo 66 16 10' 8 1;i2 loo 42 51 4 3 loo 38 31 27 4 loo 26 11 26 35 loo 46 31 23 Ila loo loo 1:11, 36. 54 rn 35 3 Cie) -4 29 15 (771) m104 )43, rm. co 9 4 NATIONAL RE SFAF?CH CeNTER Or rHE ARTS, INC. -185- A majority (64%) of the ongoing projects for which project expendi- tures in fiscal 1974 represented continued funding had been funded before that time for two to three years, and another 20% had been funded for four years: . Table 86 NUHBER OF YEARS ONGOING PROJECTS HAD BEEN FUNDED Total agencies ii Total ongoing projects for which ex- penditures were made in_fiscal 1974 as part of continued funding 2570 100 1 year 2 .2 years 39 \ N 3 years 25 4 years 20 5 years 5 More than 5 years 9 Average number of years: Furthermore, state arts agencies e ect further continued funding of the ongoing projects. The agencies report pla ning no further continued fund- ing of only 4% of the ongoing projects. Table 87 N\ WHETHER CONTINUED FUNDING OF ONGOING PROJECTS IS TICIPATED /I Total ongoing projects for which'expen- ditures were made in fiscal 1974 as part of continued funding_ 2570 % 100 Anticipate further funding 76 Do not anticipate further funding 4 Not sure 20 2 4 , I -186- Observation: Since most state arts agencies have been in existence for much longer Chan 3 years, it is possible that the 3-year average period of continuing funding might indicate an un- willingness to be tied in to recipients on a support basis, similar to the pattern of private foundations. It.is more likely, however, that as the funds available to the state arts agencies have increased, new projects have been added, as well as the initiation of new projects by previous re- cipients of expenditure° Amiliences and Attendance The data supplied by the state arts agencies on audiences and attend- ance at projects for which expenditures were mmde was in many cases limited, and information was not available for many project expenditures. On the basis of the data supplied, however, the state arts agencies indicated that 41% of the expenditures in fiscal 1974 was made for projects in which audiences were not involved (such as staff salary support, research, conservation, arts man- agement training, etc.), while 51% of the expenditures went to projects that were primarily directed toward general audiences. Among special audiences, - which may overlap each other as well as the general audiences, children and/ or youths in school groups accounted for the largest propotion of expenditures: i \ -- $15,574,000 (51%) was expended for projects primarily directed toward _general audiences. -- $5,686,000 (16%) was for projects directed to children/youth in school groups. -- $3,053,000 (9%) was for projects directed to children/youth outside of school groups. -- $3,09;,000 (97,) was for projects directed to college/univer- sity students. NAT,^NAL Pr seAReti CENTER OF THE AR*S. INC 7187- -- $2,981,000 (9%) was far projects directed to ethnic or racial minorities. -- $2,286,000 (7%) was for projects directed to the eConomically disadvantaged. -- $1,408,000 (4%) was for projects directed to the elderly. -- $926,000 (3%) was for projects directed to the physically or mentally handicapped. -- $364,000 (1%) was for miscellaneous other special audiences. -- $14:069,000 (41%) was for projects in which no audience was involved. Attendance figures were also limited in many cases. Furthermore, ttate arts agencies generally rely on project recipients for attendance fig- ures, and these are likely to be estimates at best. Care should thus be taken in drawing any conclusions or making any interpretations of the signi- ficance of these data. Attendance figures were reported for 3,600 projects that accounted for $16,295,000, or 47% of the total expenditures. Attendance at these pro- jects wefe reported at 57,101,000 people, or an average attendance of 15,900 per project -- any one of which may have dvered a number of performances, exhibitions, etc. -- for those projects for which attendance was reported. Agencies were also asked the number of artists and/or organizations that were involved in projects. The number of artists was reported for 2,554 projects, accounting for $8,345,000, or 24% of total expenditures. A total of 52,765 artists were involved in these projects, or an average of 21 per project. 2 4 -188- The number of organizations or institutions was reported for 6,298 A projects, accounting for $32,063,000, or 97% of total expenditures. A total of 13,526 organizations or institutions were involved in these projects, or an average of 2 per project. Matching Funds As noted in Chapter III, where matching funds are required, the r.- / qarements are likely.to be either 100% or to vary with the project expend'i- / tures, and in some cases there are no matching requirements. In total, re- quirements for matching funds amounted to slightly less than half the p oject expenditures, but it is important to note that the actual amount of ma ching funds exceeded the total project expenditures: -- State arts agencies required a total of $15,841,000* in match- ing funds, 46% of the'total project expenditures of i $34,553,000. -- Actual matching funds totaled $42,395,000, constituting 123% of the total project expenditures. --,35% of actual matching funds came from earned income, 7% from National Endowment for the Arts funds, 1% from other fed- eral funds, and 48% from other cash, with only 9% representing in-kind contributions. In 'ThIy a few states required matching funds amount to 100% of all project expenuitutes -- Alabama, District of Columnbia, and Nebraslia anu in one, California, matchinr ds were 192%. However, the actual matching . exceeded 1004 in all but 11 states. Data on matching funds were not obtained from American Samoa and Louisiana. Total Prolect Expenditures Requi red' matching funds Artual matching funds Total Agencies 34,553 100 15,841 46 42,395 123 Table 88 HATCHING FUNDS FOR PROJECT EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL 1974 (Dollar amounts in thousands) to C) C)MZ-ImA Amer- Con- District , 0 lean Ari- Arkan- Cali- Colo- nect- Dela- of "a Alabama Alaska Samoa zona sas fornia rado icut ware Columbia Florida Georgia. Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois XM rri $267 $398, tul $229 $415 §938 $217 $938 g39 $421 $368 al $672 $164 $730 > Ce, A -4 umil'i % X % % % % 1 1 % 1 % 1 1 1 1 z P 100 100 no 100 loo 100 100 loo too 122 loo no 100 loo loo No i n loo 38 - 66 9 192 77 64 64 100 99 32 70 32 93 7 P CZ) I/ 12 277 74 206 42 274 214 131 178 156 489 57 179 103 144 13 11114 Sources of Matching Funds: EaVned income 35 National Endowment for the Arts 7 Other federal funds 1 Other cash 48 In-kind 9 1/ Information not rivailable * Less than 0.5% 79 7 43 28 40 21 - 6 22 - 58 16 65 * 1 17 2 - 2 - - - - - 1 - - - - * _ - 17 52 46 88 50 41 64 62 100 91 24 1 39 40 31 4 41 10 12 4 19 13 38 1 54 99 3 44 4 (Continued) Zig tzia rwe trif Total Protect Expenditures Total Agencies $ 1 14,553 11.1.1.9.2. 1 100 .... Rea-0717;a-lnat,hing funds 13,841 46 Aktual matching funds 42,395 123 ources of Matching Funds: Earned income 35 National Endowment for the Arts 7 Other federal funds 1 Other cash 48 ln-kini 9 1/Based on incomplete data. Table 88 MATCHINO FUNDS FOR PROJECT EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL 1974 (Continued) (Dollar amounts in thousands) 1/ Massa- Nis- Ken- Louir Mary- chu- Mich- Minne- sis- Mis- Mon- Ne- Indiana Iowa Kansas tucky siana Maine land setts lgan sota sippi souri tana braska Nevada New Hamp- shire New Neu Jersey, Mexico New York $15.113ril V) Wig Ca) Ci *10 .244 azia r5:x $385 $254 $209 $142 8124 $312 $510 $558 $715 $439 $209 $742 $142 $178 $134 1' 100 $201 $582- $175 % 100 77 126 1 100 46 101 1 100 89 172 7. 100 98 236 1 100 =2, 16 141 1 1007' % 100 83 136 1 100 76 387 1 100 52 117 % 100 41 122 1 100 75 314 1 100 70 161 % 100 94 S141 57 7 36 7. 100 85 246 -4 (16 2 1 8 21 ...- 1 100 100 271 % 100 91 272 1 100 54 204 1 100 20 24 100 11 - * 11 36 72 2 * 16 10 38 39 21 72 28 19 8 2 48 1 19 3 1 69 8 14 1 1 19 , 15 12 - 52 421 * 98 2 31 1 1 55 12 '48 26 26 20 76 4 36 64 25 75 (Continued) rri P Z rn (0 m 3, 33o I Table 88 MA1CHING FUND', Cox PROJECT EXPENOITVRES IN FIS('AL 1974 (Continued) 0 (Dollar anounc$ ia,thousands) M Z -4 Totall,roject Expenditure! Sources of Matching Funds: Total Agencies $ 34,553 2 100 Required matching folds 15,841 46 Actual ranching funds 42,395 123 Earned income 35 National Endowment for the Arts 7 Other federal fllndo 1 Other cash 48 In-kind 9 \\ \ . North Penn- SOuth West Caro- North Okla- syl- Puerto Rhode Cato- South Ten- Ver- Virgin Vir- Wash- Vir- Win- Wyom- \ lina Dakota Ohio homa Oregon vania Rico Island linlx Dakota nessee Texas Utah mont Islands Onto Ington tints constn InR $364 112 1222 .2.1...:2 1122 .11.113. 1.2a 1111 131§ a= 1,12§ LUZ .2221 LB .2242 viz .2.112 LIZ au LUZ z 2 2 2 2 2 2 .2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 I 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 42 82 82 s 96 71 99 12 36 36 77 36 29 87 42 58 69 76 45 76 87 75 786 328 288 363' 478 29 41 73 162 103 29 91 125 180 200 226 114 292 171 96 14 33 34 2 72 83 65 * 38 1 30 74 1 3 46 20 34 50 10 3 5 ... _ 5 1 5 60 - - 3 2 15 * * - 1 2 - 2 - 1 - - - 1 * 2 - - I 82 51 51 95 la 13 27 67 2 34 70 9 98 78 50 65 45 12 23 * 4 10 13 3 3 4 5 27 - 65 \ * 17 1 19 r. 13 4 38 67 2 '3 o 1:04< swims Imam, :MIN CO r-- 1111 -192- Cost of Projects \ ; In reporting their project expenditures for fiscal 1974, state arts agencies were asked as a final question concerning these expenditures to re- port the total cost of the.pfojects for which the expenditures were made. In those cases where the expenditure was made for the basic operating support of an institution or organization, the agency was asked to indicate the recipi- ent's total operating budget. Agencies did not always have available data on the total costs of project-or total operating budgets. The incomplete information that was re- ported, however, indicates that on the average project expenditures by the state arts agencies amounted to slightly less than one-third of the costs of the projects for which they were made and that expenditures for basic support were approximately one-eighth of the operating budgets of the organizations receiving such support. However, because of the second-hand reporting of total costs of projects, care should be taken in drawing any conclusions from these data. \ Total Project Expendit ure, for Other T.han itaats: Support-I Total cost of.. prole( t tor which expe, litures were :made Table 89 TOTAL COSTS OF PROJECTS FOR WHICH EXPENDITURES WERE MADE IN FISCAL 1974 *(Dollar amounts in thousands) Total Agencies X 23 008 ==Accc 100 88,933 317 Amer- Con- District ican Ari- Arkan- Cali- Colo- nect- Dela-, of Alabama Alaska Samoa zona sas fornia rado icut ware Columbia Florida Georgia. Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois $267 4145 .g 5_179 $385 014, 8 717 V.IC StR6 soo sasL sr,3 a633 43.32 gg. X X X X X X X X 2 % X X X 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 377 199 233 216 373 359 288 296 248 341 209 285 190 238 472 Total Projects4xpend i tures fur Basic Supporty 2,1 _43 Total operating budgets of inst itut ions/organi zations receiving the basic support 100 16,679 778 $1 $41 $30 $.4 $30 $48 $39 $17 .11S.11 X X X X X X 2 2 X X X X X 100 100 100 1 00 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 97\5 742 683 1,707 - 1,310 229 3,229 874 332 (Continued) 1/ Only those expenditures f or which total cost of project in total operating budgets is reported are shown on this table. 2/ Data on project costs not available. .0 Table 89 lorm 3 0.-1-8 OF PRO 301, 1.111el3 IAN N011101'. n\vF r 3'.-14 \ 147,,, 3 mt inued) (Do 1 lar Inount, i thi,11- Tot 11 ?to 1,, t t- xoethitt lir, , Oth.-t .w.i B is t , s.i3p rt , r Total \encies 1' Ken- Ind lana Iowa Kansas tucky, 1/ ' ou 1,-- siana ' -,....-....., Massa- Mary- chu- Maine land si.t3s Mis- Mich- Hinny- s i s- igan soca sippi $73 4 ) $ .14 j1,0- 100 100 100 3 I 'I 4.7 275 Net.) His- Mon- Ne- Ilamp- New souri tana braska Nevada shire Jersey N" Mexico $160 New York $ :, ,001, 88 , 11 16,673 , 100 117 ',18 ) '1 .i.'22- ,,'.12 7 100 100 Sf, 25 1 ,.. 7 7 100 100 :;t11:. ',.;:r1q 100 100 2 35 411 )'.6 100 273 S' 374 :1(11 100 437 '17, $93 m_,,=. $134 ..,,,m $340 m=., 100 324 :, I i , 304 +mem. 100 238 -..-- 7 100 rumor. 100' 11" -ws cpundi cure, ---- Total Pro] t 13,.\ pen,: t Bas '3upp,rt 100 2. 1 100 267 100 '.2 100 373 ...... 0 100 === 100 165 -..... 0 100 411 100 347 67 % 100 550 (Cont 100 778 % 100 === 7 100 - 7 100 100 - 0 100 231! 0 100 581 i 7 100 === 6,000 11 0 100 7 100 _ :6 -- 7 100 90 17 % 100 588 inued) ---- Z 100 342 Total operating hadgt.ts Inst tut Ion.; 'organize t re, eiving the hail, ,worort .. 100 == t's I/Based on incooplete data. e 9 A. 0 Table 89 TOTAL COSTS OF PROJECTS FOR MO EXPI.NDITERES WERE MADI. IN FIStaI 1974 (Continued) (Dollar amounts in thousands) Total Project Expeadftot, s tor Total A encies North Caro- North Okla- lina Dakota Ohio homa Penn - South syl- Puerto Rhode Caro- South Ten- Ver- Virgin 'Oregon yards Rico Island lina Dakota nessee Texas Utah mont Islands Vir- Riniq West Wash- Vic- Wis- Wyom- inRton ginia consin ing 9 I Other than Bast: Suoporti ,164 $900 511- $203 S563 1..2.62.. $518 lut $2.z_.4 $184 .L.:± s4"....1 t176 S119 X .L11 I 2 2 .1)21 2 .41111 2 ..BLIL .$158 2 I 2 2 2 X .:1..t4 I 2 I 2 I 2 2 MweliM 2 . Total cost ot yr f whic'h 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 a.e. 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 expenditures Were made 88 .933 117 272 310 445 387 530 587 128 141 192 224 228 250 490 316 284 263 336 234 413 255 - Total Project (,xpecaituros for Basic Supportli 2 143 117 30 a:///. 40 .11.2t .0 7 77-- 35 10 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 t 7 2 2 X X 2 X X X Total operat ing budget, ot lest tution/ortgaoi rat Ions recelving the basic support 16,679 100 778 100 ICO 308 100 981 100 100 100 - 4,362 100 100 - 3.374 100 254 100 726 100 100 100 100 100 504 100 100 578 100 - 100 314 100 100 296 2 6,s 2 -196- Observation! 'It is clear that, although the state arts agencies supply valuable funding, the agencies' project expenditures do not constitute the main support of most projects -- al- though certain projects such as audience outreach may be primarily dependent on this type of support -- nor is the basic support provided by state arts agencies to in- stitutions and organizations,the primary component of operating budgets. Consultant directors have suggested, though, that future survival of the arts may lie in a support partnership between the prlivate and public sectors, with the strong participation of goverment. 26 NATIONAL RE SE ARC H CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC -197- CHAPTER V INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS ,2 NAT4ONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC , -198- INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS In addition to the state arts agency, other state agencies are likely to provide some type of support, directly or indirectly, to the arts. Any consideration of the state.picture should take into account the activities Of other agencies. Furthermore, that relationships between the state arts agencies and other agencies, organizations and groups within the state -- as well as in other states and on a federal level -- can strongly affect the arts .asencies' program and activities. The survey explored many aspects of these relationships, and this chapter presents the findings in these areas: Intrastate - departments of education: the support of the arts by edu- cation departments and commissions, and the relationship between state arts agencies and education departments, including any joint programs. - other state agencies and departments: support for the arts that may be derived from other states agencies and departments, and cooperative relationships between the state arts agency and these other state agencies, in- cluding the provision of services, either free or paid, to the state arts agency by other agencies. - community councils: the importance of community coun- cils to the arts within the state, and the support pro- vided by the state arts agency to the community councils. -199- Interstate - regional programming: agencies' participation in regional programming, including involvement with agencies in other states and with regional organizations, and the'perceived benefits of and developments expected in regional program- ming. General - evaluation of relationships with individuals, agencies and organizations on the local, state and federal levels. Departments or Commissions of Education Education and the arts have long been associated in the United States, and the most likely other state agency to be providing funds for the arts is the department(s) concerned with education. The study ex- plored the known activities of these departments. However, it should be kept in mind that these data are based on the knowledge of the state arts agency directors only and were not derived from the education departments. Directors of 49 state arts agencies reported that, as far as they know, the departments or commissions of education in their sfate -- covering all levels of education including higher education -- do provide funds for the arts, with only 6 reporting no funds for the arts coming from the education depart- ments. A majority of those departments of education providing funds do so on all levels of education: !c2 6 NATIONAL Re SEARCtliSENTER OF THE ARTS, INC S -200- Table 90 LEVELS OF EDUCATION FOR WHICH PSNDS FOR THE ARTS ARE PROVIDED BY EDUCATION DEPARTMENTS Total agencies that report funds for that I' .4 arts from state education department(s) Total Agencies 49 89 All levels (elementarY, secondary, -college/university, and adult education) 33 60 Elementary 14 25 Secondary 13 24 College/university 11 20 Adult education 2 4 TYpes of Arts Activities of Education Departments Funds for-the arts from state education depariments cover a very wide range of types of activities. When directors were asked in an open-end question the types of arts activities for which education department funds are provided, to the best of their knowledge, they volunteered many dif- ferent types of specific activities as well as general areas of programming and'means through which activities werelunded: . -201- Table 91 TYPES OF ARTS ACTIVITIES FOR WHICH FUNDS ARE PROVIDED BY STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENTS* Total agenCies that report funds for the arts from state education departments Total Agencies 49 89 Visual arts 16 29 Music 13 24 Drama/theatre 12 22 Literature, poetry, writing 6 11 Dance 5 9 All arts 4 7 Film-making 3 5 Architecture 2 4 - Performing arts (non-specific) 2 4 Crafts 1 2 Employment of arts instructors 12 2,.. Artists in school programs 6 11 Arts education programs 6 11 Materials . 3 5 Touring groups, exhibitions 3 5 Consultants 2 4 Cultural enrichment programs .2 4 Space/facilities 1 2 Contractural services 1 2 Research i 1 2 Art instruction in metropolitan areas 1 2 Special school for talented students 1 2 Educational outreach programs 1 2 Artmobile 1 2 Through arts department or programs in colleges, universities , 15 27 Through academic arts departments 8 15 Through high school (lilts departments 7 13 Through elementary, intermediate school arts departments 1 , 6 11 Through museums, galleries 3 5 Special arts departments with educational department 1 3 5 Through Alliance for Art Education 1 2 Community college programs 1 2 Through the Historical Society 1 2 Subsidizing professional arts organizations 1 2 Do not know 1 2 Volunteered responses to an open-end question. 2 6j , :NATIONAL RE !3EARCH Cftv if R 0+- THE ARTS. iNC -202- It is evident, then, that at least two agencies in moet states are to at least some degree active iq support of the arts -- the state arts agency and the department(s) of education. However, their programs are not mut9Ly exclusive,'and in'fact most of them do at least some work together, wit al- most all in direct contact and a majority' conducting joint programs: Table 92 TYPE OF RELATIONSHIP WITH DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATiON (Base: Agencies that report funds for the arts from state tz. education departments) Total Agencies Total 49 100 Arts agency is in direct contact at times with official of education departments 46 94 Not in direct contact 3 6 Arts agency conducts joint programs with education departments 38 78 No joint programs 11 22 The type of joint programs most frequently mentioned in response to an open-end question was the artists-in-schools program, but again directors mentioned a variety of types of activities included in the joint programs: -203- . Table 93 JOINT PROGRAMS CONDUCTED WITH EDUCATION DEP ENT'S** (Base: Agencies that report funds for the arts from state, ducation'departments) T. Total Total Agencies 1/ 49 38 100 Total agencies that conductjointTrograms 78 P Dance 6 12 Drama/theatre 5 10 , Visual arts 4 8 Potry/writing . 3 6 44.44414-7--°-- 3 6 Music 2 4 Arts (norkmppecific) 2 4 . Artists-in-schools programs ' 28 57 Lecture series, seminars, workshops 7 14 Touring performances, exhibitions 5 10 Arts programs in schools . 5 10 Alliance for Arts Educatiom programming 4 8 Research 4 8 Residency programs 06 8 * Title III programs IV 3 6 State planning 3 6 Arts and educatio. conference. 2 4 Curriculum development programs 2 4 Community arts programs 2 4. Youth activities - 2 4 Liaison on administration of programs 2 4 Exemplary programs identification 2.., -4 . Education outreach programs 2 \ 4 Sumner camps, institutions 2 4 In-service teacher training 2 4 Use of federal funds 1 2 Lecture, workshops for teachers Young audlences 1 1 2 2 Foxfire programs 1 2 Teaching of the performing arts by professionals 1 2 Cooperation between artists and schools 1 2 Workshops with university extension 1 2 Visual aids 1 2 Arts advisory comm ittees .. 1 2 Volunteered responses to an open-end question.0 %-s, Aso NATiONAk RE A IRt: CENTE R OF THE ARITS. INC -204- In addition to questions conceraing their:knouiledge of the exist- ence c)f support by the departments of education, the state arts agency direc- tors were also asked an open-end question on which areas they feel the support of the arts by education departments is most effective and which most lacking. The directors ranked the artists-in-schools programs highest among those most effective, and the level of funding as most lacking. The areas volunteered in both categories by more than one director are shown in the following tables: c ^ , Table 94 AREAS OR TYPES OF ACTIVITIES IN WHICH SUPPORT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENTS IS MOST EFFECTIVE AND BENEFICIAL TO THE ARTS* (Base: Agencies that report funds for the arts ft-Om state education departments) Total Agencies Total 49 100 Artists in schools 10 20 Visual arts 9 18 Music 9 18 Involvement in arts programs 8 16 High school programs 3 6 Staff support to develop arts in 'khool systems 3 6 Bring arts into the core curriculum 2 4 Supplying quality teachers, support on teachers level. 2 4 Cooperation between agencies 2 4 Higher education programs 2 4 Residency programs 2 4 Arts programs for general public 2 4 Volunteered responses to an open-end question. -205-- Table 95 AS OR TYPES OF ACTIVITI6 IN WHICH SUPPORT * OF E,UCATION DEPARTMENTS IS MORE SERIOU Y LACKING (Base: Agencies that report funds for the a*ts from s ate education departments) Total \Total Agencies 1 # % \ 49 100 I Lack of funding \11 22 Lack of statewide coordination, support ot dance education 8 16 Lack of statewide coordination; suppore of drama education 14 \ Arts not considered core curriculum or I offered at all grade levels 7, 14 Not enough arts programs 5, 10 Lack of effective overall state arts i education leadership and/or organizations 5 10 Lack of statewide coordination, support of music education, 4 , 8. In elementary education 4 \ 8 Not enough seatewide coordination, support of viSual arts education 4 8 No artist-in-schools program 4 8 Secondary arts education 3 I 6 University arts education . 3 6 Low quality programs and activities 2 4 Lack of support for professional artist 2 1 4 Insufficient use of community arts resources 2 4 Lack of in-rdepth programs for participation in the arts 2 4 Lack of dialogue with arts teachers 2 Lack of statewide coordination, support of literature programs 2 Lack of arts education in rural areas 2 Insufficient training of teachers 2 Lack of support for arts outside regular school curriculum 2 Lack of statewide support of performing arts education 2 Not enough support for arts education generally 2 Lack of arts representatives on department staff 2 Volunteered responses to an open-end question. 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 NAT'ONA, Rt s AR,-r -",f Ev'E Trif AHrs -206- Evaluation of Relationship'With EduCation Departments The directors of the state arts agencies report generally good work- ing relationships with the education departments. In rating these relation- ships only 3 directors felt the relationship was negative and I reported no relationship: Table 96 RATING OF RELATIONSHIP WITH EDUCATION DEPARTMENTS (Base: Agencies that report fur-is for the arts from state education departments) I Total Total Agencies # 49_ 19 26 3 - 1 % . 100 Very positive , Somewhat positive Somewhat negative Very negative No relationship (volunteered) 39 53 6 2 Directors of approximately two-thirds of agencies in states where education departments provide arts funding see trends and shifts in their relationships with those departments, and these directors generally tend to believe these trends will be in a positive direction: 274 -207- Table 97 WHETHER TRENDS Os'. SHIFTS IN RELATIONSHIP WITH DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION ARE FORESEEN IN COMING 3 TO 5 YEARS (Base: Agencies that report funds for the arts from state education departments) Total Agencies Total 49 100 Do foresee trends or shifts 33 67 No trends or shifts 16 33 Table 98 TRENDS OR SHIFTS IN RELATIONSHIP WITth DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION FORESEEN DURING COMING 3 TO 5 YEARS (Base: Agencies that report funds for the arts from state education departments) Total Total Agencies 49 33 100 Agencies that foresee trends or shifts 67 More cooperation and joint planning, closer relationships 20 41 Joint funding of programs 4 8 Introduction/expansion of artists-in- schools programs 3 6 More arts within curriculum 3 6 Staff changes in education department, addition of arts personnel 2 4 Better evaluative programs 2 4 More positive attitude by education department toward the arts 1 2 Growing awareness of agency and En-dowment resources 1 2 Support by agency of elementary arts programs 1 2 Greater use of outside artists and resources 1 2 Increase in teacher training 1 2 Development of statewide coordinators 1 2 Difficulty in obtai,ning funds for progralring to meet needs 2 4 Director of education department could retire 1 2 Volunteered responses to an open-end questio. 7 t) NATION/A, REci,EARcH CeNTEa kW THE ART'S. .NC -208-- From the viewpoints of state art agency directors, relationships between the agencies and education departments are good and getting better. If the trends foreseen towards more cooperation and planning do come about, they will even improve. However, a full picture of the state arts agency relationship would require a survey of the education departments, including amount of fsunding going to the aits from the education departments. Activities lpf Other State Agencies and Departments In addition to the departments or commissions of education, other agencies and departments in many states provide support of some type to the arts and culture, and directors of 44 state arts agencies reported that they knew of at least one other agency or department that did provide support to the arts. Again, all information was collected only from the state arts agencies, aLd it was thus impossible to place any dollar amount on the arts support by other agencies. 27t) -209- Table 99 AdINCIES OR DEPARTMENTS OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT OTHER THAN THE * EDUCATION.DEPARTMENT(S) THAT PROVIDE SOME TYPE OF SUPPORT TO THE ARTS Total Agencies Total agencies that report knowledge of other agencies providing such support # 44 80 Conseivation/natural resources 19 35 Health and welfare, mental health, aging 15 27 Economic development, commerce, industry 13 24 Corrections. . 12 22 Bicentennill Comnission 11 20 Historical preservation, historical society 10 18 State library, archives 7 13 Museum , A 1 Highway/transportation 4 7 Tourism 3 5 Public broadcasting authority 3 5 Co&munity affairs 2 4 Agriculture 2. 4 Other** 20 36 The list of agencies comprises volunteered responses to an open-end question. **The miscellaneous "other" category consists of agencies or departments mentioned by only one state arts agency, and included such departments as public safety, secretary of state, and environmental protection. . NATIONAL RE RE ARCH CEN T ER OF THE A'RTS. NC -210- Table 100 TYPES OF SUPPORT PROVIDED BY AGENCIES OR DEPARTMENTS OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT OTHER THAN THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT(S) Total agencies that report knowledge of other agencies providing support to the arts Total Agencies . # 44 21 80 38 , General support of the arts Arts in institutions, e.g., hospital, prisons, etc. 20. 36 Visual arts exhibitions \ . 15 27 Historical restorations and exhibitions 13 24 \ Arts in parks, recreation 13 24 Assistance to crafts 12 22 Bicentennial projects Community arts piojects for senior.citizens, low income groups, etc. - 10 9 18 16 Literature,programs.e 5 9 Performing arts 5 '9 Films and/or broadcast projects 3 5 Permitting of ndh-profit corporate structure 1 2 The list of types of support comprises volunteered responses to an open-end question. Not only are other agencies supporting the arts, but directors of the state arts agencies also tend to believe that such support will increase, within the next three to five years: f 270. -211- Table 101 EXPECTATIONS CONCERNING SUPPORT OF THE ARTS DURING THE COMING 3 TO 5 YEARS AND REASONS FOR SUCH EXPECTATIONS* Total agencies that report knowledge of agencies other than education departments Total Agencies II providing support to the arCs 44 80 Support by other agencies will increase 31 56 More public demand on every level 12 22 Increasing contacts with other agencies 10 18 Agencies digcovering usefulness of the arts 7 13 Advantage to tourism 2 4 Arts consciousness raised by Bicentennial. projects 2 4 Increasing influence of council/commission %x 2 4 Passage of legislation . 2 4 Expansion of arts facilities 1 2 Inclusion of arts in hobbies, therapy, etc. 1 2 Existence of 'design assembly and ad hoc comTittee 1 2 Has already increased and 0.11 continue 1 2 Governor very supportive -, 1 2 Support will decrease 1 2 Governor scrutinizi,ng all arts money 1 2 Support will remain about the same 10 18 Arts are not given 'high priority 2 4 Depends on state .irts agency, increase only ihrough council/commission 2 4 Revtnue picture Illeak 1 2 Even in favorable climate no increase. 1 2 No other a ency promotes arts 1 2 No indicati of change 1 2 Lack of posi ive direction 1 2 Nationwide financial crisis ; 1 2 Economic reasons ... 1 2 Not sure 2 4 The lists of reasons for increase, decrease or remaining the same comprise volunteered responses to an open-end question. JoireararmridgisoimmisiamistimisiositiossisiaistitaffiiiiiiIIIIMIMINISSEMPII10A1111111111111.1111111111111 NATtONAL RE' 'if ARC H CUNTER TP-IE AR TS, iNC -212- In addition to other agencies providing support for the arts, directors of ten state arts agencies reported -- in response to a question on funds,from other state agencies -- that in fiscal 1974 the state arts agency had responsibili?y for planning or administering funds appropriated by the legislature to other state agencies, including the Bicentennial Com- mission, and such departmenti as economic development, conservation; public iworks, health and welfare and the state museum. The funds were appropri- ated according to the directors -- for such purposes as purchasing art work, salaries for personnel, circulating exhibitions, Bicentennial pro- ." grms, institutional programs, visiting artists programs, architecture, special urban programs, international exchange of art exhibitions, and museum operations. During fiscal 1974, the directors of' the 10 agencies report that the agencies administered an average amount of $58,000 each tha't was appropriated to another agency. In response to a question on future relationships with other agen- cies in the state, 2oidirectors believe that the situation will change dur- ing the coming three to five years in regard- to their agencies having re- spOnsibility for the planning and/or administering of funds appropriated by the legisllture to other agencies, while 28 foresee no change ,and 1 is not suze. The change, foe,Iseen by the 26 directors include larger amounts of fupds to be admirgstered, planning assistance, consultation to other departments, joint planning, and responsibility for other departments, as well aq vicious reorganizations of state government. In a final line of questioning concerning interstate relation- ships with government agencies, the'directors were asked whether any member of th, agenWs staff or of the council or commission sat inliscal 1974 as 26 a representative of the arts agency on.the commission or advisory'panel of another agency within the state, and vice yersa. A majority of the arts agencies had a representative on another agency's commission or panel, but less than one-third had sueh representattzes on their own council or panels: Table 102 1 REPRESENTATION TO AND FROM OTHER AGENCIES lot,a1 Agencies Total 1/ 55 100 4 Representative of arts agency sat on commission or panel of other agency in fiscal 1974 29 53 No representative to other agency 26 '47 Representative of another agency sits on council/commission or panel of state arts agency 1.5 27 No.representative of another agency 40 73 The'agencies on whose commission or panels representatives of the state arts, agency sat included the Bicentennial Cuuuaission (1D of the 29 , agencies had a ruresentative on the Bicentennial Commission): the Title 4 , 1/ III- advisory council (9 agencies), the education department (5), the his- torical society or historical preservation board (3), parks and recreation (3), and such miscellaneous other agencies as tourism, corrections, high- ways, housing, etc. Agencies which had representatives on the arts agency's /The federal elementary and secondary education act for innovative programs in education. NAT 4ONAI. RE SE AR,- PI k:ENTt oi T,iE Aftr 1N.: -214- f council/commission or advisory panels included the department of education (represented on 9 arts agencies' councils or panels), the legal department (2), the state historical society (2), the state university (2), and such other departments and offices as economic development, planning, parks, etc. Services from Other State Agencies In addition to the support ofAe arts by other ate agencies, the state arts agency can benefit from the provision of services -- such as printing, legal or accounting services -- if these services are provided free. Thirty-two of the agencies received at least some such services with- ) .out having to pay for them: Table 103 WHETHER REQUiRED TO PAY FOR SERVICES PROVIDED BY OTHER STATE AGENCIES Total agencies # % Tptal 55 100 Required to pay for services of other state agencies 21 38 Required to pay for some services, not pay for others 17 31 Not required to pay for ser1ces of other state agencies* 15 27 Receive nO support services (volunteered) 2 4 -215- The types of services that state arts agencies are required to pay for include printing, reproduction and photography 04 pay for such services from other state agencies), motor pools, transportation and car rentals (12), telephone WATS lines (10), accounting, auditing and,book- keeping (8), office supplies (5), data processi/ng (4), personnel services (3), insurance (3), mailing services (3), legal services (2), office machine repairs (2) and maintenance (2). When asked whether the state provides any support services free of charge, even more agencies -- 43 -- reported that they did receive some services without payment. Fiscal services were most often mentioned (by 23 agencies), followed by legal services (22), aaii-sory and consultative 0 services (9), administrative and management services (7), printing (7), janitorial and maintenance (4), utilities and heating (4), data processing (4), personnel services (3), publicity and public information (2), office supplies and equipment (2), and insurance (2). 'A majority of state arts agencies pay rent -- either to Fhe state or to a landlord -- but 14 do not bave to pay rent on their facilities. Table 104 WHETHER RENT IS PAID AND TO WHOM Total Agencies Total 55 100 Pay rent to commercial landlord 33 60 Pay rent to state . 8 15 No rent paid 14 25 NAPONAL SF ARC (NI A. rHE ARrs. INC -216- Interstate Relationghipt with Community Councils and Citizens' Groups Parallel with the rise of the state arts agency movement through- out the United Staies has been the increasing formation of community arts councils. These councils -- which may be private or goVernmental -- gen- erally serve neighborhoods, cities, counties or regions. The major pro- grams and activities include coordinating and information services, grant- making, arts festivals, booking and sponsoring of exhibitions and perform- ! ances, educational programs, and arts centers. only two of the states and territories included in the study -- Guam and American Samoa -- did directors report that there were no com- munity arts councils; in most states, in contrast, community arts councils- \ are important to the arts, and, in fact, a majority of directors of state arts ageacies believe community arts councils are very important: Table 105 IpIALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF COMUNITY ARTS COUNCILS 1 TO THE AR1,1 THE STATE Total Ageqcies Total 55 100 Verfr important 30 54 Sonewhat important 17 31 Onlfr slightly tmportant 5 9 Noti hmportant at all 1 2 Not applicable 2 4 The state arts agencies are largely active in serving this signi- -"Ticant group,. although only 5 state agencies are actually legislatively mandated to support community coUncils. Of five types.of assistance about hich the survey inquireld, a majority of agencies reported for each that ' they provided such assisance. A funding relationship between the state arts agencies and community arts councils is almost universal cfith only 2 islate agenAies notl-pfoviding project funding grants. As noted in Chapter IV, 574*-of all'project expenditures in fiscal kk974 went to community.councils. The provision of technical assistance is- almost-as ".despread, only 5 of the agencies in states with councils not providing them technical assistance. Table 106 SUPPORT RELATIONSHIP OF STATE ARTS AGENCIE; TO OMAKUNITY.ARTS COUNCILS (Basel Agencies in states that have community arts councils) 4, Total Agencies Totai---,-- 53 100 Provide funding grants fot projects 51 96 Provide technical assibtance Co cominunity councils 48 91 Assist in e'stablishment of cOmmunity) councils , 43 81 Provide basic operating support 32 60 Reimburse community couo(!ilp for assistance in carrying out stata Truxtt, ../ 31 ..58 28, NATtONAL PESE ARCO- CENTER or THE ARTS. INC. -218 - 0 In addition, 5 agencies mentioned other types of assistance, in- eluding programming ideas,and cooperative programs, aid in applying for funds and developing information sources. Ihis relatibnship between the state arts agency and the community arts council; will become even closer, if the outlook of the directors is correct. Approximately 3 in every 4 airectors feel that their relation- ship with community arts councils will change,, and the changes foreseen in response to an open-end question are all positive: Table 107 WHETHER IT IS THOUGHT'THAT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AGENCY AND COMMUNITY COUNCILS WILL CHANGE IN COMING 3 TO 5 YEARS '(Base: Agencies in states thee have community arts councils) Total Will change in coming years Will not change Not sure fj TotalAgencies 286 # % 53 100 40 75 10 19 3 A -219- P Table 108 CHANGES THAT ARE THOUGHT WILL OCCUR IN RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STATE ARTS AGENCY AND COMMUNITY ARTS 'COUNCILS* (Base: Agencies in states that have community Total 4 * arts councils) Total Agencies 53 100 Totai agencies that foresee change in relationship 40 75 More interaction, closer relationship 18- 34 More councils, assistance in developing councils . 10 19 More professional/stronger councils 8 15 Statewide coordination, formation of association of councils 7 13 Increased funding of councils -- 6 /1 More administrative/basic support 6 11 Councils will administer statewide programs of agency 3 6 Greater lobbying siipport for agency by councils 2 4 Increased activity generally 2 4 Assistance by councils to agency in yrogram and budget planning 2 4 Specialized staff in agency 2 4 New chairman will revitalize 1 2 'Volunteered responses to an open-end question. As noted above, some agency directors foresee the formation of statewide or regional associationi for community arts councils, and ' already there is a trend in this direction. In fiscal 1934 there were seven such associations of community arts councils, according to the e- state arts agency directors, and in fiscal 1975 two more associations of community councils were created. The state arts agency assisted in the formation of each of these nine associations and participated in their activities. ?& .41P NATtoNAL ReSEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. % -220-- In addition to questions about community councils and organizations of-community coundils, state arts agency directors were also asked about any group or groups of citizens that were organized primarily to advocate the arts in their states, and almost half of the directors -- 26 -- reported -that such groups do- I exist In some cases tha directors mentioned the asso- , ciations of community councils ip this regard, while otfrer types of groups were organized under such names as Artists for Economic Action, Citizens, for the Arts, Committee for the Arts, Advocates for the Arts, Alliance for the Arts, Percent for Art and Allied Arts. Interstate Relationships and Regional Programming In the-exploration of interstate rerationshipsi directors were first asked about their provision og funds to agencies in other states, not including regional organizations. Only a minority of state arts agencies reported having ever given funds to a state arts agency in another "state, or to a state agency other than a state arts agency in another state, to act on its behalf. -221- Table 109 WHETHER.FUNDS WERE EVER GIVEN TO AGENCY IN ANOTHER STATE TO ACT ON BEHALF OF STATE ARTS AGENCY Total Agencies Total 55 100 Funds to a state arts agency in another state Have been given -10 18 Have never been giveg 45 82 Funds to an agency other than a state arts agency in another state Have been given 7 13 Have never been given 48 87 The giving of funds to agencies in other states is a rare occur- rence among state arts agencies, except in the Northeast region. A major- ity of state arts agencies in that region have given funds to another state arts agency to act on their behalf. The following table shows the number 0 and percentage of state arts agencies that'have given funds to agenies in other states, by region: Table 110 WHETHER FUNDS WERE EVER GIVEN . TO AGENCY IN ANOTHER STATE, SY REGION .8 Have Not Given Have Given Funds Funds to State Have Given Funds to Agency Other Arts Agency,or Total to Another Than State Other Agency in Agencies State Arts Agency Arts Agency Another State' # % 7. # % Total 55 100 10 18 7 13 40 73 Region Northeast '9\ ° 100 6 67 3 33 2 22 South 17\ 100 1 6 16 94 North Central 12 \ 100 2 17 1 8 9 75 West 13 100 1 8 3 23 9 69 1 _NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. -222- Observation: Consultant directors from that region indicate that the fact that the New England Regional Committee is not a formal organization that can receive funds is the primary reason for the giving of funds directly to another state arts agency. Regional programming, however, is far more widespread, and, in fact, a majority of state arts agencies are involved in some type-of re, gional programming, with participation in regional organizations climbing over the past few years. Regional organizations in this context was de- fined as a regional organization of state arts agencies. Table 111 PARUCIPATION IN REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND REGIONAL PROGRANMING Total Agencies # Total 531 100 - Participation in regional organi- zations prior to fiscal 1974 38 21 Participati9n in regional organi- zations in fiscal 1974* 31 56 Participation in regional organi- zations in fiscal 1975 34 62 *Twenty-four agencies also reported that they participated in regional programming on an ad hoc basis in fiscal 1974, and of this number 9 were not participating in regional organizations. The regional organizations and the number of agencies that report- ed participation in them in fiscal 1974 and fiscal 1975 were: 230 -223- Table 112 REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS IN WHICH STATE ARTS AGENCIES HAVE PARTICIPATED* Total Number of Agencies Participating in Fiscal 1974 Fiscal 1975 Western States Arts Foundation 10 10 New England Regional Committee 6 6 The Upper Midwest Regional Arts Council 5 5 Mid-America Arts. Alliande 4 4- Federation of Central State'Arts Agencies 4 1 Southern Federation of State Arts Agencies** 2 8 * Data based on informatIon from survey and data from the National Endowment for the Arts. ** This organization was in its formative stage in fiscal 1974. Participation in regional organizations.cin, naturally, take a number of forms. Most often such participation implies funding On some 1evel, and a majority of agencies participating in.regional organizations did contribute funds in both fiscal 1974 and fiscal 1975: ,.NAnONAL.RESEARCH CENTER OF THe ARTS. NC -224- 'Table.113 CONTRIBUTIONS TO REGIMAL ORGANIZATIONS (Base: Agencies partidipating in regional organizations) Fiscal 1974 i . ' f Fiscal 1975 # % ' # % Total c . 31 100 ' 34 100 Contributed funds for general operations and on per project basis 1 3 7 22 Contributed funds for general operations only 7 23 9 26 Contributed funds for.,per project basis.only 12 39 9. 26 -- 1 Total amount contributed $104 812 ' $177 102 General operations Per prgject basis 31,500 64,200 73,312 ' 112,902 Approxisiately hali of the'21 agencies that were not participating in a regional organization in fiscal 1975 do have plans either to join or to form a regional organization, or to participate in an ad hoc regional project. Four agencies reported planning to join a regional organization and 6 others to participate in an ad hoc regional project. The organizationp of and.projects mentioned are: . -225- Table 114 - REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS OR PROJECTS IN WHICH PARTICIPATION IS PLANNED , Total agencies planning to .ioin or participate in Total lAgencies # 10 Pacific Rim program 4 Southern Federation of State Arts Agencies 2 "Western State Arts Foundation 1 Regional museum show of artists-in- schoolAgork 1 Hispanic advocacy program 1 Exchange program with neighboring states 1 The Upper Midwest Regional Arts Council '1 Regional programming is evidently increasing and state arts agency diiectors believe that it will continue to do so. A large majority feel that it will increase during the coming years, and no director believes that it will decrease. .=01 NVIONAL ReSEARCH, CeNTER OF THE ARTS. INC. -226- Table 115 WHETHER REGIONAL PROGRAMMING INCREASE DURING COMING 3 TO 5 YEARS, WILL AND WHY Totai Agencies # 7. Total 55 100 Will increase 50 '91 Emphasis at federal level, favored by 4 . National Endowment for thetArts 14 25 Trend is in this direction 8 15 Means of obtaining more funding 7 13 Increase in Cooperative planning/exchange .of ideas 7 13 Sharing of resources 6 11' Broadens program variety 5 9 Requires less' expenditure per state 5 Need' for growth through regional planning 5 Services through regional efforts are , valuable ', 4 7 High quality programming 2 4 Makes programs available to "state 2 4 Tendency of 6ureaucracy to expand 2 4 National resources need to tour for survival 2 4 Able to reach ilialler, outlying areas 1 2 Professional companies prefer central coordination 1 , 2 Avoids repetition in nearby areas 1 2 Commuhity program demands 1 2 Provides wider exposure to state artists 1 , 2 Additional technical assistance I 2 Will decrease Will stay at the same level 3 5 Is not getting off the ground 1 2 Reaching financial limit 1 2 Unique,programming situation of agency 1 2 Not sure 2 r 1 Lists of reasons of increase or staying at same level cOmprise volunteered responses to an open-end question. 2 ; a The belief that regional programming will increase is paralleled by a widespread belief that such programming is generally a.benefit to the state. Only 5 directors of state arts agencies feel that regional program- ming does not benefit their state, while 41.feel that regienel programming is henefidial; 4 were not sure and 1 believes that "it depends." 'The reasons mentioned in response to an open-end question by those who feel regional programming is beneficial are similar to the reasons given for theoforeseen increase, with.the exception of the emOhaas on the federal level: I Table 116 REASONS REGIONAL PROGRAMMING IS A BENEFIT TO THE STATE* Total Agencies It % Total agencies that believe regional programming is generally a benefit to their state 4/ 45 82 Requires less expenditure per state :.) 15 Exchadge of ideas, experience, expertise 15 Coordination of touring 8 11 Sharing of resonrces 8 15 , More efficient, can handle programs impossible alone 7 13 Better quality programming,possible 6 11, More varied programmin$ 6 11 Wider exposure of state artists 6 11 Access to wide cultural xesources 4 7 Enables agencies to receive 'additional 'funds- 4 7 Larger staff avITlable . _ 3 5 Enlarges arts awareness a population 3 5 Individual states may not hal.te large .. enough population fo'some program 2 .4 Larger,programs possible 2 4 Enables grants to ndividuals 2 4 Arts have no boundaries 1 2 Helps satisfy ethnic arts interests 1 2 Less cost to public 1 . 2 Helps individual regions 1 \ 2 \ Volunteered responses o open-end questions. 29, NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER O THE ARTS. 4NC. era . Table 117 % REASONS-REGIONAL PROGRAMMING'DOES NOT UNEFIT STATE* Total Ageacies ° Total agencies that believe regional programming is not generally a benefit Eo . . their state 5 State'needs differ within region 1 Top0 expensive 1 Not amilicable to agency 2 Federal concept does fiot meet real regional needs 1 * .Volunteered responses to operi-end questtons. 2 In the discussion of regional prooamming, state arts agency direc- tors mere finally asked in,an open-end question what they wOlird-nrefer tO 4 see'happen in regional programming, and again pany of the reasons for which , they foresee an increase in such programming and, naturally, their views of m, , its benefits are reflected in their desires. -229- Table 118 PREFERRED DEVELOPMENTS-IN REGIONAL PROGRAMMING* Total Total Agencies # 55 17 12 % 100 Mbie regional programming and planning Sharing of programs and resources More technical assistance, sharing of 31 22 expertise . 7 13 More reliance on regional organizations 6 11 Touring of major resources, within and outside region 6 11 Long-range planning 5 9 Regionalism only where programs or common needs necessitate, nç just for funds 4 7 More resident art group 7 Music programs 4 7 Dance programs \ 4 7 Better programs , 3 5 More assistance to individual artist 2 4 Education projects 2 4 Sharing of costs 2 4 Establishment of regional crafts centers 2 4 Vrsual arts programs , . 2 4 Theatre prograns 2 4 Not restricted to geographic regions, but based on attitudits and ne?ds 2 4 More funding from National Endowment for the Arts 2 4 Reach widest possible audience 1 2 Regiohal Councils, Foundation's , 1 2 Strictly service-oriented, with no direct funding other than to st7ate agencies 1 2 Performing arts programming 1 , 2 More service programming 1 2 More community development 1 , 2 Less expensive tour packages ,1 2 Decentralization 1 2 Financing of transportation 1 2 a' *Volunteered responses to an open-end question. NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. 1 0. -230- The tables indicate that regional programming is a definite trend throughout the country. Most state arts agency directors feel that it is a positive trend, and.one that is very 13eneficial to their state, but there is some indication that itxtis felt to be directed at 'them from the federal level. There is a strong recognition, however, that mo e ane-better programming at a more efficient cost is possible if thq regioniI-PIdhang and execution is carried out well: Evaluation of Relationihips In the study of intrastate and interstate relationships, directors were, asked to rate their relationships with nine types of groups, agencies or individuals on a scale of very positive, somewhat positive, somewhat nega- tive, or very negative. The list and ratings given them -- which, it should be remembered, only reflect directors' perceptions -- are shown in the fol- lowing table. 29 1 231 Table 119 RATINGS OF RELATIONSMIPS WITH SELECTED GROUPS, AGENCIES OR INDIVIDUALS The National Endownent for the Arts Cultural organizations and institutions Other state agencies Local and community arts councils 'The legislative leadership The governor s office Local Snd community governments in the state The state legislature overall Major private support sources in the state. a Total Agencies Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Positive Positive Negative Negative No Relation ship/Not Applicable Sure 55 45, 10 100% 82% 18% 55 35 16.__ 1 . 100% 637. 29% 4% 2% 2% 55 15 36 2 2 100% 27% 65% 4% 4% 55 40 10 5, 100% 73% 18% 9% .55 17 30 5 1 1 1 100% 31% 54% 9% 2% 2% 35 28 18 5 1 1 2 100% , 50% 33% 9% 2% 2% 4% 4- 55 11 35 2 6 1 100% 20% 63% 4% 11% 2% 55 15 29 10 1 100% 27% 53% 187. - 2% 55 8 21 6 2 . 17 1 1007. 15% 377. 11% 4% 31% 2% - NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS, INC. a -2327 CHAPTER VI MANAGEMENT 30J c _ _ NATIONAL RESEARCH CE.NTER OF THE ARTS. INC. -233- MANAGEMENT This chapter concerns the management of the state arts agencies, covering the followint areas: - position within the state'governMebt-,-0-g:',--the state arts agency's autonomy as a government agency or'office. - the council or commission, i.e., the governing board of the agency. A number of significant aspects of the council/commission are studied, including: -- the comtposition and characteristics of.members of the council/commission -- the selection and terms of members of the council/ commission -- meetings of the council/commission and any of its committees - the chairman of the council/cOmmission, including the selection and term of office of the chairman, and the communications between the chairman and the state hierarchy. (It should be remembered, that all infor- . mation was derived from the director, and not from the chairman.) - the director of the agency (including persons who wen. serving as acting or interim directors at the time of the survey), including the selection of the director, the characteristics, experience and salaries of ditac- tors, activities in which-directors engage, and the communications between the director and the state hierarchy. -234 -. The final section of the chapter focuses on the decision-naking responsibilities of the agency among its management, the state government _ and the arts Community. _ Position within the State GoVernment 8-irU4cture-- The position of the state'arts agency within the state government structure -- i.e., its independence of other agencies or offices -- could affect the management and decision-making hierarchy of the agency. The greater autonomy an agency has, the greater freedom it possibly could enjoy % developing and initiating programS and projects. Approximately half of the state arts agencies are set up as autonomous agencies of the state government and another One-fourth have autonomy as an agency although positioned within a larger agency or departnent.. Table 120 POSITION OF STATE Asas AGENCY WITHIN THE STATE GOVERNiNENT Total Agencies 7. Total 55 100 Autonomous agency of state goverment 28 52 Autonomous agency within a larger agency or department 14. 25 Subordinate agency of a larger agency or department - 3 5 Office in an agency or departuient that has purposes other than the arts 5 9 Part of the executive office of the governor 5 9 NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. -235- Being within another agency, department or office, however, does not necessarily mean that an agency is restricted in its activities. mdi- cations are that there may be a trend- toward umbrella agencies and depart- , efitS,Inwhich-arts-and_culture occupy only one section; certainly recent reorganizational legislation in a number of states has been in this direc- tion. ,As of the end of fiscal year 1974, though, a f\11 majority of 42 of' the state arts agencies were autonomous either on thei own or within a larger agency. The management structure within the state arts agencies is considered below. Councils and Commissions All 55 state arts agencies have some type of council, commission or board. The size of these councils/commissions ranges from 104 in Louisiana to 7 each..in Oregon and Puerto Rico, The membership of councils/commissions (not including American Samoa, for which data on councils/commissions were not obtained) totaled 887 at the time of survey, or an average of 16 members per council. (However, the Louisiana council is far larger than any,other; the second largest membership after the 104 in Louisiana is 25"each in Connecticut and Delaware.) The median membership is 15, which is also the actual membership in 21 states. In 14 states, however, there were vacancies on the council/commission a; the close of fiscal 1974, the number of vacancies totaling 27. The number of members actually serving was 756 (excluding American Samoa and Louisiana), or an average of 14 per council/caMMission. 3 u BEST COPY AVAILABLE -236- Table 121 * SIZE OF COUNCIL/COMMISSION Louisiana Connecticut Delaware-- North Carollna Illinois Maine Nevada Washington Arkansas 1/ Total Number- of Membership Number of Members Serving at Close of Fiscal 1974 0 104 25 25 24 21 21 21 21 20 o 2/ 25 22 24 21 19 21 21 17 California 19 -18_ Pennsylvania 19 18 District of Columbia 18 18 Texas 18 18 Kentucky 16 .14 New York 16 16 Alabama 15 14 Arizona 15 14 Florida 15 15 Georgia 15 15 Indiana 15 15 Iowa 15 13 Massachustus 15 15 Michigan 15 15 Mississippi 15 15 4 Missouri 15 15 Montana 15 15 Nebraska 15 15 New Jersey 15 15 New Mexico 15 13 North Dakota 15 15 Ohio 15 15 Oklahoma 15 14 South Dakota 15 15 Tennessee 15 15 Vermont 15 15 West Virginia 15 15 Idaho 13 13 Utah 13 13 Guam 12 9 Kansas 12 10 Wisconsin 12 12 Alaska 11 11 Colorado 11 11 Maryland 11 a Minnesota 11 11 Wyoming 10 10 Hawaii 9 9 New Hampshire 9 9 ,Rhbde Island 9 9 South Carolina 9 9 Virgin Islands 9 9 Virginia 9 9 Oregon 7 7 Puerto Rico, 7 7 TOTAL 887 Total without Louisiana 783 756 ---- ---- 1/Does not incldde American Samoa, for which data on council/commissions were not obtained. 2/Data not available. * Li.-.ad by total size of council/commission. 3 u NATIONAL RESEARCH CE1';ITER OF THE ARTS, INC. -237- Interestingly, the budget size of a state arts agency does not significantly affect the size of the council/commission. Although agencies in the lowerst budget category have a lower average council/commission membership of 13, the average ffelibership-was 15 in each of the other budget sizes (excluding Louisiana). Table 122 AVERAGE MEMBERSHIP OF COUNCIL/COMMISSION BY TOTAL EXPENDITURES-1 1 Total Average membership 14 1/Does not include Louisiana. Expenditures Below $250,000.- $500,000- $750,000 $250 000 $499,999 $749 999 and Over # 15 15 15 Composition of Councils/Commissions A somewhat higher proportion of council/commission.members are men than women. A large majority of members are white and are between ehe ages of 35 and 64.e The male majority on councils/commissions is particu- larly high among agencies with expenditures of $750,000 and above, where almost two in three council/commission members are men. 72387 Table 123 CHARACTERISTICS OF MEMBERS OF'CODNCIL/COMMISSIONV (Base:. Members serving at close of fiscal 1974) Total members serving Total Expenditures Below $250 000 $250,000- $499,999 $500,000- $749 999 $750,000 and Above % at close of fiscal 1974 756 100 100 100 100 100 ---S-ex--- -- Men 51 65 46 Women 336 44 46 Racial/ethnic group White 673 89 84 93 92 83 Black 51 7 9 5 6 7 Spanish-American 18 2 3 1 1 7 Oriental 4 1' 3 Auerican Indian 3 * 1 Other at 7 1 4 1 Under 25 years 1 * - * - - 25-34 years 62 8 13 8 6 5 35-49 years 297 40 37 40 48 34 50-64 years 201 40 37 42 39 39 65 and over 64 '8 6 10 6 11 Not sure 31 4 7 * 1 11 1/ --Does not include Louisiana. Observation: The male majority on councils/commissions reverses the population ratio; in the 1970 census 532: of adult Ameri- ans 21 years and older were women and only 47% men. The oportion of white members, on the other hand, ex- actly m tches the 89% of the adult population classified as white the 1970 census. _ 3 NATIONAL. RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. -239- Occupations of Council/Commission Members Councils/commissions are to a very large extent populated by people whose professions'are not in the arts. People whoae occupations are in the arts and cultural fields accounted for only 1 in 5 members, including 15% who are artists, 14%_who_are on staffs of cultural organizations, 1% who are architects or uAaari planners, and the less than 0.5% each whu are mu-Sic or dance teachers or yalleu owners. In some states -- Florida, Hawaii, Uri- nesota, Missouri, Mississippi, lk.brasks and Tennessee -7, no members of the councils/commissions work in'the arts and cultural,areas. Busineas people (22%), educators (16%), professional people (6%) and volunteers (18%) constitute a majotity of councils/commissions, with an additional 8% identified as homemakers. Elected or appointed state of- ficials accounted for only 3% of council/commission memberships overall, but at least 1 in 5 members were elected or appointed officials in Califor- nia, the District of Columbia, Maryland end Pennsylvania. The table indicates that generally boards represent a wide range of occupations that could bring expertise from many fields to the work of the agency. It should also be noted that members from occupations not in the arts and cultural fields may still have a great deal of arts expertise even though their professions are elsewhere. 3Ur Table 124 OCCUPATIONS OF COUNCIL/CMHSS - (Base: Members serving at close of ION MEMBERS fiscal 1974) Total Agencies Ala- bama 1/ Amer-. Alas- ican ka Samoa Ari- zona 14 % 100 . Con- Arkan- Cali- Colo- nett- Dela- sas fornia rado icut ware District of Columbia Flor- ida Geor- 1111- Indi- gla Guam Hawaii Idaho nois ana Iowa Total members serving at lose of fiscal 1974 756 14 % 100 37 7 30 7 7 21 14 7 14 14 14 7 11 % 100 18 18 18 9 9 37 28 9 .= 18 9 17 % 100- 1. % 100 17 6 11 27 21 6 6 6 6 6 6 17 21 - 41 % 100 28 28 18 9 9 27 18 9 9 9 9 . 25 % 100 8 8 40 20 20 16 4 8 4 12 8 4 4 4 12 8 22 2 100 14 9 s 33 13 9 5 24 13 5 =.. 13 13 0 18 . % 100 17 - 23 17 6 17 17 11 11 .= 11 21 15 ...-_- 2 100 20 20 20 7 13 14 7 7 13 13 33 - 15 % 100 . 33 33 20 13 7 7 7 7 - 17 26 7 9 % 100 34 34 22 22 33 22 11 -- 11 11 2 2 100 45 45 22 11 11 11 11. 22 13 2 100 15 15 16 - 8 8 8 8 8 - 8 - 8 45 - 21 2 100 34 6 14 14 14 14 19 19 14 - 14 - 19 15 % 100 7 13 13 20 7 13 = 13 13 47 13 2 100 23 f 23 22 8 14 31 23 8 8 '8 a 100 Businessf financial 22 28 7 7 14 14 7 7 21 14 7 14 7 7 23 6 6 12 6 6 24 18 6 12 6 6 6 6 34 6 Bankers, asscountants or pther financial experts 5 Retailers 3 Other business people 14 Arts/cultural 20 Artists 15 Staffs of cultural organizations . 14 Architects/urban planners 1 Music/dance teachers Gallery owners Education 16 Teachers--college/university 7 Educational administrators 6 Teachers--elementary/pecondary 3 Professional 6 Lawyers 5 Doctors 1 Media 5 Critics 1 Other media 4 Volunteers active in civic affairs, not otherwise employed 18 Homemakers 8 Elected or appointed state officials 3 Union officials 1 Ocher 1 3 0.3 (continued) 3 U r Table 124 OCCUPATIONS OF couNCIL/comusIoN MEMBERS (continued) (Base: Members serving at cloie of fiscal 1974) \ Massa- Mis- New . Worth Total Kan- Ken- Lout- Mary- chu- Mich- Minne- sis- Mis- Mon- Ne- Hemp- ,New. New New Carp- North Agencies sas tuckv siana Maine iand setts Agan sota 1.....221 ouri tann braska Nevada shire ,Jerdev Mexico York lina Dakota f Total members serving at close oi fiscal 1974 756 Business/financial Bankers, accountants or other financial experts Retailers Other business people z 10 14 19 8 15 15 11 \15 15 15 15 21 9 15 13 16 24 15 % % % % 2 2 2 Z 2 % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 102 100. 100 100 100 100. 100 100 100 100 '"'41 22 10 16 13 27 20 36 60 27 46 22 22 20 8 31 '21 7 5 3 14 Arts/cultural 20 Ariists 15 Staffs of Cultural organizations 14 Architects/u6an planners 1 Music/dance teachers Gallery owners ,'Education 16 Teacherscollege/university 7 Educational administratora 6 Teachers--elementary/secondary 3 Professional 6 Lawyers 5 Doctors 1 Media 5 4 Critics 1 Other media 4 Volunteers activeln civic affairs, not otherwise employed IR Homemakers 8 Elected or appointed state officials 3 'Unlon officials 1 Other 1 310 10 - 7 13 27 20 7 20 5 - 7 8 6 7 - 16 - - - 9 - - _ 4 _ - - 13 20 7 - 40 20 - 20 17 22 13 - 25 17 - 10 14 5 26 52 13 46 - 29 11 40 23 45 21 32 10 14 5 13 26 13 46 - 14 11 20 23 37 21 32 cur . i - 13 26 - - 10 - 13 - ra.r, - . - .. 13 - . H I 0. .... .- ' .. - .. .. - 5 7 - - 0 10 14 22 26 14 27 9 20 14 14 14 15 11 13 15 6 12 20 10 - 11 13 - 7 9 13 7 7 - 5 - 6 4 20 14 11 13 7 13 - 7 - 7 - 11 ,13 15 - 4 - - - - 7 7 - - 7 7 7 10 - 4 - 10 7 11 13 7 9 20 , 7 'Z. 11 Z 46 ...-.. Z 7 10 7 11 13 7 - 20 7 11 - 46 7 - - - - - 9 , - - - - - s., - 10 7 20 Z - 5 7 6 4 7 - - - - 5 7 -. - - . - - , - .. 5 - 20 5 7 6 4 7 60 - 31 33 - - 32 40 39 14 11 20 8 ' 0 39 27 - 58 5 - - 37 - - 5 - 4 - 22 9 _ 10 6 7 7 34 6 (contrnued) T. 3h Table 124 OCCUPATIONS OF COUNCIL/COMMISSION MEMBERS (continue4) Total Agent ies (Base: Members serving at close of f 1974) Penn- Okla- syl- . Puerto Rhode goatrIto1-1 South Ten- Ver- Virgin Vir- Ohio homa Oregdn vania Rico Island lina Dakota nessee Texas Utah mont Islands Ainia Wash- ing- ton West Vir- Linia Wis- Wyomr consin ing Total members sdrving at close of fiscal 1974 Business/financial 756 100 22 5 3 14 20 15 14 1 16 7 6 6 5 5 1 4 18 8 3 1 1 15 % 100 394' 1.. _V 39 14. 7 i 1 - 1' 7 1 7 7 7 I" 26 1 7 14 % 100 7 7 7 7 7 - 7 7 7 72 2. % 100 30 30 28 14 14 14 14 . _ 4 14 14 14 18 % 100 ' J. 100 58 44 14 14 14 14 14 14 9 % 100 56 3- - 56 11 11 2 2 1 1 1 1 - .7-- 11 2. % 100 15 100 - 7 7 7 , 39 13 13 13 7 7 33 7 1 5 10 0 lg 13 15 .2 2 % % '% w. 100 100 100 100 1 00 20 11 --- ' 6 8 7 8 6 - 13 11 11 69 46 11 11 11 69 39 11 7 11 / 11 20 11 11 11 - 7 11 - - 13 11 - 6 11 11 - - 11 11 fr 1 1 .17 15 7 22 34 37 - 34 11 7 11 - 21 % 1 00 15 100 14 7 7 - 7 7 26 13 13 - 7 7 28 11 7 12 10 % 100 100 8 30 8 10 - 20 34 20 17 20 17 34 20 8 20 26 - 8 8 8 1 0 20 8 2 3 6 6 11 2 3 6 11 6 6 - 6 - 6 6 21 21 11 - 6" - 11 34 34 . 22 11 11 . 11 11 22 22 -. - -% 5 0 14 7, 7 2 7 15 5 10 28 18 10 - I .- 15 10 5 10 5 5 22 - 10 Bankers, accountants or other financial experts Retailers Other business.people Arts/cultural , ArtistL Staffs cultural organizations Architects/urban planners Music/dance teachers Gallery owners Education Teacherscollege/university 'Educational administrators Teacherselementary/secondary Professional Lawyers Doctors iedin Critics Other media Volunteers active In civic affairs, not otherwise employed Homemakers Elected or appointed state of ficials Union officials Other 1/Data 'not obtained. 7 Less than 0.5% A 314 313 NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER or ME ARTS. INC. -243- Boards of Separate Associated Foundations In addition to the cobncils/commissions, eleven states had boards of separate associated foundations in fiscal 1974. (The Massachusetts foun- e=e Aation was not fully operational at that time.) The total membership of the eleven boards was 126, and at the close of fiscal 1974, 5 vacancies existed, for a total of 121 board members, or an average of 11 members per board, serving at that time. The size of boards ranged from 25 in Michigan to 5 in Wyoming. (In all eleven states, there is at least some duplication among covncil/commission members and board members.) Table 125 -- SIZE OF BOARD OF SEPARATE ASSOCTATED FOUNDATION Total Number of Membershke Number of Members Serving at Close of Fiscal 1974 Colorado 6 .6 Connecticut 10 . 10 Florida 15 15 Illinois 21 21 Indiana 6 5 Michigan 25 23 Nebraska 15 15 New York 7 5 Oregon 7 7 South Carolina 9 9 Wyoming 5 5 TOTAL 126 121 3Li -244- The proportim of foundation board members who are men is even higher than that of council/commission members, and the proportion who are white is somewhat higher. 31.) NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. -245- Table 126 CHARACTERISTICS AND OCCUPATIONS OF MEMBERS OF BOARDS OF SEPARATE ASSOCIATED FOUNDATIONS (Base: 'Members serving at close of fiscal 1974) Total Agencies If Total members serving at close of fiscal 1974 121 100 Sex Men 82 68 Women 39 32 - Racial/ethnic group White 114 94 Black 6 5 Spanish-American 1 1 Age Under 25 years 25-34 years 9 7 35-49 years 47 39 50-64 years 51 43 65 years and over 9 Not sure 5 4 Occu ation Business/financial 29 Bankers, accountants or other financial experts 9 Retailers 3 Other business people 17 Arts/culture 18 Artists 12 Staffs of cultural organizations 5 Architects/urban planners 1 Education 16 Teachers -- college/university 2 Educational administrators 12 Teachers -- elementary/secondary 2 Professional 9 ,Lawyers 8 Doctors 1 Media 5 Critics Other media 5 Volunteers active in civil affairs, not otherwise employed 18 Homemakers 4 Elected or appointed state officials 1 Union officials 31 6 -246- Observation: The even larger proportion of business on the boards of associated foundations than on the councils/commissions is not unexpected, considering the thrustof most foun- dations toward such areas as fund-raising in the private sector rather than government funding and specific arts activities as in the agencies themselves. Sele-ttion of Council/Commission Members Directors,of state arts agencies report that the governor of the state is influettial'in the selection of new members of the council or com- Mission. Since the council or commission members are nominally chosen by the governor (or secretary of state) in all states except Vermont, where all members are elected by a membership body, this is not surprising. When directors were asked how much influence each of a list of twelve people or types of people has in selecting new members -- on a scale of "a great deal," I!some but not a great deal," "only a little," or "no influence at all" -- more than 907 of the directors reported that the governor of the state has a great deal of influence; and in only 2 states did the governor have no influ- ence at all. The list of twelve and ihe number of agencies reporting that each had a great deal of influence in selecting new members are shown in the following table: Table 127 PEOPLE WITH A GREAT DEAL OF INFLUENCE ON SELECTION OF NEW MEMBERS OF COUNCIL/COMMISSION Tctal Agencies Total 55 100 , Covernor 50 91 The chairman of the council/commission 19 35 The executive direceor 17 31 , Non-elected or appointed state officials 11 20 Other elected state officials 10 18 Currentcouncil/commission members 7 13 Arts and cultural organizatiOns 4 7 Individual artists 3 5 ..- The staff of the agency 2 4 ComMunity counclls ! 1 2 Elected local and municipal officials 1 2 Other political leaders 7 13 Newspalier editor (volunteered) 31 i 1 2 NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. Observation: The directors' responses indicate that the arts community-- with the exception of any members of that community serving on the current council/commission and the executive director of the agency -- is infl,uential in Niery few states in the selection of new council/commission members. Basif.:ally, the selection process is a political one, and this is reflected strongly inthe reasons for which members are chosen. From a list of nineteen possible reasons -- drawn up by the Na- tional Research Center of the Arts in conjunction with consultant agency 'ddrectors and representatives of the National Endowment for the Arts -- with the.opportunity given to add others, directors were asked which were the two or three most predominant as reasons for the selection of members of the council/commission, and which were the two or three that the directors feel should be most Predominant in the selection of members of the council or commission. A political reason ranked highest in the former category, while arts-related reasons were selected most often in the latter. 31,3 R , -248- Table 128 TWO OR THREE MOST PREDOMINANT REASONS IN THE SELECTION OF COUNCIL/COMMISSION MEMBERS SERVING AT THE END OF FISCAL 1974 Total Total Agencies 55 19 18 100 Are friends of officials or polltiCians Are successful practicing artists 35 33 Are prominent in public life 17 31 Have political influence 17 31 Represent regions or areas of the state (excluding elected or appointed officials) 17 31 Are patrons of the arts or major collector% 13 24 Are experts in the administration or production of the arts 11 20 Are arts educators 10 19 Are prominent in business 9 17 Are socially prominent 8 15 Are experts in non-arts administrative areas (such as law, accounting, business practices, etc.) 4. 7 Represeht segments of the population (such as minority groups, etc.) 4 7 Are prominent in foundations or other non-profit Organizations 2' 4 Are prominent in the labor movement 1 2 Are elected or appointed state or local government officials 1 2 Are politicians (other than elected'or appointed officials) 1 2 Are prominent in art criticism or journalism 'Are prominent in filM, radio, television - Are prominent in education (other than being arts educators) Other 1 2 Not sure 2 NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. -249- Table 129 TWO OR THREE REASONS THAT DIRECTORS FEEL SHOULD BE MOST PREDOMINANT IN SELECTION OF MEMBERS OF COUNCIL/COMMISSION Total Total Agencies 55 4 100 , Are eXperts in the aamlnistration or production of the arts. 35 65 ---Ate-successful_praeticing_artiss 27 50 Represent regions or areas oi the state (excluding elected or appointed officials) 15 ,28 Are experts in non-arts Administ/ative areas (such as law, accounting, business practiees, etc.) // 14 26 Represent segments of the population (such as minority groups, etc.). 14 26 ' Are patrons of the arts or major collectors 13 24 Are prominent in business 11 20 Are arts educators 10 19 . Are prominent iR public life 10 19 Have political influence 7 13 Are prominent in foundations or other non-profit organizations 3 06 Are prominent in art criticism or journalism 2 4 , Are prominent in education (other than 'being arts edUcators) 1 2 Are elected Or appointed state or local government officials 1 2 Are friends of officials or.pOliticians 1 2 Are praminent in film, radio, television - - Are prominent in the labor movement - Are socially prominent . Axe politicians (other than elected or appointed officials) - - Other 4 7 Having political influence was high ranked among the two or three most predominant reasons in the selection of members, but'was relatively low tanked among the reasons directors feel should be predominant; further- 32 , -250- more, being friends of officials or politicians was cited by the largest proportion of directors as one of the two or three most predominant rea-. sons, but was selected by, only one director as a reason that should be predomdnant. These differences indicate that the directors believe the c9uncils/commissions ar.e more politically-oriented than they should be. In contrast,,being expert in the administration of production of 7 _1 - _the-arts picked....by_35._dite.ctors, more than for any other factors as one of those that should be predominant -- was actually one of the most pre- dominant in only 11 counciis/commissions. Successful, practicing artists ,are, however, high ranked among both the actual predominant reasons and those that should be predominant. Observation: Despite the low proportions of directors selecting politically-associated,reasons as among those that should be predominant, consultant directors have pointed out that the political influence of the council/commission can be an important factor in the successful o erations of a state arts agency. The responses indi ate, and the consultant directors confirmed, that the eneral desire is for a board with a balance of bus ess, political and arts members. Significant variations in reasons for the selection of council/ commission members can be seen when the sckte arts agencies are considered in terms of regional subgroupings. Counci1/cckmtnission members in the North- east are, according to the directors, much more 'likely to be chosen for arts-related reasons -- such as being artists, arts\T3ucatcrs1 are experts in the administration of the arts -- than those in any other part of the, country. Only 20% of agency directors nationally report,that expertise - NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. , ". If in arts administration -- highest ranked among reasons that should bepre- dominant in selection -- actually was predominant, but a majority of those in the Northeast reported arts expertise as a predominant reason for the selection of members in fiscal 1974, and in fact this was highest ranked as an actual reason for selection in that area. In conttrast, only 6% of the ; directors of agencies in the South reported that council/commission members had been chosen for their arts administration expertise, while 537. noted' that being friends of officials or politicaps, and an equal 53% that having political influence, as a reason for selection. Practicing artists are more likely to be picked for councils/com7 missions in the West, where 62% of agency directors said being a successful practicing artist was a predominant reason, compared with 44% in the North- east and only 18% and 177. respectively in the South and North Central regions. 322 -252- Table 130 TWO OR THREE MOST PREDOMINANT REASONS IN SELECTION OF COUNCIL/COMMISSION MEMBERS SERVING AT END OF FISCAL 1974 Q Total A encies North- east South North Central, West Total 55 (9) -TUT (12) 757 Are friends.of officials or politicians 35 33 53 42 15 Are successful practicing artists 33 44 18 17 62 Are prominent in public life 31 33 35 42 15 Have political influence 31 - 53 33 31 Represent regions or areas of th'e state (excluding elected or appointed officials) 31 22 29 50 23 Ate patrons of the arts or major collectors, 24 22 18 33 23 Are experts in the administration or production of the arts 20 56 6 17 7 fl Are arts educators 19 22 6 25/ 15 Are prominent in business 17 22 ,6 8 31 Are socially prominent 15 - 29 8 15, Are.experts in non-arts administrative areas (Such as law, accounting, business practices, etc.) 7 11 12 8 - Represent segments'of the population (such as minority groups, etc.) 7 - 6 8 15 Are prominent n foundations or other non-', profit organizations 4 _ 8 8 Are prominent in the labor movement 2 - _ 8' Are elected or appointed state or local governmenp officiils 2 6 Are politicians'(other than elected or appointed officials) 2 6 Not only are political reasons important in the selection of council/commission members now, but some directors see even more of a trend in that direction. When asked whether they foresee any trends or shifts in the reasons for which council or commission members might be selected during the coming three to five years, 28 directors said they do foresee trends or shifts, with 24 feeling no trends or shifts will NATIONAL. RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. -253- take place and 3 not sure. Becoming more political was the most mentioned trend in response to an open-end question on which trends were expected. Table 131 TRAMS ok SHIFTS Hi REASONS FOR SELECTION OF COUNCIL/COMMaSSIMMEMBERS FORESEEN DURING COMM 3 TO 5 YEARS* Total Agencies Total agencies that do foresee trendvor shifts # 28 51 Becoming more political,increased emphasis on,political influence 11 20. Increasing representation of ethnic groups .3 5 More emphasis on business and/or labor 3 5 Greater input from artists 3 5 Fewer patrons of the arts and socially 4 prominent people 3 5 More geographic awareness around state 2 4 Fewer selections for political reasons 2 4 More choice based on ability 2 4 Structuring of council/commission in a more professional manger 2 4 More reliance on recommendiqions of agency and/or present counóil/commission - 2 4 More representation from the arts 2 4 ChangeS due to new governor 2 4 Fewer members from major institations 1 2 Fewer practicing artists 1 2 More experts in non-arts administrative areas 1, ., 2 Greater knowledge of high arts 1 2 Greater influence of community-based organi zations or groups 1 2 Volunteered,responses to hn open-end question. 324 -254- Observation: Except foi the 11 directors who feel that the selection of members will be more politically oriented, diere is little consensus on any movement in this area, and the directors' volunteered responses indicate that it is unlikely that any major change will occur in the bases , V on which council/commission members are selected. Terms of-ServiA Council/Commission Members Once a commission memb4r is selected, it is likely that he Or aim Qc pwill servefor many years, In more \i-han half of the agencies the term of service is at least four, years. (Mas i-. councils/dommissions have staggered terms of service.). Table 132 TERMS OF SERVICE OF COUNCIL/COMMISSION MEMBERS Total,Agencies Total Specified terms 1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years More than 4 years No specified terms Members terms are staggered All terms end at same time 55' 100 54 98 - - 2 4 24 43 15 27 13 , 24 1 2 48 87 7 13 NATIONACRESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. -Furthermore, on more than three in four councils/commissions members may serve two or more terms,consecutively, while on_the rpmaining councils/commissions two or more nort-consecutive termWare possible. And, in practice, members of most councils/commissions do serve'at least a few terms. Table 133 NUMBER OF TERMS ELIGIBLE"TO SERVE AND NUMBER OF TERMS MOST COUNCIL/COKUSSION MEMBERS DO SERVE Total Agencies % Total 55 100 Eligible to serve Two or more terms consecutively 43 78 Two or more terms non-consecutively 12 22 Only onp term Length actually served by most mtmbers One term r 15 27 Few terms 29 52 As long as wish or able 8 15 Not in operation long enough to'tell 2 4 It varies (volunteered) 1 2 The likelihood of council/commission members serving at least a few terms is reflected in the fact that a majority of'the members serving at the close of fiscal 1974 had been on the &iunci1/commiss1on at least three years, and almost one in five had served six years or more. (Most agencies themselves were established in the mid-1960's.) 256 Table 134 TIME SERVED ON COUNCIL/COMMISSION (Base; Members serving at close of fiscal 1974) Total Total meMbers srving at close of fiscal 1974 (756) ; 100 Less than 1 Year 15 1 - 2 Tears 24 3 - 5 years 42 6 -.10 years 18 More than 10 years 1 When asked in an openend question what change, if any, they would like to see in terms of service of the council/commission members, more than two in five directors expressed satisfaction with the current procedures; however, one in five wcluld prefer a greater turnover of members. Many of the answers to this question hark back to the questions on reasons for the selection of members rather than pertain to terms of service, and they re flect the fact already discussed that members tend to be selected for rea other than those the directors feel should be the basis of selection. 3') NAVONAt. RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS.INC. -257- ,Table 135 CHANGES DESIRED IN TERMS OF SERVICE OF'COUNCIL/COMMISSION MEMBERS* Total Total Agencies 55 100 None; present system is good 24 44 Shorter terms,lilit on terms,greater turnover 11 20 Skip after two consecutive terms 5 Staggered terms 4 7 More involvement with overall policy 2 4 Election of chairman by council rather than ' appointment by governor 2 4 Allow members to serve as long as wish or able 1 2 (-N\ Utilization of past members 1 2 Fewer new members who have not had contact with council/commission 1 2 , Terms of members too tied in with that of governor 1 2 Change of emphasis from volunteer to professional 1 2 More members who are knowledgeable and interested in field 1 2 Regular appointments should be made as law states 1 . 2 Increased involvement of independent areas 1 More direct action outside council meetings 1 More experts in non-arts adudnistrative areas 1 2 \ Do not know 1 2 Volunteered responses to an open-end question. Meetings of the Council/Commission and Its Committees One indication of the activity of the council/commission in the programs and policies of the agency is the number of meetings held both of the full council/commission and of its committees. Just under half the councils/commissions are not mandated to meet a specified number of times s -258- ,- and only one in ten are mandated to meet more than four times a year, but a majority do meet that often. The average frequency of meeting of at least _.., ) . once every other month indicates-that the councils/commissions are rela- tively active, certainly more active than state laws require. Table 136 NUMBER OF TIMES COUNCIL/COMMISSION TS MANDATED TO MEET Total Mandated to meet specified number of times per year Total Agencies # 55 30 -5 % 100 54 Once . 9 Twice 5 9 Three times - Four times 14 25 Five times 1 2 Six times \ 3 5 Eleven times 1 2 Twelve times 1 2 N , Not mandated to meet specified number of times 25 46 , Table 137 NUMBER OF TIMES COUNCIL/COMMISSION MET DURING FISCAL 1974 i Total Agencies P. % Toial 55 100 Once or twice 5 9 3 - 4 times 16 30 5 - 6 times 14 25 7 - 8 times 6 10 1 9 - 10 times 10 18 11 - 12 times 4 8 Mean number of times met DT fiscal 1974 32d 6.2 times NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. -259 - It is not unreasonable to conclude that the greater the total ex- penditures of an agency, the more work there may be for a council/commission, and it is true that the average number of meetings during fiscal 1974 rose steadily with an increase in total expenditures. Table 138 NUMBER OF TIMES COUNCIL/COMMISSION MET DURING FISCAL 1974; BY TOTAL EXPENDITURES Ex enditures Below $250,000- $500,000- $750,000 Total $250,000 .$499,999 $749,999 and Above Mean number of times 6.2 ,4.9 6.3 6.7 7,5 Not only did councils/commissions meet relatively frequently, but most members attended these meetings. In only one agency was the average attendance below 50%, and average attendance was at least 70% at meetings of most councils/commissions. Table 139 AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF MEMBERS ATTENDING COUNCIL/CMAMISSION MEETINGS IN FISCAL 1974 Total Agencies # % Total 55 '100 Attendance Below 5070 1 2 5070 - 59% 5 9 6070 - 69% 10 18' 7070 - 79% 13 24 801 - 89% 17 30 9070 - 99% 4 7 100% 2 4 Majority (volunteered) 2 4 Not sure 1 2 Average attendance 75.5% 33.0 r .L260- In addition to the full meetings of the councils/commissions, in three out of five agencies meetings were held in smaller committee sessions during fiscal 1974, with the number of such committees ranging from one per council/cotnmission to twelve. Table 140 WHETHER COUNCIL/COMMISSION MET IN COMMITTEE SESSIONS DURING FISCAL 1974 Total Total Agencies # 55 33 % 100 Did Meet in committee sessions 60 Number of cormnittees 1 4 7 2 4 7 3 8 15 4 8 15 5 3 5 \ 6 3 5 , 7 2 4 12 1 2 Did not meet in committee sessions 22 40 Councils/commissions were more likely to have executive committees (more than half of those with committees had an executive committee) than any other type of committee. 33.. ; `NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS'. INC. -261- Table 141 NAMES OF COMMITTEES OF THE COUNCIL/COMMISSION Total agencies with council/commission that met in committee session in fiscal 1974 Total Agencies # 33 % .66 Executive 17 31 Visual arts/exhibitions/museum 13 24 Budget/finance 13 24 Policy/long range planning/goals and , , criteria/by-laws 10 18 Grants/funding/subsidy 6 11 Artists-in-schools/education 6 11 Legislative liaison 6 11 Performing arts/dance, theatre, music 6 11 Awards/nominating , 5 9 Personnel/staff liaison 4' 7 Environmental design 4 7 -Siiecial projects 3 5 Literature 3 5 'Ad hoc . 3 5 Inter-discifainary 3 5 Cultural-rebreation 5 Community relations/public relations 2 4 Selection 2 4 Craft 2 4 Touring Artists Register 1 2 Arts service organizations 1 2 Administrative 1 2 Proposal 1 2 Membership 1 2 In all a total of 127 committees were reported by the state arts agencies. A majority of these comMittees function primarily in the area of policy, or of a combination of policy and grantTeview. Table 142 FUNCTIONS OF COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL/COMMISSION 'Total Agencies # % . Total number of committees 127 100 Policy 43 34 Grant review 14 11 Combination of policy and grant review 47 37 Other areas 23 18 33 A., -262- Agencies generally see the committees of the council/commission as being very useful; in evaluating the usefulness of Committees on a scale of very useful, somewhat, useful, only slightly useful or not useful at all, directors rated an overwhelming majority of the committees as very useful. Table 143 USEFULNESS OF COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL/COMMISSION Total number of committees Total Agencies # 127 % 100 Very useful 89 70 Somewhat useful 24 19 Only slightly useful 12 9 Not useful at all 2 2 Meetings of Council/Commission and Tts Committees in Public Sessions Public sessionS'of council/commission meetings are much more the ' rule than the exception. Most ccuncils/commissions are required to have them, and the number in that group is rising. Even among those not so required, most do have them. Table 144 WHETHER COUNCILS/COMMISSIONS ARE REQUIRED TO MEET IN PUBLIC SESSION Total Asencies Fiscal 1974 Fiscal 1975 Total 55 100 55 100 Required to meet,in public session - for all meetings 32 58 36 65 Required to meet in public session for some meetings 8 15 8 15 .Not required to meet in public session at all 15 27 11 20 NATION/t: RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. -263- 'Of the 8 councils/commissions that were required to meet in public .sessions fbr some meetings, the meetings included such types as those re- lated to personnel, security, real estate and, for 1 council, grants. One council/commission must meet publicly only once a year.. Of the 11 councils/commissions not required to meet in public ses- sion at all in fiscal 1975, 8 nevertheless do meet publicly at least for some of their sessions. Observation: So-called "sunshine laws" have been enacted in a number of states during recent years that require greater public disclosure of governmental transactions, meetings, etc. These relate to many types of state agencies, of course, in addition to the arts agency, but as a result state arts councils/commissions are increasingly required to conduct their meetings in public. Smaller committee meetings. are, not surprisingly, far less likely to be subject to requirements pertaining to public sessions, with fewer than one-third of those councils/comndssions with such committees subject to requirements for public sessions of all committee meetings. 334 -264- Table 145 WHETHER COMMITTEES REQUIRED TO MET MI PUBLIC SESSIONS (Base: Councils/commissions that do meet in smaller committee sessions) Total Ag,_encies 33 100 Required to meet in public session for all committee meetings 10 30 Requiged to meet in public session for same committee meetings 2 6 Not required to meet in public session at all 20 61 Not sure 1 3 Of the 20 agencies in which committee meetings are not required to be public at all, 9 report that at least some committee, meetings actually are held in public sessions. Compensation to Members for Attendance at Meetings In the discussion of meetings of the councils/commissions and their canmittees, the type of compensation, if any, made to members was explored. Although honoraria are relatively rare, in 80% of the agencies members are at least reimbursed for their expenses, while in 167 they receive neither reimbursement nor an honorarium. 33t) ect NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS,INC. -265- Table 146 WHETHER, CODNCIldCOMMISSION.MEMBERS ARE COMPENSATED FOR ATTENDING MEETINGS Total Agencies Total 55 100 Members are reimbursed for expenses 39 71 Members are reimbursed for expenses and also receive honorarium 5 9 Members receive honorarium for attending meetings 1 2 Members receive neither reimbursement nor honorarium 9 16 Flexible policy 1 2 It is reasonable to conclude that unless members are at the very 3east reimbursed for their expenses in attending meetings, membership on \\\ councils/commissions will be much more likely to be restricted to an upper i come level that can afford the costs involved in attendance. On the other han \, agencies with limited funds may find it difficult to provide retaburse- \ ment, particularly with the relatively frequent occurrence of meetings. \ The expenditures of an Agency are related to the compensation policy; the lower the total expenditures, the more likely that no compen- sation will be made most probably because funds are not available for this purpose in those agencies: 266 a Table 147 WHETHER NO COMPENSATION IS MADE TO COUNCIL/COMMISSICN MEMBERS FOR ATTENDING MEETINGS, BY TOTAL EXPENDITURES .Total Expenditures Below $250,000- $500,000-'$750,000 Agencies '$25oipoo. $499 999 $749,999. and Above Total 55 100 15 100 20 100. 10. 100 10 100 Members receive-honor- arium or reimbursement, or both .45 a 82 60 17 , 85 10 100 9 90 Members receive neither 9 16 6 40 3 15 Flexible pel4cy 1 2 1 10 , Chairman of the Council/Commission In all state artw.agencies the council or commission is headed . by,a chairman; in 29 agencies the chairmanship is an appointive position, and in the remaining 26 agendies the chairman is elected, in-tesponse to a question on who is most likely to suggest a person for chairman or to initiate the S'election process, directors reported that suggestions for persons to serve as chairman are most likely it come from the council or commission itself; the governor was also cited as a'souree of suggestions . or the initiator of the selection process in more than 2 in 5 states, and the executive director in one agency in four. NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. a 267 Table 148 MOST LIKELY PERSONS TO SUGGEST A PERSON FOR:CHAIRMAN OR TO INITIATE THE SELECTION PROCESS Total Agencies - # . % Total 55 100 Council/commission / 31 56 Governor 24 44 State arts agency executive director 14 25 Retiring chairman , 2 4 Legislature , 1 2 The actual naming or appointment' is done by the governor in a majority of states; in one of those .seates in which the council or commission names or Appoints the chairman the governor'has the power of final review or approval, and the legislatures of five such states have this power. Table 149 PERSONS WHO NAME OR APPODIT CHAIRMAN Total Asencies 7. Total 55 100 Governor 30 54 Council/commission 24 44 Both governor and council/commission 1 2 Table 150 POWER OF FINAL REVIEW OR APPROVAL OF SELEMION OF CHAIRMAN BY COUNCIL/COMMISSION Total Agencies 7. Total agencies in which council/commission names or slipoints chairman 24 44 Legislature has power of final review or approval 5 9 Governor has power of final review or approval 33d 2 - -268- The length of a chairman's term ranges from one year, the term in 1 in 3 agencies, to an unspecified number of years (in 42%). Aable 151 TERM WHICH CHAIRMAN SERVES Total Total Agencies 55 32 ,.. 100 Chairman serves s ecified term 58 1 year 18 33 2 years 5 . 9 3 years 5 4 years 5 9 More than 4 years 1 2 Chairman does not serve s ecified term 23 42 However, in 9 out of 10 of the agencies in which there is a spec- ified tesr for the chairmanship, the chairman can serve two or more consecu- tive tems, and inAnly 1 of the remaining 3 can a chairmall not serve two or more non-consecutive terms. Table 152 WHETHER CHAIRMAN CAN SERVE MORE THAN ONE TERM . (Base: Agencies in which chairman serves specified .tern) Total Aencies % Total 32 100 Chairman may serve two or more consecutive terms 29 91 Chairman may serve two or more non- consecutiye terms 2 6 Chairman may not serve more than one term 1 , 3 NATIONAL RESVARCH CENTER Or TmE,ARTS.INC -269- According.to the directors, state arts agency chairmen serve as a liaison between the agency and the state governmental hierarch in most 0 states, meeting personally with the governor in,more than 4 in 5 states, with thelegislature in 3 in 4 states, and with the governor's staff in 2 in 3 states. Table 153 WHETHER CHAI4MAN PERSONALLY MEETS, AS A FUNCTION OF HIS OR HER CHAIRMANSHIP, WITH THE GOVERNOR ON MATTERS PERTAINING TO THE AGENCY, AND APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF TIMES SUCH MEETINGS WERE HELD IN FISCAL 1974 Total Total Agencies 55 47 100 Does meet with governor 85 Met in fiscal 1974: None 2 4 1 - 2 times 22 39 3 - 4 times 13 24 5 or more times 5 9 Not sure 5 9 (Average number of meetings, 3.1) 1 Does not meet with governor 6 Not sure 2 4 -270- Table 154 WHETHER CHAIRMAN PERSONALLY MEETS WITH ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT OR OTHER STAFF OF GOVERNOR'S OFFICE ON MATTERS PERTAINING TO THE AGENCY, AND APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF TIMES SUCH MEETINGS WMRE HELD IN FISCAL 1974 # Total Total Agencies 55 36 7. 100 Does meet with aovernor's office staff 65 Met in fiscal 1974: 1 - 2 times 11 19 '3 - 4 times 8 15 5 or more times 9 16 Not sure ,8 15 (Amerage number of meetings, 4.7) Does not meet with governor's office staff 19 35 Table 155 WHETHER CRAIRMAN PERSONALLY MEETS WITH INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE ON MATTERS PERTAINING TO THE AGENCY, AND APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF TIMES SUCH MEETINGS WERE HELD IN FISCAL 1974 Total Total Agencies # 55 41 % 100 Does 'Ileet with members of state le,lislature 75 Met in fiscal 1974: 11 - 2 times 10 18 3 - 4 times 5 9 5 or more times 17 32 Not sure 9 16 (Average number of meetings, 9.4) Does not meet with members of state legislature 11 20 Not sure 3 5 NATIONAL RESEARCM CrNTER or THE ARTS.:NG -271- The high proportion of agencies in which the chairman does meet personally with the governor and legislature is an indication that the opportunity for personal presentations of the needs of the agencies does exist widely. The existence of this personal bridge to the executive and legislative branches is likely to some extent a reflection of the fact that in a majority of states the chairman is selected by the governor and is therefore probably personally known to the governor. In the 6 states in which the chairman dOes not meet with the governor, the primary reasons given why this is so were that the governor does not wish to or is not in terested (in 3 states), the chairman is not involved with the governor (2 states),'and the chairman does not know the governor (1 state). N Directors of State Arts Agencies Almost all state arts agencies have the position of a paid director, usually called the executive dire tor. Only 2 Atates do not hdve a paid director; in one the position of di ector is unpaid and in the other (American Salmoa) there is no position of direct , with the chairman -- a member of the governor's.staff.-- handling all adm istrative matters. The director is largely chosen by the council or commiss o , but in one in five states the governor selects the director. Table 156 PERSONS WHO SELECT OR APPOINT DIRECTOR (Base: Agencies with paid or unpaid director) N, Total agencies with directors Total Agencies \N 54 100 Council/commission 41 76 Governor 11 20 Another state agency 1 2 Council/commission chairman 1 2 34,= -272- A large majority of state arts agency directors are male, a ma- jority are less than 45 years old, and most have gone beyond a bachelor's degree in education. Table 157 CHARACTERISTICS OF DIRECTORS (Base: Agencies with paid or Total agencies with directors unpaid director) Total Agencies 54 7. 100 Sex of director Male 35 65 Female 19 35 Age of director 16 30 25 - 34 years 35 - 44 years 17 31 45 - 54 years 17 31 55 and over 4 8 Median age: 41.2 years Educatico of director High s.:hool graduate 1 2 College graduate 17 31 Additional higher education 10 19 Master's degree 23 42 Doctor's degree 3 6 Undergraduate degrees Were earned by ditectors in a wide variety of fields, including such subjects as political science, history, ',Ica- - tion, psychology and business administration, as well as more arts-oriented subjects such as architecture, music and Cheatre. Master's degrees, how- eve:, were more likely to be arts-oriented, especially in the areas of literature, arts administration, visual arts and music. NATIONAL RESEARC CE- NTER OF THE ARTS, INC -273- Arts administration is a relatively new field of study for ad- , vanced degrees, but 4 directors did report having received a master's degree in arts administration. Moreover, a majority of agency directors have taken arts manage- ment courses, and 2 in 3 had arts management experience before worki4g with a state arts agency, with approximately the same proportion hav ng non-arts management experience. All told, more than 9 in 10 director have some type of management experience or education. Table 158 ARTS AND NON-ARTS MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE (Base: Agencies with director) Total Agencies Total a encies with directors 54 100 Director has management experience/education 51 93 Director has taken arts management courses, seminars or workshops 28 52 Director had previous arts management experience 36 67 Director had previous non-arts nanagement experience 35 65 The previous arts management'experience was primarily as a man- ager or director of an arts organization, with agency directors also re- porting that they had been active in arts education, gallery work and as a council member. Non-arts management experience centered on education, minicipal, social and recreational agencies, communications and non-profit organizations. -274- The length of experience within state arts agenciest-ranges from 5 directors with less than one year's experience to 2 with more than ten years' experience, a majority having five years' or more experience. The length of time in the current position of director, however, was more lim- ited, with a majority being in the job three years or less. Table 159 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN WORK IN STATE ARTS AGENCIES (Base: Agencievwith director) TotaI agencies with directors Total Aaencies 54 100 Less than 1 year 5 9 l - 2 years 11 21 3 - 4 years 10 18 5 - 6 years 10 18 7 - 8 years 7 13 9 - 10 years 9 17 More than ten years 2 4 Median number of years: 5.5 Table 160 YEARS IN CURRENT POSITION AS DIRECTOR (Base: Agencies with director) Total Agencies Total agencies with directors 54 100 Less than 1 year 10 18 1 year 10 18 2 years 7 13 3 - 4 years 9 17 5 - 6 years 7 13 7 - 8 years 5 10 9 - 10 years 6 11 Median number of years: 2.5 1 NATtONAL Re E ARC m C EN TER OF THE ARrs:INC. -275- State arts agency directors are generally a highly experienced group, with both arts and non-arts management backgrounds. Considering the relatively recent history of state arts agencies, their experience in such agencies is on the average hot inconsiderable. However, 1 in 3 direc- tors in the job one year or less indicates a high rate of turnover. Almost 1 in 5 state arts agency directors are paid a salary of less than $15,000 a year,.with less than 1 in 5 receiving a salary of $25,000 or over. Table 161 SALARY OF DIRECTOR (Base: Agencies with director) Total Agencies Total agencies with directors 54 100 $10,000-14,999 10 19 $15,000-19,999 21 39 $20,000-24,999 13 24 $25,000-29,999 7 13 $30,000 and over 2 4 Median salary: $18,900 Non-paid 1 2 foundation. In only 14 agencies -- or 26% of those with dired- one, where funds come from a combination of the regular agency budget. anti an full-time -- are derived from the regular agency budgets in all cases except directors -- all of whom e funds for the salaries of paid tors -- is the director's position a civil service or merit system job, and , in only 5 -- 9% of those with directors -- was the director required to pass an examination in order to assume the position. 346 1 -276- The salaries-of directors tend to incre4se with the size of the agency's budget, a not unexpected rise, in light o\f the greater responsi- \ bilities and administrative duties likely to accompany increase expendi- \ tures. Table 162 MEDIAN SALARY OF DIRECTORS, BY TOTAL EMNDITURES OF AGENCY 47xnend4rures\ Total Below $250,000- $500,000- $750,000 Agencties $250,000 $499 999 $749 999. and Over $18,900 $14,600 $17,700 $22,500 $25,000 Activities of Directors When asked in an open-end question what they felt should be the major functions of their jobs, i.e., the most important df their responsi- bilities, directors were most likely to cite work with the council/com- mission and administration of the agency: NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. -277- Table 163 WHAT DIRECTORS FEEL swap BE MAJOR FUNCTIONS OF THEIR JOB (Base: Agencies with director) Total Total Agencies ir 54 -100 Wbrking with council/commission on policy, planning, etc. 45 83 Administration of agency 41 76 Development of resources 20 37 Promoting the arts to the public, increasing public appreciation 18 33 Contact with state agencies and other political bodies 18 33 Long-range planning 7 13 Hiring capable staff 3 6 Public relations 3 6 Informing arts community of policies and activities 3 6 Liaison with National Endowment for the Arts 3 6 Maintaining integrity of agency and staff during political unrest 1 2 Volunteered responses to an open-end question. To determine how directors actually do apportion their time, they were asked how much time they spend --on a scale of "a great deal of time," "some time," "only a little time," and "do not do" -- on each of a list of 18 specific activities that directors may be involved in. (The list was drawnapp4by The National Research Center of the Arts, in cooperation with consultant directors and the National Endowment for the-Arts.) Ranking the 18 activities according to the proportion of directors who spend a great deal of time on them, general administrative activities rank highest, with a majority of directors noting that they also spend a great deal of time in liaison with the council/commission, program and budget preparation, -278- communication with the arts community and representing the Agency. The 18 activities, and thetnumber and percentage of directors who do them a great . deal, are shown in,the following table: Table 164 ACTIVITIES ON WHICH DIRECTORS SPEND A GREAT DEAL OF TIME (Base: Agencies with directors) Total agencies with directors Total Agencies 54 100 General,administration for.the proper functioning of the agency 47 87 Liaison with the council or commission 36 67 Prepardng the program and budget of the agency 31 57 Engaging in long-term planning 22 41 Fulfilling various reporting requirements o 21 39 Managing council-run projects 6 11 Communicating and cooperating with artists and the cultural community 28 52 Providing counseling to artists and cultural organizations in the state 23 43 Evaluating grant requests 18 33 Advising the arts community concerning the National Endowment for the Arts 10 19 Follow-up evaluations (of grant requests) 8 15 Representing the state arts agency before the public and community leadership 28 52 Communicating with and informing the legislature and governor or other state officials of activities of the agency 17 31 Advising the Endowment concerning the arts community 10 19 Serving on other boards or commissions, advisory groups, etc. 5 9 Obtaining funds in addition to those from the state legis- lature and National Endowment for the Arts 4 7 Directing programs/organizations other than this state agency (other than associated foundations) 1 2 Serving as officer or staff of an associated foundation 3,10 NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS, INC. -279- The grouping of activities on the tables\into administrative tasks, liaison with the arts and cultural community, liaison with state and federal -groups, and miscellaneous other activities indicates that although adminis- trative tasks occupy a great deal of time among the largest proportions of directors, working with the arts community is a majoeactivity of directors, as is work with the state public and private hieraichy. When asked what other activities they were involved' in, in addi- tion to the 18 listed, directors cited such activities as contemplating programs (8 directors), regional arts activities (5), office work (5), co- , ordinating advisory panels (4), serving on a National Endowment f4 the Arts panel (4), serving on an arts education task force (4), Alliance fot Art Education (4), and such miscellaneous activities as those concerned with Bicentennial commissions, cultural centers, the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, etc. A slight majority of directors feel that the amount of time spent on different *Ties of activities will change in the near Future, with the most likely changes volunteered by directors being in increased time on long-range planning, liaison with the legislature, and budget and fund raising activities. -280- Table 165 EXPECTATIONS OF CHANGES EN AMOUNT OF TIME SPENT BY DIRECTOR ON DIFFERENT TYPES OF ACTIVITIES Dig COMING 3 TO 5 YEARS* cBase: Agencies with director) Total. V- Amount of time wil change 30 55 More involvement in long-range planning 13 24 More time spent on legislature 9 17 More time spent on budget/fund raising 7 1? Less involvemenL in programming 4 7 Less time om grant reviews 4 7 More time relating to community 3 6 Larger staff, less duties per individual 3 6 1 More time on programs 2 4 Increasing presaure to do more 2 4 More management,[, coordination, less personal contact 1 4 .-1 Lore time determining agency's role 1 -,, Incre-se genez'ally 1 "o not know 1 , Total Agencies 54 100 Amount of time not,likely_to chmle. Not sure 23 43 1 2 List of changes comprises volunteered responses to an open-end question. The director, like the chairmhn, plays an important role as a representative of the state arts agency to the state government. Although in Table 164 only 17 directors reported spending a great deal of time com- municating with the legislature, governor and other state officials, a majority of directors do meet personally with the governor, members of the governor's staff, and/or members of the legislature. 5 NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER or THE ARTS. INC -281- Table 166 WHETHER DIRECTOR PERSONALLY MEETS WITH GOVERNOR 1!, ON MATTERS PERTAINING TO THE AGENCY, AND APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF TIMES SUCH MEETINGS.WERE HELD IN FISCAL 1974 (Base: Agencies with director) Total Agencies Total agencies with director 54 100 Does meet with governor: 43 80 Met in fiscal 1974f None 5 9 1 - 2 times 13 24 3 - 4 times 13 24 5 or more times 9 17 Not sure 3 6 (Average number of meetings: 4.2) Does not meet with governor 11 20 Table 167 WHETHER DIRECTOR PERSONALLY MEETS WITH ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT OR OTHER STAFF OF GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, AND APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF TIMES SUCH MEETING WERE HELD IN FISCAL .1974 (Base: Agencies with director) 1121Alasencies with director Total Agencies 54 48 100 Does meet with governor's office staff 89 Met in fiscal 1974: None 4 7 1 - 2 times 3 6 3 - 4 times 10 19 5 times or more 28 51 Not sure 3 6 (Average number of meetings: 9.9) Does not meet with governor's office staff 6 11 e -282-- Table 168 WHETHER DIRECTOR PERSONALLY MEETS W.ITH INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE-STATE LEGISLATURE, AND APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF TIMES SUCH MEETINGS WERE HELD IN FISCAL 1974 (Base: Agencies with director) Total agencies with director Total Agencies 54 48 100 Does meet with members of state legislature 89 Met in fiscal 1974: None 1 2 . 1 - 2 times 4 7 3 - 4 times 3 6 5 or more times 35 65 Not sure 5 \ 9 (Average number of meetings: 13.9) Does not meet with members of state le islature 11 Of the 11 directors who do not meet with the governor, 8 reported that such meetings were not their responsibility but were someone else's -job, 1 that members of the courmil/commission have more influence with the governor, 1 that dt was not necessary, and 1 that the governor is hot inter- -ZN ested. Although chairmen are somewhat more likely to meet with governors, directors who do meet with governors do so more frequently'than chairmen; directors are also more likely to have personal contact with the governor's staff and members of the legislature: (.) NATIONAL RESF_ARCH CENTER Or TI-4C ARTSJNC -283- Table 169 MEETINGS OF CHAIRMEN AND DIRECTORS WITH STATE HIERARCHY Total Meet i:ith governor Average Meetings in fiscal 1974 Cha irmen 55 100 47 85 3.1 meetings Meet with staff of_governor . 36 65 Average meetings in fiscal 1974 4.7 meetings Meet with members of legislature Average meetings in fiscal 1974 41 75 9.4 meetings Directors % 54 100 43 80 4.2 meetings 48 89 9.9 meetings 48 89 13.9 meetings When asked what other channels they have to communicate with the governor, the governor's staff, or members of the legislature, directors mentioned intermediary persons, as well as the other means of communication shown in Table 170. .284- 1 Table 170 OTHER CHARNELS OF COMMUNICATION WITH GOVERNOR, GOVERNOR'S STAFF AND INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF LEGISLATURE* (Base: Agencies with director) r/ Total Agencies Total agencies with directOr 54 40 1 1 1 1 1 f 9 6 6 3 1 3 % 100 Friends, associates of gtrvernor Legal counsel Secretary of state MeMber(s) of state judiCiary MemberSs) of U.S. Congress Chairman, vice chairman of council/ Commission ! Concerned Citizens for 'the Arts 1 Correspondence, mail Telephone Direct (non-specific NeWspaper Me4ia None/no other necess rY 1 74 2 2 2 2 2 2 17 11 11 6 2 6 * Volunteered responses o an openend question. A slight majority o directors feel tbat trends or shifts will occur in their communications ith the state hierarchy in the near future, with an emphasis on greater compunication and involvement. T ble 171 WHETHER TRENDS OR SHI'TS IN COMMUNICATION OF DIRECTOR WITH 60VERNOR AND STAFF AND I DIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF STATE LEGISLATURE ARE FORESEEN IN COMING 3 TO 5 YEARS (Base: Agenci s with dfrector) Total agencies with directo po foresee trends or shif qo or shifts ll'ep nds on who is governor , (vIolunteered) 1 1 ttl 1 Total Agencies 54 100 29 54 24 44 1 2 SF ARCM CE iq TER Of THE ARrS. INC -285- Table 172 TRENDS OR SHIFTStIN COMMUNICATION OF DIRECTOR WITH GOVERNOR AND STAFF AND INDIVIDUAL 'MEMBERS OF STATE LECISLATURE FORESEEN IN COMING 3 TO 5 YEARS* (Base: Agencies with director) Total agencies with directors who foresee trends Total Agencies 29 54 More frequent communication 17 31 More personal involvement 6 11 More interest by state hierarchy in arts/budget increase 3 6 Council must hmprove governor's attitude 2 4 More ongoing contact 1 2 Different approach 1 2 Decreasing personal contact with governor 1 2 Council must improve legislature attitude 1 2 Do not know, too early to tell 1 2 List o. trends comprises volunteered answers to an open-end question. In the inquiry into the relationship between the director and the state hierarchy, the directors were asked what other government officials, either administrative or legislative, are most critical, by nature of the office they hold, to the programs and activities of the agency; key budget people in botn the legislative and executive branches were mentioned by almost half the directors. 3 5 u -286- Table 173 OTHER GOVERNHENT OFFICIALS OIRECTORS FEEL,ARF MOST CRITICAL TO THE STATE ARTS AGENCY" (Base: Agencies with director) Total agencies with director Total Agencies P 54 100 Legislative budget committee, chairman 25 46 Budget/auditing/treasury department 93 43 Administrative department officials 15 28 Legislative leadership 9 17 Educational department officials 8 15 Other legislative committees and/or chairmen 6 11 Secretary of state 4 7 Lieutenant governor . 3 6 Tourism department officials 2 4 Attorney general 2 , 4 Community-related agency or department heads, e.g., cultural affairs, environmental, etc. 2 4 Comptroller ' 2 4 Federal legislature . 1 2 Volunteered answers to an open-end question. In a last phase of the inquiry into relationships between direc- tors and government officials, directors were asked whether they foresee any trends or shifts in which a government_ Jfficial or officials will be most critical in determining the level of appropriations or in frequency of contact in the near future, and again a majority foresee such trends. 35 NAf IONAt Re SE ARC N Cit./ TE R Ti-iE ARTS, INC -287- Table 174 WHETHER TRIMS OR SHIFTS IN WHICH GOVERNMENT OFFICLAL(S) WILL RE MOST CRITICAL IN DETERHINING LEVEL OF APPROPRIATIONS OR FREQUENCY 0 CONTACT BY DIRECTOR WITH SUCH OFFICIALS - ARE FORESEEN IN COMING 3 TO 5 YEARS (Base: Agencies with director) To tal Agencies # Total agencies with director 54 100 Do foresee trends or shifts 31 57 No trends or shifts 23 43 Table 175 TRENDS OR SHIFTS IN GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL(S)' DETERMINATION OF LEVEL OF' APPROPRIATIONS OR DIRECTOR'S CONTACT WITH THEM FORESEEN IN COMING 3 TO 5 YEARS* (Base: Agencies with director) Total Agencies # Total agencies with directors who foresee trends 31 57 More contact with officials 9 17 Increased appropriations '8 15 Increased pressure on governor, legislature/ stronger arts constituency 8 15 Greater phasis on education by legislature 3 6 Stronger mphasis on local communities, less on large city institutions 3 6 More effective action by agency and/or depar tment d irec tor 3 6 Shift in priorities by executive department to cultural programs 2 4 Redesign of agency by governor 2 4 Funding reduced/governor, legislature highly . critical 2 4 Governor gaining power to veto agency budget 1 2 Increased staf f 1 2 New budgeting system, similar to PPBS 1. 2 Pressures of budget 1 2 Volunteered answers to an open-end question. 3 5 -288- Management Authority and Decision-Making Powers The survey investigated the grant-making authorities of the chair- man and of the executive direator -- as well as of combinations of persons in the agency -- and the involvement in and final responsibility for deci- sions by the chairman, the director and key persons within and without the agency. In fiscal 1974 less than 1 in 5 chairmen had discretionary power -- that is, with the approval of no one else 7- to make a grant to an indivi- dual or organization requesting funds, but 2 in 5 directors or other staff members,did have such discretionary powers. Among those chairmen and direc- tors who had discretionary grant-making powers, the median amount of an in- dividual grant was the same, but the annual limit was higher for directors. Table 176 DISCRETIONARY GRANT-MAKING POWERS EN FISCAL 1974 Total Chairmen Directors IL 55 9 46 100 17 $800 $6,300 83 54 22 32 100 Ha discretionary power 41 $800 $q,200 59 Median maximum amount of single discretionary grant Median maximum total annual amount of discretionary grants 'No discretionary power Interestingly, a larger proportion of chairmen of agencies in the lowest total expenditures group had discretionary grant-making powers, while a smaller proportion of directors of these agencies had such powers: 3 5 J. NATIONA, PE SEAFeCH CE4TER OF THE ARTS, INC. -289- Table 177 DISCRETIONARY GRANT-MAKING POWERS IN FISCAL 1974, BY TOTAL EXPENDITURES Total chairmen Have discretionary grant-making power Median maximum amount of single'discretionary grant Total # % 55 100 9 17 Expenditures Below 250,000 $250,000- $499 999 $500,000- $749,999 $750,000 and Above # % 15 100 # 20, 3 % 100 # 10 % 100 10 100 5 34 15 1 10 $800 $500 $1,000 Median maximum annual amount of discretionary grants $6,300 $3,000 $7,500 # % Total director; 54 100 Have discretionary grant-making power 22 '41 $800 $37,500 # % # % # % # % '14 100 20 100 10 100 10 100 2 14 11 55 6 60 3 30 Median maximum amount of single discretionary grant $800 $500 $800 $900 -$800 Median maximum annual amount of discretionary grants $89,200 none $8,800 $10,000 $5,000, In addition to discretionary powers to make grants in general, the survey also explored the authority of the exeutive director or.other staff to make discretionary grants within the agency's broad program areas approved by the council/commission, and in a bare majority cf agencies the executive director or othef staff did have the discretionary power in fiscal 1974 to fund individuals or organizations for services in the fulfillment of the agencies' prograqs. 36 u -290- Table 178 DISCRETIONARY GRANT-MAKING POWER WITHIN BROAD PROGRAM AREAS APPROVED BY COUNCIL/COMMISSION IN FISCAL 1974 Total Agencies # Total 55 100 Director or other staff did have discretion- ary power within approved program areas 28 51 4 No discretionary power 26 47 In most agencies in which the director or staff had discretionary 0- power to fund individuals or organizations in the fulfillment of approved programs, there was no maximum amount for such funding other than the total amount approved for the entire program, but in 39% of the agencies a maximum amount was set. Table 179 MAXIMUM AMOUNT FOR WHICH DIRECTOR OR OTHER STAFF HAD DISCRETIONARY POWER WITHIN BROAD PROGRAM AREAS APPROVED BY COUNCIL/COMMISSION (Base: Agencies in which director or other staff had such power) Total Agencies Total agencies in which director or other staff had discretionary grant-making power within program areas in fiscal 1974 28 100 Maximum amount existed Median maximum amount: moximum amovnt $700 11 17 39 61 3 6 NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS, INC, -291- In contrast to the limited discretionary grant-making powers of chairmen, a strong majority of almost nine in ten chairmen do have the power to appoint committees of 6he council or commission on their own. Table 180 WHETHER CHAIRMAN RAS POWER TO ATPOINT COMMITTEES OF THE COUNCIL/COMMISSION , Total Agencies Total 55 100 Chairman has such power 48 87 Only council/commission can appoint committees 5 ' 9 Done by governor 1 2 No such canmittees 1 2 Decision-making Powers In probing further into decision-making powers, the survey broad- ened Its invetigation to intlude -- in addition to the chairman and the director -- the governor, the legislature, the council/commission members, committees of the council/commission, staff members other than the direc tor, panels of experts, other advisors or consultants, and the state budget or finance office, with opportunities provided for the citing of other persons. Six types of-deliberations were listed, and for each the director was asked which of the persons or groups were involved in various stages of deliberations and who has the final responsibility for making decisions of that type. The types of deliberations were: overall-policy and long-range planning; budget; formulation of guidelines and program planninl grants or project funding; follow-up evaluation; and administrative matters. -292- 1. Overall policy and long-rangg planning. The council/comnds- sion members and the executive director are each involved in stages- of de- liberations concerning policy and long-range Planning in more than 9 in 10 agencies, and the chairman and other staff members in a majority of agenc- ies. Final responsibility for decisions in this area lies largely with the council/commission members, but the chairman at least shares this re- sponsibility in 1 in 3 agencies and the executive director in appro4imately 3 in 10. 36 s, Table 181 RESPONSIBILITY FOR OVERALL POLICY AND LONG-RANGE PLANNING Total Agencies Below $250 000 $250,000- $499,999 $506,000- 749,999 $750,000 and kbove Total 1/ 55 100 # 15 % 100 # 20 % 100 1/ 16 7 100 1/ 10 00 \ % Invtived in deliberations \' Council/commission members 52 95 15 100 18 96 9 q0 10 100 10 100 Executive director 50 91 12 80 18 90 10 10 Council/commission chairman 46 84 11 73 17 85 8 80 10 106 Staff members other than director 37 67 7 47 14 70 90 7 70\ Committees of the council/commission 25 45 4 27 8 40 .9 , 70 6 60\ Panels of experts 21 38 41 3 20 7 35 6 60 5 50 Other advisors or consultants 16 29 ' 3 20 8 40 4 40 1 10 Governor 1, 14 25 4 27 ' 5 25 2 20 3 30 State budget or finance officer 12 22 5 33 4 20 2 20 1 10 Legislature 10 18 2 13 3 15 2 20 3 30 . Director of department of which agency is a part. 3 5 2 10 1 10 National Endowment for the Arts 1 2 1 Axts/cultural organizations 1 2 1 10 Final responsibility for decisions Council/commission members 36 65 8 53 12 60 8 80 8 80 Counc11/comm1ssio.1 chairman 18 33 7 47 7 35 2 20 2 20 Executive director 16 29 5 33 8 40 2 26 1 10 Governor 5 9 4 27 1 5 Committees of the council/commission 4 7 1 7 2 10 1 10 Director of department of which agency is a part 2 4 - - 2 10 Staff members other than director 1 2 - - 1 5 Panels of experts 1 2 - 1 5 Legislature 1 2 1 10 36.i '360 o 1 -294- 2. Budget. Thp executive director is most likely to be involv d / in budget deliberations, but the legislature and governor, along with c ncil/ commission members, are more likely to have final responsibility for diPcisions , * / in this area. / > 0' Table 182 RESPONSIBILITY FOR BUDGET Total Agencies Expenditures if I TI ;, 0 Below $250 000 $250,000- $499,999 $500,000- E49 999 $750,000 and Above % # % # % # % Total 55 100 15 100 20 100 10 100 10 100 > Involved in deliberations Executive director 50 91 13 87 18 90 10 100 9 90 Council/commission members 40 73 10 67 15 75 6 60 9 90 State budget or finance officer 38 69 11 73 15 75 6 60 6 /60 Legislature 37 67 10 67 15 75 5 50 7 ,70 Council/commission chairman 37 67 9 60 14 70 5 50 9 90 Governor 34 62 9 60 14 70 5 50 6 60 Staff members other than director 34 62 8 53 14 70 6 60 6 60 Committees of the council/commission 19 35 3 20 5 25 5 50 6 60 Other advisors or consultants 7 13 2 13 2 10 2 20 1 10 Panels of experts 5 9 _ _ _ 3 30 2 20 Ui Director of department of which agency is a part 5 9 4 20 1 10 Final responsibility for decisions Legislature 20 36 8 53 6 30 2 20 4 i 40 Council/commission members 20 36 3 20 8 40 6 60 3 30 Governon 17 31 6 40 5 25 3 30 3 30 Council/commission chairman 15 27' 3 20 7 35 1 10 4 40 Executive director 14 25 4 27 7 35 2 20 1 10 State budget or finance officer 6 11 2 13 3 15 1 10 Directors of department of which agency is a part 5 9 4 20 1 10 Committees of the council/commission 3 5 2 10 10 363 -296- 3. Formulationof videlines and program planning. The formu- lation of guidelines and program planning is based on deliberations involv- ing the director in more than 9 in 10 agencies, and council/commission mem- bers in more than 4 in 5, with other staff members and the chairman each being involved in a majority of agencies. Final responsibility is largely with the council/commission members and/or the director. Table 183 RESPONSIBILITY FOR FORMULATION OF GUIDELINES AND PROGR&M PLANNING Total Agencies Expenditures Below $250 000 $250,000- $499,999 $500,000- $749,999 $750,000 and Above # % # % # % # % Total 55 100 15 100 20 100 10 100 10 100 Involved in deliberations Executive director 52 95 12 80 20 100 10 100 10 100 Council/commission members 46 84 11 73 17 85 8 80 10 100 Staff members other than dimctor 40 73 9 60 16 80 9 90 6 60 Council/commission chairman 35 64 10 67 13 65 5 50 7 70 Committees of the council/commission 21 38 5 33 5 25 6 60 5 50 Panels of experts 13 24 2 13 2 10 6 60 3 30 Other advisors or consultants 10 18 4 27 4 20 2 20 - - Governor 2 4 1 7 - - - 1 10 Legislature 1 2 - - - - - 1 10 ts, National Endowment for the Arts 1 2 1 5 Director of department of which agency is a part 1 2 5 Arts/cultural organizations 1 2 1 10 Final responsibility for decisions Councilttommission members 34 62 9 60 11 55 7 70 7 , 70 Executive director 31 .56 7 47 13 65 8. 80 3 30 Council/commission chairman 16 29 6 40 6 30 2 20 2 20 Staff members other than director 9 16 2 13 3 15 2 20 2 20 Panels of experts 4 7 1 7 2 10 - 1 10 Committees of the council/commission 4 7 1 7 1 5 2 20 - - Governor 2 4 2 13 D - t.. - - - Director of department of which agency is a part 1 2 1 5 3i -298- 4. Grants or _project funding. Decisions in this area are made almost entirely within the agency, with little involvement from the rest - of the state myernment. -0 0 Table 184 RESPONSIBILITY FOR GRANTS OR PROJECT FUNDING Total Agencies Expenditures Below $250 000 $250,000- $499,999 $500,000- $749,999 $750,000 and Above II # % # % # %' # Total 55 100 15 100 20 100 10 100 10 100 Involved in deliberations Council/commission members 48 87 12 80 18 90 9 90 9 90 Executive director 45 82 9 60 18 90 10 100 8 80 Council/commission chairman 38 69 9 66 14 70 6 60 9 90 Staff members other than director 36 65 6 40 15 75 8 80 7 70 Panels of experts 28 51 5 33 11 55 5 50 7 70 Committees of the council/commission 20 36 4 27 6 30 5 50 5 50 Other advisors or consultants 9 16 2 13 4 20 2 20 1 10 State budget or finance officer 5 9 1 7 3. 1.5 - 1 10 Governor 3 5 2 13 1 - - - 1 10 I Legislature 2 4 1 7 I 5. - 1/40 1/40 Director of department of which I agency is a part 1 2 1 *, 5 Final responsibility for decisions Council/cOmmission members 44 80 10 67 16 80 9 90 9 90 Council/commission chairman 17 31 6 40 6 30 3 30 2 20 Executive director 14 25 3 20 8 40 3 30 Committees of the council/commission 5 9 2 13 2 10 1 10 Staff members other than director 5 9 2 13 1 5 1 ° 10 1 10 Governor , 3 5 3 20 - Panels of experts o 3 5 1 5 1 10 10 Director oftdepartment of which agency is a part 2 4' 1 5 1 10 373 37-i -300- 5. Follow-np evaluation. Evaluations -- which may range from on-site vAsits to a review of reports of grant recipients ". are largely a staff area with involvement in a majority otagencies only by directors and/or other staff. 10111 ME 1111IF . IMF IOW Table 185 RESPONSIBILITY FOR FOLLOW-UP EVALUATION Expenditures > X0 0 Total Below $250,000- 000,000- $750,000 Agencies $250,000 $499,999 $749,999 and Abow % It % II % % 0 Total Total , 55 100 15 100 20 100 10 100 10 100 > Involved in deliberations Staff members other than director 48 87 11 73 18 90 10 100 9 90 Executive director _45 82 11 73 18 90 10 100 6 60 Council/commission members 22 40 8 53 s 4 20 4 40 6 60 Council/commission chairman 13 24 7 47 1 . 5 2 20 3 30 Committees of the council/commission 11 20 3 20 44° 4 20 2 20 2 20 Panels of experts 11 20 3 20 2 10 4: 40 2 20 Other advisors or consultants 10 18 1 7 3 15 # 4. 40 2 20 State budget or finance officer4 4 1 7 2 10 1 10 Grantees 3 5 1 5 1 10 1 10 Another state agency 1 2 1 7 Final responsibility for decisions Executive director 38 69 10 67 17 85 8 80 3 30 Staff members other than director 22 40 4 27 8 40 6 60 4 40 Council/commission members 12 22 4 27 3 15 - 5 50 Council/commission nhairman Committees of thescouncil/commission 5 9 5 9 3 .20 1 7 1 5 3 15 1 10 1 10 Other advisors or consultants , 2 4 1 7 1 10 Governor 1 2 1 7 Panels of exlierts 1 2 1 7 Grantees 1 2 1 10 'ft3e7 .0 371 a -302- 6. Administrative matters. As noted in the discussion of the director's functions, administration of the agency is the most important of these functions, and this is reflected in the fact that in 95% of agencies the directoi is &volved in deliberatAons en administrative matters (it should be remembered that in 1 agency there is no director), and in 3 out of 4 the director has final responsibility for decisions in this area. Total Table 166 RESPONSIBILITY FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RATTERS Involved in deliberations 'Executive director Staff members 'other than director Council/commi:ssion chairman Council/commEssion members Committees cA the council/commission State budget'or finance officer Governor Director of flepartment ofwhich agency is a part 7 Other advisors or consultts Legislature; Final responsibility for decisions Executive director\ Council/comiaission chairman Governor Council/comMission members Committees of the council/commission Staff membets other than director Director ofIdepartment of which agency is; a part Legis2aturel Panels of erperts 37J Total Agencies Expenditures / Below $250,000 '$250,000- $500,090-. $499 999 $749A99 $750;000 and Above # % # % # % # / % / # % 55 100 15 't10C 20 160 i 100 10 100 52 _95 12 80 20 100 0 loo 0 loO 36 65 9 60 14 70 /7 70 60 60 23 , 42 7 47 10 50 / 2 20 4 40 16 29 5 33 7 35 / 3 30 1 10 11 20 1 7 4 20 3 30 3 30 7 13 - 3 15 2 20 2 20 5 9 3 20 1 5.--1 1 10 - _ 5 9 - 4 20 1 10 - - 2 4 - - 2 10 - - -- Lk, 1 2 1 7 -. / - - - - s 41 75 11 73 l 75 9-- 90 6 . 50 13 24 6 40 ,73 '2 15 1 10 3 f 30 6 11 3 20 10 1 10 --. - - 6 11 1 7 3 15 1 - 10 1 10 6 11 1 7 . 3 15 7 - 2 20 "5 . 9 1 7 3 15 ' - _. . 1 .10 , . 3 5 - 3 15 : --. - - 1 2 - 1 5 - - - , 1 2 1 7 ... - - - 3, I 6 N 0 0 0 (1 -304- After a decision has been reached it can, in some states, be vetoed by oificials or agencies outside the state arts agency. In 2 in 5 states out- side officials have this power, with the governor most often being able to veto decisions. Table 187 OUTSIDE OFFICIALS WITH VETO POWER OVER DECISIONS MADE BY STATE ARTS AGENCY Toal Total Agencies # 55 22 % 100 Total agencies in which outside official or .agency does have veto power , 46 Governor 13 24 State finance/budget/controller's office 7 13 Legislature 5 9 Director of department of which agency , is a part 5 9 Executive department or council 2 4 National Endowment for the Arts 2 4 Attorney'General's office 2 4 Stqte programming office 2 4 alSartment of developmentalaservices 1 2 Department ''of administration 1 2 State clearinghouse 1 2 Lieutenant governor 0 1 2 List of officials comprises volt;6eered answers to an open-end question. The members of the council/commissiOn bear primary responsibili- ties ior decisions concerning policy and long-range planning, guidelines and program planning, .and grants or porject funding, and are second only to the legislature in the area of budget. EXecutive directors, however, are inv,olved in decision-making in all areas in a strong majority of the t:ky, NAT ONAL RESFAiRco-4,c7ENTER Of IHE ARrS,INC -305- agencies, and the director and staff have.the major responsibility for ,pvaluation and administrative matters. Furthermore, consultant di-rectors indicate that decisions made by the council/commission are often an adop- , tion of positions prepared by the director and staff. 4 Observation: The respective roles of the chairman elid executive director seem to have not been clearly defined in a number of areas;.indications are that their re- sponsibilities may develop intp those of a chief executive and chief operating officer, respectively, more clearly than at the present time. , , . NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARS, INC. I . -% , -307- N. I/ . MANPOWER . This chapter focuses on the manpower available to state arts agen- ! -cies to effect their programs and other activities. The manpower comprises paid staff, outside advisors, and volunteers: I , paid staff: the basic personnel of the agency, including the director. The analysis of paid staff cover's: e1/4. -- number and type of personnel, such as full-time or part-time, executive-professional or clerical, etc. -- characteristics of personnel, i.e., sex and racial/ ethnic distribution -- salaries of staff -- staffs of associated foundation, if any -- organization of staff, by function or art form -- adequacy of staff, in terms ol number and of experience and training - - adequacy of staff, in terms of salary, and\ comparison of salaries with other state agencies - - payment of staff in whole or in part by funds from the National Endowment for the Arts - outside advisors or consultants, including the existdace of panels and the types of panels - volunteers and their use by state arts agencies 38.i -308- Number of Paid Staff The 55 state arts agencies were staffed by a total of 483 person- \ nel at thvlose of fiscal 1974 -- including the director as well as con-, sultants and contract personnel serving in a taff capacity -- or an average of 9 paid staff-per agency. The size of paid staff, however, varied widely -- from none in American Samoa in fiscal 1974, 1 in Guam and 2 in Nevada, North Dakota and Wyoming, to 29 each inEichigan and Puerto Rico, 30 in Tennessee and 82 in New York. BEST Copy AVAILABLE NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER Or THE ARTS. ING. Table 188 NUMBER OF PAID STAFF, ,INCLUDING DIRECTOR AND CONSULTANTS AND CONTRACT PERSONNEL, SERVING IN A STAFF CAPACITY AT CLOSE OF FISCAL 1974 Total Full-Time fart7Time New York 82 80 2 Tennessee 30 27 3 c Michigan 29 26 3 Puerto Rico 29 22 7 Connecticut 17 14 3 South Carolina 15 14 1 Minnesota 13. 7 6 Rhode Island 12 7 Colorado 11 9 -2 Pennsylvania 11 11 Texas 11 8 3 Illinois 10 10 Indiana 10 10 Maryland 10 6 4 California 9 9 Massachusetts 9 9 Mississippi 9 5 4 Ohio 9 9 Alabama 8 8 Arizona 8 6 2 New Jersey 7 6 1 Washington 7 7 Alaska 6 6 Kentucky 6 6 Maine 6 6 Oklahoma 6 6 West Virginia 6 5 1 Hawaii 5 4 1 Iowa 5 4 1 Louisiana 5 3 2 Missouri 5 5 New Mexico 5 4 1 North Carolina 5 5 Vermont 5 5 Virgin Islands 5 5 Georgia 4 4 Kansas 4 4 Nebraska 4 2 2 New Hampshire 4 4 Oregon 4 4 South Dakota , 4 2 2 Arkansas 3 2 1 Delaware 3 2 1 District of Columbia 3 3 Florida 3 Montana 3 2 1 Utah 3 3 Virginia 3 3 Wisconsin 3 3 Idaho 2 2 Nev,d1 2 1 1 NortL lakOta 2 2 Wyoming 2 Guam 1 1 American Samoa TOTAL 4 83 Zr -310- The size of7an agency's staff is naturally related td the agency's expenditures, those agencies with greater expenditures logically requiring a larger staff. ,This is seen clearly in the sharp inuease in the bverage number of paid personnel by budget category: Table 189 AVERAGE NIRIBER OF PAID STAFF AT CLOSE OF FISCAL 1974, BY TOTAL EXPENDITURES Total Agencies AVerage staff 9 Expenditures Below . $250,000- $500,000- $750,000 $250,000 $499 999 $749 999 and Above 3 6 12 20 Another significant factor affecting staff size is the adminis- tration by the agency of its own programs, such as agendy-adMihfb-tered--- touring programs, museums, etc. For example, Tennessee and Puerto Rico have e large numbei of agency-administered programs, requiring larger numbers of staff members generally to conduct these programs. Type of Personnel Of 'the total 483 staff members, 87% were full-time, and 13% were part-time. Again, the size of an agency's expenditures was a significant factor, with part-time personnel constituting 30% of total staff in agencies in the under $250,000 expenditure group compared with only 7% of those with expenditures of $750,000 and above. *Full-time was defined as a minimum of 35 hours a week on a regular basis, pert-qme as fewer than 35 hours a week on a regular basis or any number of hours for only a part of the year. NATION'1AL RESE ARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. -311- - . - Approximately two in three (65%) staff members were classified by the agencies as executive or professionalliersonnel and the :remaining 35% as clerical personnel. Thirty-four percent of total paid staff were civil service employees, 20% were contract personnel and 46% neither civil serv- ice nor contract. Only a minimal number of paid staff (8%) were union members, with no union members on the staff of agencies with expenditures be1oW $250,000 and only 1%-in'the $250,000-499,9-99 group, but 6% of staffs of agencies in the $500,000-749,999 group and 15% of those with exrenditureg of $750,000 and Abov. Table 190 TYPE OF PERSONNEL a (Base: Paid C. Total paid. staff at close staff at Total Agencies close of fiscal 1974) Expenditures Below $250 000 $250,000- $500,000- $499 999 $749 999 $750,000 and Above (483) % (44) % (123) eZ, (120) % (196) % of fiscal 1974 100 100 1,00 100 100 Full-tbme 87 70 86 82 93 Part-time 13 30 14 l8 7 Executive/professional. 65 59 -.. 65 66 Clerical 35 41 35 35 -34 Civil service 34 34 40 24 35 Contract 20 27 24 20 16 Neither civil service nor,contract 46 39 36 56 49 Union members 8 1 6 15 Non-union members 92 100 99 94 85 0 +4- -312- Differences in the type of personnel can be seen between executive: professional and clerical staffs, with a larger proportion of clerical per- sonnel than' macutive-professional staff beivg under civil service and mem- tiers of unions: Table-I91 TYPE OF PERSONNEL, BY EXECUTIVE-PROFAIONAL VS. CLERICAL STAFF (Base: Paid staff at close. otfistal 1974) Total paid staff at close of fiscal 1974 (483) Executive-Professional Clerical (314) (169) 100 ' % 100 Full-ttme 86 87 Part-ttme 1 14 13 Civil service 29 41 Codtract 25 12 e Neither civil service nor contract, 46 47 Union members 6 12 Non-union members 94 88 Characterietics of Paid Staff Three out of every five paid staff members of state arts agencies are women. However, a majority (57%). of the executive-professionarstaff are men; in contrast, only 107 of the clerical staff are men. The 837 of paid personnel who are white does not vary greatly by executive-professional vs. clerical classifications or full-time/part- . time status, rising only to 847. of executive-professional staff and dropping to 79% 'of clerical staff. The proportion of black staff members, however, is somewhat higher among clerical staff (12%) than executive-professional (7). NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. , -313-- Table 192 bHARACTERISTICS OF PAID STAFF (Base: Paid staff at close of fiscal 1974) Total pa.id staff at close.of fiscal 1974 -Total Executtve- Professional Clerical Full-Time Part-Time (483) (314) (161) % 100 (418) (65) 100 % 100 \ 100 100 Sex . 40 57 . 10 41 34 Men Women 60 43 .90 59 66 EacialnicrilkE . White 83 * 84 79 84 83 Black 9 7 12 9 2 Spanish-American 7 8 . 5 6 11 Oriental 1 1 2 1 2 American Indian * 1 2 Other * - 1 . 4 *Lesg than 0.57 Observation: Although women constitute a majority of,agencies' staffs, they are likely to occupy lesser positions than men, and this is -reflected, as will be seen in the following sytiOn, in lower salaries paid them. The 83% of paid stiaff who are white is actually below the ro- portion of whites among the population. In the 1970 cjIs, 89% of the adult population 21 years and over were clessified as white. Salaries of Paid Staff One in three (33%) staff members of state arts agencies received salaries of less than $7,500 at the close'of fiscal 1974, and the median salary paid was $9,700. Excluding part-time workers, the median was a somewhat higher $10,500 for full-time staff, bu still more than one tn four (28%) were earning less than $7,500. -314- Executive-professional personnel earned a mediati $12,100, while clerical personnel were,paid a median $6,600. . , Table 193 SALARIES OF PAID STAFF . (Base: 2 Paid ataff Total at close of fiscal Executive- Professional Clerical 1974) Full-Time Part-Time (483) . (314) (169) (418) (65) A I. % . 100 100 100 100 röb LesS than .$5,000 , 10 8 12 1 68 $5,000-7,499 2 23 59 27. 12 500-9,999 18 18 . 21 19 15 $10,000-12,499 17 22 7 18 2 $12,56714,499 14 21 1 16 3 $15,000-17,499 8 12 , 9 $17,500-19,999' 4 6 ..4 $20,000-24,999 4 5 4 $25,000 and over 2 *- 3 2 Median salary $9,700 $12,100 $6,600 $101500 $3,700 The $10,500 Indian salary paid to full-time staff members rose to $14,000 for male staff and dropped to only $8,400 for female staff. This sharp difference is explained in part by the much greater likelihood of women being in clerical positions. However, even among executive- professional personnel only, women were paid a lower median $10,000 com- pared with $13,800 for men: 3 9 NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER Or THE ARTS, INC. -315- Table 154 MEDIAN SALARY OF MEN AND WONEll (Base: Paid staff at close of fiscal*/974) Total Men Women 13 400 7800 Executive-professional 13,800 10,000 Clerical 7,100 6,600 Full-ti e 14,000 8,400 Part-tim 5,000 3,300 Observation: ' The difference in median salaries between men and women is not a result of women in professional-executive positions - being concentiaEed in smaller budget agencies, as might be conjectured. More than hdlf the professional-executive womensare in agencies with expenditures of $R00,006 and over% Howeveuc women may be occupying lower level posi- tions, although still within the executive-professional group, than male staff. Staffs of Associated FOundations * The separate-foundations associated with eleven state'arts agencies had paid staffs totaling only 17 at ale close of fiscal 1974 (apart from the paid staff of the agencies themselves). Two of the states, Colorado and Nebraska, had no separate personnel for the asso- ciated foundation, and in only three states did the foundation's staff exceed one person -- Michigan' (2), Connecticut (4) and New York (5). The foundation associated with the Massachuseits agency was not fully operative in fiscal 1974 and did not have paid staff. 3 94:: -316- Twelve of the 17 foundation personnel, or 71%, were in executive- professional position§-, and the ratio of men to women was a close 9 men to 8 women. , Table 195 NUMBER OF PAID STAFF OF SEPARATE ASSOCIATED FOUNDATIMS AT CLOSE OF FISCAL 1974 Colorado Total 1 Full-Time Part-Time r Connecticut 4 4 Florida 1 1 Illinois 1 1 Indiana 1 1 Michigan 2 1 1 Nebraska New York 5 5 Oregon 1 1 SathCarolina 1 1 Warning 1 J. TOTAL 17 12 5 Observation: The small sizes of the staffs of separate associated foundattons may indicate some restricted activities. However, indications are that, in some cases at least, the agency's own staff may be responsible for 4 lir portion of the foundation's activities. 844 39 NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER orrHe ARTS, INC, -317 - Table 196 T:YPE OF PERSONHEL ADD CHARACTERISTICS OF PAID STAFF OF SEPARATE ASSOCIATED FOITODATIOUS (Base: Paid staff at close of fiscaj. 1974) Total Foundations I. Total paid staff at close 41k of fiscal 1974 (17)-- 100 Executive-professional 71 . Clerical$ 29 Full-time 71 Part-time 29 Civil service 6 Contract 41 Neither civil service nor contract 53 Union members Non-union members Sex Men Women Racial/ethnic sxoup. White Black Oriental 100 53, 47 88 6 r 6 Organization of Staff of State Arts Agencies The professional staff of the btate arts agencies is most likely to be organized by function. When asked in an open-end question whether the,organization or structure of the professional staff was by function (such as touring, technical assistance, etc.), by art form (such as music, etc.), or by some,o.thar division,'60% of the agencies reported functional organization, compared with only 7% organized by art form. -318- Table 197 ORGANIZATION OF PROFESSIONAL STAFF APART FROM DIRECTOR* '44 Total Agencies %. Total 55 100 By function 33 60 By art form/discipline 4 7 By program 1 2 By target audiences of population groups 1 2 By art form and function . 4 7 By administration and program 2 , 4 By program and discipline 1 2 Small staff, jobs overlap 6 11 No other staff 3 5 Volunteered answers to an open-end question. Observation: Professional staff of stale arts agencies usually work more as administrative generalists in such areas as artists-in-schools, grants, public,information, touring, etc., rather than as specialists in a particular disci- pline, regardless of what might be their special inter- .... ests or background. Within many of the functional areas, .of course, divisions by art form could be made,but few agencies have anywhere near the number of staff for such division of responsibilities. And, in fact,'in most agencies the size of the staff is felt to be inadequate, as discussed below. Adequacy of Staff When asked whether the paid staff of the agency at the time of 0 the survey was adequatg in terms of current activities and responsibilities, in more than 4 in 5 agencies the staff was not considered to be adequate. a NATIONAL RE SEAIRCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC, I. -319- Table 198 ADEQUACY OF NUMBER OF STAFF IN TERMS OF AGENCY'S CURRENT ACTIVITIES Total AND RESPONSIBIL/TIES Total Agencies 55 47 100 , Staff is not adequate in number 85 *Areas where staff i§ inadequate: 'Programs/programming 23 42 Secretarial/clerical 20 36" Administration 15 27 Community development 11 20 Fiscal affairs, aaounting 9 16 Public relations 7 13 Evaluation *4 7 Specialists by art form 4 7 Grant officers 3 5 Touring 2 4 Artist6-in-schools 2 4 Technical assistance 2 4 Curatorial 1 2 Youth consultant 1 2 All 3 5 Staff is adequate in number 8 15 Volunteered answers to an open-end question. Although agencies generally do not believe their staffs are large enough, most of them believe that those who Are on the staff do have ade- quate experience or training. 3 90 Table 199 ADEQUACY OF EXPERIENCE, OR TRAINING OF STAFF OF AGENCY Total Agencies II Total 55 100 Staff does not have:adequate experience or training 2 4 Some staff have adequate experience or training_and some do not 8 15 % *Areas where experience or:training is not adequate: Budget control 3 5 Grantsmanship 3 - 5 Administration 3 5 Specific art background 2 Clerical 1 2 Technical assistance 1 2 All need more experience 3 5 All need more training 1 2 Staff has adequate experience or training 43 77 No other staff 2 4 Volunteered answers to an open-end question. Civil Service/merit Systems In almost 2 in 3 agencies at least some staff members other than the director are under the State's civil service or merit, system, with clerks, secretaries and administrative assistants most likely to be under such a system: 39 NATiONAL RE$EARCH CEWER OF THE ARTS. INC. -321- Table 200 WHETHER STAFF MEMBERS OTHER THAN DIRECTOR ARE UNDER STATE CIVIL SERVICE OR MERIT SYSTEM Total Total Agencies 55 35 % 100 Some staff members under civil service or merit system \ 64 *Areas in which staff members a4 under civil service or merit systeM: C1erical/clerk-typist 11 20 Secretarial 10 18 Administration, administrative intern 10 18 Programming 8 15 Bookkeeping/a6counting \ 3, 5 Special projects 1 2 Finahce 1 2 Executive assistant 1.- 2 Professional. Assistant director 1 2 Career employees 1 2 All/complete staff 10 18 No staff members under civil service or merit system 20 36 Volunteered answers to an open-end question. In most of the agencies in which staff positions are under ctvil service or merit systems, these positions must be filled in the order de- termined by the system; 39 d f -322- Table 201 WHETHER CIVIL SERVICE/MERIT SYSTEM POSITIONS MUST BE FILLED IN ORDER.DETERMINED BY THE SYSTEM Total Total Agencies 55 35 100 Total agencies with staff positions under civil service or merit system 64 All positions must be filled'in system's order 23 43 -Some positions must be filled in system's order 3 5 (Secretarial/clerical) (2) (3) (Administrative) . (1) (2) No positions must be filled in system's order 9 16, Paralleling the high proportion of agencies with staff under state civil service or merit systems is the 837. of agencies in which at least some staff salaries are set by the state. For those positions for which the salaries are not set by the state, the council/commission most often'has the power to establish salary levels: Table 202 WHETHER SALARIES PF STAFF OTHER THAN DIRECTORS ARE SET BY THE STATE Total Agencies % Total 55 100 All salaries are set by the state 38 68 Some salaries are set by the state and some not 'set by state 8 15 No salaries set by state 7 13 No other staff 2 4 39j NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER Of THE ARTS. INC -323-- Table 203 PERSONS WITH AUTHORITY TO SET NON-STATE REGULATED SALARIES Total Agencies Total 55 100 Total with some salaries not set by state . or no salaries set by state 15 28 Council/commission 12 22 Executivedirector 2 4 Executive director and National Endowment for the Arts 1 2 Reflecting the fact, that in most agencies-salaries are set by the -state, a majority of agencies report salaries generally on a par with equivalent iiositions of other agencies within the state, but more than one in-ttiree--revort-sa kary-1 s e-o fro th er-s t e-age n ies : Table 204 COMPARISON OF SALARY LEVELS IN STATE ARTS'AGENCIES------- WITH THOSE OF OTHER AGENCIES IN THE STATE NN . Total Total Agencies 55 100 Salaries are on a par with other agencies within the state 29 52 Salaries are beloy other agencies 19 -35 ,Salaries are above other state agencies 3 5 It varies (vol.) ../ 1 2 Not sure (vol.) 1 2 No other staff (vol.) 2 4 However, despite the fact that 527. of agencies report, salaries on a par with other state agencies, a higher 74% feel that current salary levels are not adequate to attract or keep needed personnel: 4uu -324- Table 205 ADEQUACY OF CURRENT SALARY LEVELS TO ATTRACT OR KEEP NEEDED PERSONNEL Total Agencies , Total Salary levels are not adezlate *Areas in which salaries are inadequate: Programs Administrative/management Secretarial Professional -Executive director . -Administrative assistant Public relations/public information Community coordinator , All Salary levels are adequate It varies (vol.) No other staff Volunteered answers to an open-end question. Observation: Ii % 55 ...._ 100 ___ 41 74 9 16 5 9 4 7 3 5 2 4 2 4 2 4 1 2 23 42 11 20 1 2 2 4 State arts agencies see salary levels as a problem in terms of recruiting and retaining qualified staff;, nevertheless, they largely Share this problem with other state agencies,. since a majority report salaries on a Oar with these agencies. Raising sal- ary levels is difficult in view of theslimited funds a ailable to the agencies as well as becatise of the fac that in most agencies authority for setting salar s is outside the agency itself. The next chapter dicates that higher salaries-would be a priority i increased funds were available. 4 u NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. -325- Salary Support from the National Endowment for the Arts Problems related to the adequacy of salaries as well as the number of staff have to some extent been eased through salary support provided by the National Endowment for the Arts. Most agencies report that staff members and/or consultants or contract personnel serving staff-like'functions were paid in whole or in part by funds from the National Endowment for the Arts in fiscal 1974 and in fiscal 1975, with the proPortion rising from 76% in the former to 89% in the latter year: Table 206 STAFF MEMBERS AND/OR CONSULTANTS OR CONTRACT PERSONNEL PERFORMING STAFF-LIKE FUNCTIONS PAID IN WHOLE OR IN PART .8Y_FUNDS_EROM_THE-NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOk THE ARTS,FISCAL 1974 Total Agencies // % Total 55 100 Staff members and/or consultants or contract personnel Were paid by funds from National _Endowment for the Arts 42 76 No staff members and/cr consultants or contract personnel were paid by funds from National Endowment for the Arts 13 24 Staff members paid by funds from National Endowment for the Arts 35 64 Average number in administrative areas: 1.0 Average numbei in program areas: 1.3 No staff members paid by funds from National Endowment for the Arts 20 36 -------------------------------- ------ --- Consultants or contract personnel were paid by funds from National Endowment for.the Arts 29 53 Average number in administrative arias: 0.3 Average number in program areas: 2.2 No consultants or contract personnel were'paid by fun& from National Endowment for the Arts 26 47 -326- * Table 207 STAFF MEMBERS AND/OR CONSULTANTS OR CONTRACT PERSONNEL PERFORMING STAFF-LIKE FUNCTIONS PAID IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY FUNDS FROM THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS,FISCAL 1975 Total Total Agencies II 55 106 ,Staff members and/or consultants or contract personnel were paid.by funds from National Endowment for the Arts 49 89 No staff members and/or consultants or contract personnel 'paid by funds from National Endowment for the Arts 6 11 Staff members paid by funds from National Endemment for the Arts 42 76 Average number in adMinistrative areas: 0.9 Average number in.program areas: 2.2 No staff members paid by funds from National Eridowment for the Arts 13 24- Consultants or contract'personnel were paid by funds from National Endowment for the Arts 32 58 Average number in administrative areas: 0.5 Average number in program areas: 2.4 No consultants or contract personnel were paid by funds from National Endowment for the Arts 23 42 The funds from the Endowment are primarilyhelping to pay for personnel in program areas, with an average, in agencies in which staff members were paid by Endowment funds in '1975, of less than one staff member in adiinistration being paid by such funds ut more than.two in program areas. A similar situation prevails with regard to consultants/contract personnel. The Endowment, then, is a significant source of support for personnel as well as for program funds. NATIC5NAL RESEARCH CENTER or THE ARTS. 1NC -327- Outside Advisors or Consultants In addition to staff members and staff-like consultants, most State arts agencies use the services of outside advisors or consultants in their a activities. The most common role in which such advisors are used is that of serving on panels, and more than two in three agencies report having panels of experts (other than the council/commission and its 8ommittees). 4. Table 208 USE OF PANELS OF EXPERTS BY AGENCY Total Agencies IT Total 55 100 Fiscal 1974: Did have panels of experts 37 67 No panels of experts 18 33 Fisca1.1975: Did have panels of experts 38 69 No panels of experts 17 31 Among those agencies npt using panels in fiscal 1974, the reasons given included the fact that the director prefer's not to deal with panels and finds them unnecessary (6 agencies), thd lack of fun& for panels in- cluding inability to reimburse for travel (6), the use of professional advlsors instead (5), the fact that-the state is too small (1), and the fact that no one ever suggested setting them up (1). S. -328- The use of panels is more widespread in the Northeast and North Central states than in the rest of the country,.with only 1 agency in the Northeast and 2 in the North Central region not using.panels in fiscal 1974: Table 209 USE OF PANELS IN FISCAL 1974, BY REGION a Total Agencies Northeast South North Central West . # % # 1 % # % # % Total 55 100 9 100 17 100 12 100 13 100 Did have panels 37 67 8 89 10 59 10 83 7 54 Did not have panels 18 33 1 li 7 41 2 17 6 46 Panels are most often organized by art form, but in many cases they are concerned with an overall program of the agency.instead. 4ot, NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF me ARTS. INC. :-329- Table 210 * NAEES OF PANELS AGENCIES HAD IN FISCAL 1974 Total Agencies 100 Total agencies' withyanels in fiscal 1974 37 67 1 Theatre/drama 24 44 Music/opera 23 42 Visual arts 23 42 Dance 23 42 Literature 22 40 Public media/communications 10 18 Artists-in-schools/education 10 18 Film 9 ' 16 Architecture 7 13 Crafts/folk arts 6 11 Environmental design 5 9 Grants A 7 t. Special projects 4 7 Awards 3 5 Humanities 3 6 Performing arts .2 Multi-arts/multi-media 2 4 Museum 2 4 Historical preservation 2 4 Community arts'. 2 4 Public relations ?. 1 2 PersonneLdevelopment. 1 2 Auditions 1 2 Bicentennial 1 2 Policy 1 2 Budget 1 2 Business and the arts 1 2 ts service organizations 1 2 Contemporary,arts 1 2 Professional arts development 1 2 Coordinated arts 1 2 Youth arts 2 ?* *Volunteered responses to an open-end question. 406 cies, 56% were in grant review, 8% in policy, and 31% were a combination of both, wIth the remaining 5% functioning in misCellaneous other areas. 4 -330 -" Not surprisingly, in light of the'organization of nost panels by art form, a majority of penels function primarily in grant review, and only a smell percentam exclusively in policy. In response to a question on the functions of panV.s, directors indicate& that vf the panels listed by agen- , Agencies also reported that panels were useful to the agencies in almost all cases, and a great majotity of panelslaTere described as very use- ful. Eighty-six percent of panels were evaluated as very useful in actual 1 , practice, and another 9% somewhat useful, with a minimal 3pnly slightly useful and 2% not useful et all. Observation: The organization of panels primarily by artlorm contrasts with staff organiiation by function. Art form expertise seems to lie more with outside . experts serving on panels, particularly in decisians on grant-making, while staff members are responsible ' for a wider range of functional duties in all aspects of programs. Selection of Panel Members In'selectIng members of panels, the executive director and the A agency staff are most active in -suggesting'or initiating the selection process, but the final approval is usually left to the council/commissioe 1 or chairman: 4 u ( e, I/ NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER.OF THE ARTS. INC. Ir I 11 II II -331- Table 21f (Base: Agencies that had panels in fiscal 1974)s SELECTION OF MEMBERS OF PANELS . e a Total - . Total Agencies II 37 30 21 15 14 1 1 16 12 10 2 % 100 ,Suggest or initiate,selection of members 81 57 41 38 3 3 43 32 274 Executive director Members of agency's staff . Council/commission Chairman of council/commission Panel chairman . Other panelists Final decision on appointment of members Council/comilission Chairman of council/commission Executive director Members of agency's staff Not only are council/commission members responsible to a large extent for the apf.ointment of members to panels, in most cases some members of the council/commlssion themselves serve on the panels. In 22 agencies (59% of the 37 agencies with panels) council/commission members do serve on panels, with an average of 5.7 council/commission members 4so being panel members in those agencies. One reason given for not having panels, as noted earlier, wat the inability to reimbursc expenses of members. In most agencies panel members were at least reimbui7Sed for expenses, but in 14% of the agencies they did not receive either reimbursement:or an honorarium: 4 Od ION -332- Table 212 WHETHER PANEL MEMBERS ARE COMPENSATED (Base: Agencies that had panels in fiscal 1974) Total A Total Agencies II 37 100 1 Panel Members are reimbursed for expenses 19 51 or Panel members are reimbursed for expenses , and also receive honorariqm or fee 8 Panel members receive honorarium or fee 3 8 . a Panel members receive neither reimbursement nor honorarium 7 19 It varies (vol.) 5 14 A majority of agencies believe trends or ghifts in the use of panels fain occur in the near future, and it?..,( direction of these trends is strongly toward greater participation by valeIs tn the activities of the agencies: Table 213 WHETHER TRENDS OR SHIFTS IN THE USE OF PANELS " ARE FORESEEN IN THE COMING 3 TO 5 YEARS* Total Total Agencies 55 36 100 Do foresee trends or shifts 65 More panels/panel members 15 27 Panel will have more active, wider role 12 22 4, Panels will have more influence in giants and programs , if 15 Increasing involvement of council/ --: commission members 3 , ,5 May set up panel 2 4 Elimination of panels 2 4, Panels will become more formal 1 2 Panels used for selecting works of art 1 2 Panels used to prepare rosters of qualified artists 1 2 No trends or shifts foreseen 19 35 *List of trends foreseen comprise volunteered answers to an open-end question. 4 u \NATIONAL RESEARCM CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. -333- In addition to the panels of experts, a majority of state arts agencies also use other outside advisors end consultants, particularly as 'a source of professional expertise in policy and program planning': Table 214 USE OF OTHER OUTSIDE'ADVISORS OR CONSULTANTS IN FISCAL 1974 Total Agencies Total , II 55= 35 100 , Used outside advisors br consultants 64 Purposes, for which advisors or consUltants were used:* Professional guidance in programs and poncy 26 47 Fund raising, budget assistance 5 9 Judging 4 7 Community arts development 4 7 Public relation; 1 2 Visual lrts 1 2 Research 1 2 Program plannirg 1 2 Evaluation 1 2,4? Design and construction of arts center 1 Restoration and archeological projects 1 '2 Scholarship selection 1 2 Selection of artists-in-schools 1 2 Did not use outside advisors or consultants 20 36 Volunteered responses to an open-end'question. The use of outside advisors or consultants rather than staff \ members is sometimes a result of state restrictions that make it impossible for agency to hire sufficient staff or to obtain sufficiently qualified 4ju -334- staff. Of the 35 agencies using outside advisors or consultants, 26, or 747., reported in response to another question that they sometimes find it necessaryto,hire consultants or contractual personnel to fulfill staff functions because of the restrictions of state regulations. The executive director and agency staff are not only most likely to suggest ot initiate the selection of outside advisors or ccnsultants, as with panel Members, but the director also most often makes the final deci- sion on the selection of such advisors. Table 215 SELECTION OF OUTSIDE ADVISORS OR CONSULTANTS (Base: Agencies that had outside advisors or consultants Total in fiscal 1974) Total Agencies # 35, % 100 Suggest or initiate selection of advisors or consultants Executive director ' 1 Members of agency's staff 30 15 86 43 Chairman Of council/commission 7 20 Connell/commission , 5 14 Elected state officials 1 3 Final decision on selection of advisors or consultants Executive director 24 69 Council/commission, 7 20 Chairman of council/commission 5 14 Members of agency's staff , 3 9 Elected state officials 1 3 .. 41 , NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. -335- Outside advisors and consultants are likely both to receive an honorarium or fee and to be reimbursed for expenses, but in 6 agencies (17% of those with consultants) they receive neither: Table 216 dOMPENSATION OF OUTSIDE ADVISORS OR CONSULTANTS (Base: Agencies that had outside advisors or consultants in fiscal 1974) Total Agencies % Total 35 100 .Advisors and consultants are both offered honorarium or fee and reimbursed for expenses 15 44 Advisors and consultants are offered honorarium or fee 6 17 Advisors and consultants are reimbursed for expenses 4 11 Advisors and consultants receive neither reimbursement nor honorarium or fee 6 17 It varies (volunteered) 4 11 In a final aspect of the investigation of the manpower of state arts agencies, the use of volunteers generally -- apart from the council/ commission -- was explored. A majority of agencies report they do not use volunteers and only 15% that they use volunteers on a regular basis; Table 217 USE OF VOLUNTEERS OTHER THAN COUNCIL/COMMISSION MEMBERS Total Agencies .il Total 55 100 Agency regularly uses volunteers 8 '15 Agency uses volunteers at times 15 27 Agency does not use volunteers 32 58 4 1 4 -336- Those agencies that.do use volunteers reported a wide variety of types of work done by the volunteers, particularly office and clerical work (in 7 agencies), special projects (5 agencies), evaluation (3), and staff conferences and workshops (3). Although a,minority of agencies do use volunteers, some of those that do so report a large number of volunteers involved in agency activities in fiscal 1974. Eleven agenCies had moce than 20 volunteers each active during the year,, and the aiierage number of volunteers per agency using them, was 32.6; the median, however, was a lower 15.5, because of a large number of volunteers (more than 50) reported ty a small number (7) of agencies. NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. 337 a ., . CHAPTER VIII PAST DEVELOPMENTS AND FUTURE OUTLOOK 414 t, NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. -338- PAST DEVELOPMENfS AND FUTURE OUTLOOK This final.chapter reviews the growthof the state arts agency movement since the 1960's and looks forward to the perceived directions of change in the future. In theanalysis of growth during the past years, the chapter focuses on state appropriations and on total funds: - state ceppropriations, funds appropTiated by states to the state arts agencies in fiscal years 1966 through 1976, the changes in appropriations and the per capita ambunt of appropriaeions. - total funds, funds received by state arts agencdes from all sources in fiscal years 1971 through 1976, changes in amount of total funds, and per capita amount of total funds. The perceived adequacy of eotal funding is then covered, and the expected trends in the level of.funding. The existence of future plans and goals is detailed, and the effects of possible increases in fundings analyzed from tun viewpoints: - the perceived direction of programming, with possible increases in the basic state agency granti "- areas in which funds would be spent, on a short-term and long-term basis,'if sufficient funds were avail- able. 4 1 u State Appropriations -339- e Funds appropriated to state arts agencies by the state legisla-:, tures have grown steadily during the past decade. In fiscal 1966, .state appropriations to arts agencies totaled only $,664,640 ($1,898,745 exclud- ing New York State), while in fiscal 1975 appropriations had increased to $57,189,285 ($21,536,285 excluding New York)., In the five-year period between fiscal 1970 and fiscal 1975, state appropriations increased 646% over the fiscal 1970 appropriations of $7,561,912, or an annual growth rate of 49%. However, a major factor in this increase was the dramatic jump in New York State appropriations of 1,480% over the fiScal 1970 appropriation of $2,256,474 to $35,653,000 in fiscal 1975. Excluding New York State from the calculatianS, though, the rise in state appropriations to state arts agencies has still been a sign- nificant one, with appropriations in fiscal 1975 amounting to 300% more than the fiscal 1970 appropriations of $5,305,438, or an mmnual growth rate of 32%.* In that fi e-year period growth rates of state appropriations varied widely by state, ome states recording dramatically large increases, others very low, ranging from an actual decrease of 5% in Delaware to.an increase ab_lle 1,000% in five tates -- New Jersey (up 1,003%), Michigan (up 1,386%), New York (up 1,480%) Massachusets (up 1,500%), and Virginia (up 2,621%). It should be noted that\many large increases were based on severely, low initial levels in 1970. The fiscal 1970 appropriations to American SaMoa and Louisiana are not in- cluded in the percentage comparisons because conarable data for fiscal 1975 were not available. 4 1 NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS, INC. -340- In the one-year period between fiscal 1974 and fiscal 1975 state legislative appropriations rose 51% (excluding New York) over the fiscal 1974 total appropriations of$14,311,494, a greater increase than the five- year annual growth rate of 32%. However, in six states appropriations drop- ped during the one-year period (the drop was less than 107. except.in Georg*, down 29%, and Alaska, down 31%), continuing the somewhat erratic pattern. The state appropriations for fiscal 1976 continue the upward trend, but at a lower rate of increase. State arts agencies appropriations for fiscal 1976 totaled $61,416,405, or $25,713,505 excluding New York State, an increase of 19% (excluding New York) over 1975. (States that receive 'biennial appropriatibns that cover fiscal 1975 and fiscal 1976 would naturally not have received any substantial increase for'the second year.) The commitment by states to support4of 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 Endowment for the Arts rose during the five-year period from $36,363 per state in fiscal WO to $75,377 in fiscal 1971, $101,320 in fiscal 1972, $127,250 in fiscal 1973, $150,000 in fiscal 1974, and $200,000 in fiscal 1975, an overall rise of 450% -- or an annual growth rate over-the period of 41% -- and a rise between fiscal 1974 and 1975 of 33%. Data are unfortunately not available for the entire Period oR private funds received by the agencies, but indications a'ze that private funds, through relatively modest, taste also risen. In fiscal 1971, dollar amounts received from pfivate sources totaled approximately $340,000, and in fiscal 1974 private funds reached $750,115, a rise of 147% in just a three-year period. g:zt, -341- Observation: The,sharp increases in state appropriations during the padt decade to the arts agencies reflect the increasing commitient by governors and state legislatures to sup- port of the arts, a commitment that ten yeara ago was practically non-existent in all but a handful of states. This commitment by states to support of tfle arts agencies has been Matched by an-increasing commitinent.by the fed- eral pvernment to the state arts agencies.. Th2 basic state'agency grant of the National Endowment for the Arts rose during the five-year period from $36,363 per state in fiscal 1970 to $75,377 in,fiscal 1971, $101,320 in fiscal 1972, $127,250 in fiscal 1973; $150,000 in fiscal 1974, and $200,000 in fiscal 1975, an overall rise of 450%, or an annual growth rate over the priod of 41% and a rise between fisdal 1974 and 1975 of 33%. Unfortunately, data are not available for the entire period on private funds received by the agencies, but indications are that private funds, though relatively modest, haVe also.. risen. In fiscal 1971, dollar amounts received from pri- ` vate sources totaled approximately $304,000, and in fiscal 1974 privatePfunds reached $750,115, a rise, of 1477. in just a thre4-year period. BEST COPY AVAILABLE NATIONAL RESKARCH' Ccuren OF THE ARTS. INC. -342- Table 218 STATE LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL 1966-1976 E Change (5-Yr. 1-Yr. 1970 1974 12.41 MI likl .19.0. 19.1.1 19 912 11.1 2 gis ist, .75 -75 $ 5 $ $ $ $71 1. 5 $ 1974 5 5 5 X 2 Alabama - 50,000 50,000 100,000 100,000 125,000 125.000 125,000 125,000 2'40.000 1 ' 4.25 - 18.835 47.500 47,500 - ,603 100,000 7. 69.400 88,500 149.600 103,800 126,100 118 -31 Anode:in Samoa - - - -' 60,000 / . 6/ 07 - . - Alaska Arizona 23.561 ° 24,593 27,805 51,469 '68,700 82,500 86.76 +250 +20i Arkansas - 20,6i, 35,714 35,963 , - - . - 166. Ii5040,021050.1t+492Y f2 , California 152,000 161,920 145.698 168,000 170,997 168,000 168,000 209,818 1.034.772673 1.0(172Z . ,Co1orado - 15,000 25,000 25.750 26,489 26,929 71,560 71,873 120,963 1.324,845 1.541,186 +490 +995 Connnetiout 21,500 21,500 58.268 76,732 114,800 127,634 119,341 130,000 351.500 394,326 836,125 +243 +12 Delaware - . - - 45.454 50.000 35.000 37.721 42.600 43,625 55.850 -5 +1 District of Columbia - 10.100 70,100 20.000 25,661 20.800 30,000 30,000 52,000 87.400 87.400 0-241 +68 'F1orida 10.000 9,112 18,233 - 5,0.00 76.402 53.358 67,386 289,89- 392.773 425,456 1'770 +35 Georgia Guam 27.500 30,400 60,000 48,516 88.06(1 102.960 99,279 70.000 220.000 157,105 155,846 i +78 -29 - - - - - - 6,579 10,000 10.218 28, 192 17,314 6 +176 Hawaii 2.500 90.000 123,500 118,945 163,579 174,558 15Ug 131.876 221,107 221.689 538,964 +37- Fl Idaho - - 10.000 10,000 10,000 9.810 10,000 23,121 43,200 +111 4131 Illinois 2),000 25,000 100.000 100.000 250.000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 925,000 '.278,300 1.270 +54 Indiana 12.500 12,500 - - 25,000 25,000 40,123 48,890 170,005 157.053 617,221 +528 -8 ' lova 4, - 25.000 25,000 30,730 32,644 38,188 38,465 52.244 70,767 200,730 130 +35 tansasa ...ILPOO 7.500 65,000 67,949 66.023 61.445 34.621 19,008 45,634 82,1178 105,305 +26 +82 Kentucky 1:500 100.000 100.000 118,515 134,980 147.860 149,660 166,170 153,930 225,800 290,400 +67 +47 Louimiana - 25,000 25.000 34,980 27,860 42,883 . )7 44.000 7/ 21 , 51 5; Maine 79,500 90,526 92.969 92,61.8 162.000 161.000 156.241 +10S- 4-1" 1.0q0 10.000 60.000 60.000 50.453 275,505 347,763, 319.818 399,725 453,411 449.788 . .10 461 -1 Maryland .. 50,000 260,000 Massachusetts - 25.000 55,000 100,000 100.000 160.000 184,550 277,588 600,000 1.600,000 1.000.000 1500 +167. Michigan 5.000 100,060 100.000 109,000 140.000 219,952 233,410 250,739 485,800 2.079.906 2,276,40 +130 +328 Minnemota 5,000 5.000 85.000 85,000 112,500 115,150 160.000 200,000 300.000 300.000 500.000 +167 - 75.000 11.366 74,753 107,568 112.625 100.'64 Niagissippi - . - .. - ii ,e0. 221,917 252,000 19252,070905 )0215,r2 2215,0ttl 60278,410%6, 4521.,055>A0 1.24390,290898 1.47959'64040 ++52:5.0 *1'2111 145.975 12,500 12.500 Santana . - Missouri 110,00; Nebraska - 20.500 12,509 12,500 22,492 .13.671 24.626 25,620 35,122 129.00 112.01t 4936 +268 Nevada - - - . - - - 15.122 18.131 65,186 6/ +21 New Hampshire . - 7,500 7,500 10,000 10,000 15,000 15,000 45.679 48,559 59,356 386 +6 New Xersey 7,500 15,000 75,000 64,929 71,658 226.050 268.059 211,577 698.932 190.352 611.000 +1003 +13 New Monica 15,000 16,500 15.000 20,000 20,000 21,000 20,800 35.200 45,300 65,000 83.500 14.225 4-43 Now York 765,895 1,504,477 1,897,585 2.491.861 2,256,4742 ,133.1') 14,425,a2( .4 ,2 0 ' 1%.61.5,00:, 16.6%300( 154702.9X flaw +111 North Cavan* - 70,106 71,299 9400V1/ 115,674 166,431 196,929 221,231 226.409 248.761 +152 +2 North Dakota - a, - 5,100 9/ .. Oklahoma 11,000 ..1.5c0 35.0)1 35,000 65,730 0.059 10,389 ,.:,,,T 9..(,:14 5.M 317.111(r1.7 8:),10!? 9952.:11 43d= *340. 446 Ohio 12,503 39,356 39.598 223.407 198,184 177 ,ennsylvania 49.900 137.571 100,205 '04.090 705,000 205.000 216,000 750,000 1 0,110 0 .$95,,!:352601 11259,g21 +Ill ..". 4 'Iregon / - 23,059 14.°24 24.924 15,43e- z Narto Rico )11,300 1,143./10 1.261.191 1,152,700 1,471.241 1,531,011 2, s.203 2,7":4,)51 2,753,267 3,237.167 11.2°70s.%), 4,611 -11:?..) .111ch4 e island 11,431 05.790 111, Al 75,112 )1,71,4 1:6,n1 221,199 261,056 *115 +10 15out110Caro1ina 652,041;3 ':11,757, 131,788 126,076 135.911 195,558 360,896 597,0o 509.262 +354 +66 !Sonrillakota . e° - 16,900 morri-.720 19,864 29,250 25,751 61,702 85,391 100,000 +356 418 Ign.im"As 1,500 50,000 50,000 68,700 67,752 161,727 226,700 112,500 411.500 180,400 +499 412 Texas % - 80,693 82,000 105,724 106,072 149.460 152.776 151,145 159.565 410,454 +51 +1 ,Urah /5*.000 29.000 51.795 52.823 83.000 83.000 75.0) 100.013 144 026 282,000 1240300 +240 4-171 ;Vermont 500 . 500 26,50 27,300 23.500 35,459 40,061 41,700 52,626 50.000 50,000 +74 -5 Virgin Is1anas - 10,000., .50,0000, 140.000 160,000 150.000 160.000 160,000 160,000 100.000 100.000 +25 .i+25 Virginia S 478,44 1.092.060Y1.166.3317." 10.000 10,000 140,000 138.152 174,130 201.705 272.055 2702.055 *2621 +35 Yashington 4500 7,500 35,920 17,735 80,998 91,473 59.124 64,027 98,415 246,130 980,991 +204 +130 Veit Virginia / 2,000 53.900 59.000 80,100 117,205 124,960 176.389 184,746 263,580 275.000 300,000 *135tt 94 iisconsi Vymeng k. ' - - - - 00 ' 42,227 59.000 102,2n 1 ,822 0_9,46100 12,541 12.577 27.560 -W/ 0 ' _-1.------ Total /otal Vithou2 Now York .3.411a1:2 4421.9.4.12.2 W34-091, 7.46.0.1.q17 i6-4".' 782 21 "9 A7 1N7 1" 3° U.0.41i 57'189'265 61.4"1956..:CY La, lusaA i 1,848, 7"4,) 1.346.402 4.846. .0!? 1$1,7.1Z 4.4ai.414, 8/i42.31..1 L.4 114.494 21,536 185 25007011105 k Less item 0.51. 1/ Estimated or requestPd. Inforiation not supp1i0.1. 1/ Th. Virginia State Museum W44 off ths aff1,141 -.tato sr agen.,v n dotal 1966-1968. E/ Does noe include American 0amoa sad Louisials. 5/ Comparative data not available, 11 Mo state appropriations in fiscal 1970. / Cc Change in State Appropriations Per4Capita The rise in state appropriations can also be seen clearly when total appropriations are translated into per capita figures. Total state appropriations of $7,761,912 in fiscal 1970 represented 3.7 cents per person in,the national population (including Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa and Guam), with a per capita amount of 2.9 cents excluding New York Statel4The, appropriations per capita rose to 27.2 cents per capita in fiscal 1975, or 11.2 cents not including New York State. The agency with the largest per capita appropriation, $2.22 in fiscal 1975, was the Virgin Islands Council.on the Arts, followed by New York Staie with a per-capita approl;riation of $2.02. At the lower end of the scale, the Wisconsin and Texas agencies received appropriations amounting to only. 1.3 cents 'per capita and the North Dakota.agency Only 0.8 cents per capita. The per capita rankings of state appropriations changed greatly * for many states between Ascal 1970 and fiscal 1975, with five states rising sharply during that period. New Jersey, which tanked 40th with a per capita appropriation of 1.0 cents in fiscal 1970, rose to 21st in fiscal 1975 with a per capita of 10.8 cents; Michigan rose from 33rd (1.6 cents) in fiscal 1970 to 12th (22.9 cehts) in fiscal 1975; Peansylvania. from 32nd (1.7 cents) to 17th (12.6 cents); Massachusetts from 29th (1.8 cents) to 6th (27.6 cents); and Colorado;Lwith the sharpest ilse, from 37th (1.2 vents) to 4th (53.1 cents). *The sharp rise in Colorado was largely accounted for by funds earmarked fot Denver arts and cultural organizations. NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. . -344- . I Table 219. a . STATE APPROPRIATIONS PER CAP/TA-1/, WITH RANKINGS, FISCAL 1970 - 1975 Alabama Alalta , 1970 $ (Rank) 1971 $ (Rank) 1972, $. (Rank) 1973_ . (Rank) 1974 $ (Rank) , 1975 $ (Rank) .029 (20 .158 (4) .029 .33.1 (251 (4) ..t :(136 (241 .230 (4) 035 , .263 1- 2/ (27) (4) .035 (4 0) ;444'(5) .035 (42). .308 (5) American. SaMoa - (48) (50) - (51)- 2.069 (1) ..a/ -\ Arizona '.013 (36) .014 (37 ' .01;6 (41). .024 (36) .032 (43) .038 (40) Arkansas - (48) - ,(50) (51) (51) .081 (20) .081 (27) California .009 (41) .008 (47) .008 (47) .010 (47) .049 (30) .048 (36) .4t Colorado .012 (37) .012 (41.) .032 (29) :029 (33) .048 (31) .531 (4) Connedt icut .038 (1.6) .042 (17) .039 (22) .042 (22) .114 (12) .128 (16) Delaware .083 (7) .091. (7) .063 (13) .066 (15) .074 (24) .075 (29) 'District of Columbia .034 (18) .028 (26) .040 (21) .041 (23) .072 (25) .1.2.1 (1.9) Flo'rida * (47) .011. (44) .008 (47) .008 (49) .036 (39) .049 (35) Georgia .019 (28) .022 (32) .021 (34) .01.4 (42) .045 (34) .032 (45) Guam (48) (50) .080 (1.0) .095 (9) .097 (16) .268 (7) Hawaii .212 (3) .227 (5) .198 (5) .156 (5) .261 (6) .264 (8) .Idaho .014 (34) .01.4 (37) .01.2 (45) .01.2 (46) .013 (51) .029 (47) Illinois .022 (25) .054 (13) .054 (14) .054 (17) .054 (28) .083 (26) Indiana .005 (45) .005 (49) .008 (47) .009 (48) .032 (43) .029 (47) Iowa .011 (39) .014 (37) .014 (43) .013 (43) .018 (50) .024 (49) Kansas .029 (20) .027 (28) .015 (42) .017 (40) .020 (49) .037 (41) Kentucky .042 (14) .046 (15) .047 (1.6) .049 (1.9-) .046 (32) .067 (31) Louis iana .008 (43) .012 (41) 2/ . 2/ .012 (53) 2/ Maine .080 (8) ' .091 (7) .093 (7) .088 (11) .155 (7) .156 (14) Maryland .070 (10) .088 (9) .082 (9) .098 (8) .111 (14) .110 (20) Massachusetts .018 (29) .028 (26) .032 (29) .048 (20) .103 (15) .276 (6) Michigan .01.6 (33) .025 (28) .026 (33) .028 (34) .053 (29) .229 (12) Minneso ta .030 (19) .030 (22) .042 (19) .051 (18) .077 (22) .077 (28) Mississ ippi - (48) .034 (19) .0 .032 (29) .046 (32) .048 (36) Missour .041 (15) .043 (16) .046 .127 (6) .137 (9) .262 (9) Montana .036 (17) .036 (1.8) .036 (24) .038 (24) .037 (38) .042 (38) (Continued) Tabre 219 STATE APPROPRIATIONS PER CAPITA, WITH RANKINGS, FISCAL 1970-1975 (continued) .. 1910 $ (Rank) 1971 $ (Rank) 1972 $ (Rank) 1973 $ (Rank) $197(4Rank) 1975 $ (Rank) Nebraska .008 (43) .009 (46) .017 (37) .017 (40) .023 (48) .084 (25) Nevada (48) (50)4 (51) (51) .026 (46) .032 (45) _. New.Hampshire .014 (34) .013 (40) .020 (36) .019 (38) .67 (27) .060 (32) ,.. New Jersey .010 (40) .032 (21) .037 (23) .037 (25) .095 (17) .108 (21) New Mexico .020 (27) .021 (33) .021 (34) .031 (31) .040 (37) .058 (33) . New York .124 (5) 1.107 (2) .793 (2) .901 (2) .908 (3) 2.024 (2) , North Carolina . e .018 (29) .023 (31) .033 (27) .037 (25) .041 (35) .042 (38) North Dakota (48) .008 (47) .008 (47) .008 (49) .008 (55) .008 (53) Ohio .021 (26) .019 (34) .017 (37) .030 (32) .,079 (21) .092 (W) Oklahoma .026 (23) .034 (19) .034 (26) .03 (29) .035 (40) .035 (42) Oregon .012 (37) .012 *(41) .012 (45) .013 (43) .024 (47) .024 (49) Pennsylvania .017 (32). .018 (35) .017 (37) .020 (37) .064 (26) .126 (17) Puerto Rico .550 (2) .620 (3) .762 (3) .779 (3) .907 (4) 1.067 (3) Rhode tsland .111 (6) .118 (6) .079 (11) .088 (11) .135 (10) .242 (10) South Carolina .1351 (13) .045 (14) .053 (15) .070 (14) .130 (11) .215 (13) South Dakota .028 (22) .030 (22) .044 (18) .044 (21) .090 (18) .125 (18) Tennessee .018 (29) .017 ft. (36) .041 (20) .055 (16) .076 (23) .100 (23) Texas .009 -(41) .010 (45) .013 (44) .013 (43) .013 (51) .013 (51) Utah .078 (9) .078 (11) .072 (12) .085 (13) .089 (19) .24 0 (11) Vermont .065 (12) .080 (10) .090 (8) .089 (10) .112 (13) .106 (22) Virgin : slands 2.532 (1) 2.373 (1) 2.532 (1) 1.778 (1) 1.778 (2) 2.222 (1) V irgto ia :002 (46) .030 (22) .030 (31) .035 (27) .041 (35) .055 (34) Washington .024, (24) .027 (28) .017 (37) .018 (39) .028 (45) .071 (30) West Virginia .067 (11) .072 (12) .101 (6) .103 (7) .147 (8) .154 (15) Wiscons in (48) (50) (51) (51) .009 (54) .013 (51) Wyoming (48) (50) .030 (31) .026 (35) .035 (40) .035 (42) TOTAL .37 .131 4/ 4/ Total without New York .029 .036 .03/ 40-- .048- .073 .112- 1/ Per capita calculations for fiscal 1970-1973 are based on U.S. Census figures for 1970; fiscal 1574-1975 per capita are based on updated Census figures. 2/ Not available.. 3/ Does not include Louisiana. 4/ Does not include American Samoa and Louisiana. 0 NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. Total Funds Received -346- The increasing commitment of both State and federal goyernments , to support of state arts agencies, and an increase in private support, have naturally resulted in substantial rises in total funds received. In fiscal 1971, the first year'for which data on total funds received are available, state arts agencies.received a total of $30,667,292 (not including funds received by associated foundations), but the major part of that was accounted for by New York. Excluding New York, state arts agencies received $10,458,722 in fiscal 1971; total appropriations for the other 54 agencies r-N\ rose each year, climbing by fiscal 1975 to $40,156,115,* up 2494 over fiscal 1971 for an annual growth rate of 40%. In the one-year period from fiscal 1974 to fiscal 1975 alone, total funds received by state arts agencies rose 477. (excluding New York A State), but in the period from fiscal 1975 to fiscal 1976 the rise was lower, with total funds amounting to $83,584,732 (and $47,486,422,if New York State is excluded), a rise of 10%. over fiscal 1975, or 18% excludiw New York. *The percentage increase does not include amounts received by American Samoa, Guam and Puerto Rico,,since this information was not available for fiscal 1971. 42,) s 0. -347 Table 220 aOTAL FUNDS RECEIVED, FISCAL 1971-1976 Alabama _- Alaska 11/ 1971- $ 1972 $ 1973 $ 1974 $_ 356,085 500,774 1975 '$ 2/ 1976- __i_ Change 1971- 1975 Change 1974- 1975 q -7- 418 +41 209,147 200,377 334,840 321,600 354,847 441,000 420,000 708,100 651,000 962,700 ---7-- +89 +253 American Samoa 3/ 3/ 3/ 120,000 3/ .51 . 4/ 4/. Arizona , 107,470 222,800 266,800 305,485 502,500 577,700 +364 +64 Arkansas 79,377 111020 167,250 481,085 478,321 801,288 +502 -1 California 251,502 274,320 418,492 1,267,747 1,386,685 1,605,000 +451 . +9 , Colorado 123,306 188,485 206,903 319,975 1,568,832 1,543,386 1,107 4390 Connecticut 2160911 255,561 349,037 625,917 778,493 1,641,712 4259 .+24 Delaware 231,900 140,320 190,404 246,885 276,428 307,650 +18 +12 District of Columbia 96,177 159,520 200,700 202,000 299,600 304,600 4212 +48 Florida 151,779 155,930 194,886 504,945 814,356. 825,456 +429 +61 Georgia 203,387 215,444 207,250 443,617 461,825 555,,844 4427 44 Guam 43,350 71,632 \ 78,077 241,392 245,264 +209 Hawaii 394,514 290,985 245,976 77,727 766,737 1,545,894 +94 -1 Idaho 87,877 109,699 160,382 183,508 288,421 356,718 4228 +57 Illinois 710,038 738,604 797,855 877,511 1,416,988 2,200,000 +63 461 Indiana 132,063 172,322 237,588 500,922 609,355 1,000,000 +361 422 Iowa 128,437 158,112 170,872 291,787 284,033 500,000 4421 -3. Kansas 199,654 154,141 213,020 261,059 385,799 510,000 +93 448 Kentucky 226,987 260,980 327,587 428,338 820,555 988,401 4261 +92 Louisiana 129,776 3/ - 3/ - 286,150 3/ - 3/ 4/ - 4/ - Maine 243,430 349,985 346,312 385,569 437,000 455,000 +79 +13 Maryland 424,640 540,573 570,497, 722,352 802,736 821,083 +89 +11 Massachusetts 242,077 330,022 530,54S 71:3,900 1,840,000 1,251,000 +660 +134 Michigan 452,579 552,736 592,908 341,079 2,624,239 2,738,600 +292 +179 Minnesota / 286,244 450,243 554,462 704,585 799,228 995,942 +179 443 ; Mississippi 150,377 192,126 219,323 301,298 375,371 2,676,150 +150 425 Missouri 293,159 473,756 800,348 '839,837 1,593,705 1,886,324 +444 +90 Montana 111,377 136,320 183,564 227,092 245,500 310,000 +120 +8 (Continued) NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER Or THE AR.TS. INC. -34R- Table 220 TOTAL FUNDS RECEIVED, FISCAL 1971-1976 (continued) 1/ 1971- 1972 1973 1974 1975 2 Change Chdnge / 1976-' 1971- 1974- $ $ $, 1975 1975 Nebraska 09,050 135,601 205,226 240,274 407,464 594,644 +292 +70 'Nevgda 87,642 150,000 165,000 188,970 263,036 372,695 +196 +39 New Ramp* lire 93,085 118,292 173,000 244,412 334,599 464,356 +259 +37 New Jersey 308,536 373,059 408152 901,482 1,131t,716 1,046,064 +268 +26 New Mexico 113,577 202,300 259,800 2441,295 453,600 483,800 +301 +86 New York 20,208,570 14;524,320 16,452,250 16,601,000 35 6,098;310 +76 +116 North Carolina 210,856 295,163 346,11 445,048 591,928 573,411 +181: +33 North Dakota 80,477. 103,320, 141,250 , 179,100 234,000 265,200 +191 +31 Ohio 326,328 339,425 516,014 1,084,075 1,273,203 1,3',688 4283 +17 Oklahoma 177,176 311,697 407,467 315,925 401,850 483,837 +127 +27 Oregon 135,501 163,380 206,810 271,713 432,043 612,923 +201 +59 Pennsylvania 299,877 299,877 436,000 1,063,927 2,031,524 2;079,868 +577 +91 Puerto Rico 3/ 2,230,020 2,552,801 3,012,167 3,439,567 3,480,197 4/ +14 Rhode :Island 350,901 204,492 244,552 418,412 672,082 743,189 +91 +61 South Carolina 222,562 272,232 402,357 713,.755 1,705,342 1,929,446 +666 +139 South Dakota 102,283 113,109 137,566 265,032 268,376 331,550 +162 +1 Tennessee 188,765 344,407 530,333 544,752 853.0?7 683,300 +351 +57 Texas 182,949 306,166 509,463 747,140 734,810 891,454 +302 -2 Utah 170,377 177,220 227,250 271,726 524,800 749,600 +208 +93 Vermont ,117,769 150,943 184,122 245,031 345,987 337,675 +192 441 Virgin Islands 231,404 261,320 327,000 343,167 453,000 540,000 +71 +32 Virginia 233,687 214,735 321,713 412,317 576,855 550,000 +147 440 Washington 238,267 218,462 265,539 470,164 693,110 1,380,991 +191 447 West Virginia 250,337 339,909 368,196 542;280 559,617 624,500 +124 +3 Wisconsin 75,377 3/ 3/ 220,472 301,700 475,000 +221 +37 Wyoming 87,377 122,773 152,332 202,030 240,675 385,260 +75 +19 TOTAL 30,667,t292 29,306,316 34,960,741 44055,072 76,061,615 81,584,732 +1365/- +73-6/* Total Without New York 1Q,458,722 14,781,996,18,508,491 27,554,072 40,156,115 47,486,422 5/ +249-- 6/ +47- 1/ Data for fiscal 1971 from State Arts Councils, Associated Councils of the Arts. -2/ Fisurei for 1976 are estimates. 3/ Not available. Z./ Comparable data at.:: 3/ Does not include American 3amoa, Cuam and Puerto Rico. -6/- Does not include American Samoa and Louisiana. 1 20 -349- Total Funds Received per Capita - The patterh of total funds-per capita parallels that.of the state appropriations, i.e., the areas with the smallest populations tending to rank- relatively high, with the largest per capita funds in 1975, $5.03 re- ceived bY the Virgin Islands Council on the Arts. The states with small pop- ulations will naturally tend to rank high in per capita terms even with low appropriations, since the basic state agency grant of The National Endowment for the Arts is distributed at the same level regardless of population. The lowest ranked states were California(6.6 cents), Wisconsin (6.6 cents) and Texas (6.1 cents). From fiscal 1971 to fiscal 1975, the total funds per capita rose frum 15.1 cents to 36.1 cents. Excluding New York State, total funds per capita rose from 5.7 cents to 20.8 cents. NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. Table 221 TOTAL FUNDS RECEIVED PER CAPITA, WITH RANKINGS, FISCAL 1971 - 19751/ Alabama 1971 $ (Rank) ,1972 $ (Rank) 1973 $ (Rank) 1974 $ (Rank) 1975 .061 (32) .097 (28) .103 (31) .100 (44) .1:7 ::::k) Aiaska .667 (3) 1.071 (2) 1.468 (2) 1.486 (3) 2.101 (3) American Samoa 2/ 2/ 2/ 4.138 (1) 2J Arizona .061 (32) .126 (23) .151 (25) . 142 (30) . 233 (30) Arkansas .041 (43) .058 (40) .087 (38) .233 (21) .232 (31) California , .013 (52) .014 (52) .021 (52) .061 (54) .066 (51) Colorado .056' (35) .085 (32) .094 -(36) .128 (35) .629 (10) Connecticut .072 (24 .084 (33) .115 (30) .203 (25) .252 (28) 4 Delaware .423 (5) .256 (11) .347 (9) ' .431 (11) .482 (12) District of ColuMbia .127 (16) .211 (13) .265 (12) .279 (18) .414 (16) Florida .022 (47) .023 (51). .029 (51) .062 (52) .101 (48) Georgia .044 (40) .047 (45) .045 (49) .091 (46). . .095 (50) Guam 2/ .510 (5) .843 (5) .743 (7) 2.299 (2) , Hawaii .513 (4) .379 (6) .320 (11) .918 (5) .905 (6) Idaho .123 (18) .154 (21) .225 (18) .230 (23) .361 (21) Illinois .064 (30) .066 (37) .072 (40) .079 (50) .127 (42) Indiana .025 (47) .033 (47) .046 (47) .094 (45) .114 (46) Iowa .045 '(39) .056 (43) .060 (44) .102 (42) , .099 (49) Kansas .089 (21) .069 (36) .095 (35) .115 (40) .170 -(38) Kentucky .071 (25) .081 (34) .102 (32) .128 (35) .244 (29) Louisiana .036 (45) 2/ 2/ .076 (51) 2i Maine .245 (9) .353 (8) .349 (8) .368 (13) 41.7 (15) Maryland .108 (20) .138 (22) .145 (27) .176 (27) .196 (35) Massachusetts .0.43 (41) .058 (40) .093 (37) .135 (31) .317 (24) Michigan .051 (36) .062 (39) .067 (43) .103 (41) .288 (26) Minnesota .075 (23) .118 (25) .146 (26) .180 (26) .204 (33) Mississippi 6068 (28) .087 (31) .099 (33) .130 (34) .162 (39) Missouri .063 (31) ,101 (27) .171 (22) .176 (27) .334 (22) Montana .160 (12) .196 (15) .264 (13) .309 (15) .334 (22) Nebraaka .060 (34) .091 (29) .138 (28) .156 (29) .264 (27) Nevada .179 (10) .307 (10) .338 (10) .330 (14) .459 (13) New Hampshire .126 (17) .160 (20) .235 (16) .302 (17) .414 (16) -351- Table 221 TOTAL FUNDS RECEIVED PER CAPITA, WITH RANKINGS, FISCAL 1971 - 1975 (continued) 1971 $ (Rank) 1972 $ (Rank) 1973 $ (Rank) 1974 $ (Rank) 1975 . $ (Rauk) New Jersey .043 (41)s .052 (44) .057 (45) .123 (37) .155 . (40) New Mexico .112 (19) .199 (14) .256 (15) .218 (24) .406 (18) ,New York 1.108 (2) .796 .(4) .902 (4) .917 (6) 1.982 (4) ,North Carolina .041 (43) .058 (40) .068 (42) .083 (49) .110 (47) North Dakota .130 .(15) .1'67 (18) .229 (17) .282 (18) .367 (20) Ohio .031 (46) .032 (48) .048 (46) .101 (43) .119 (43) Oklahoma .069 (27) .122 (24) .159 (23) .117 (34) .148 (41) 'Oregon .065 (29) .078 (35) .099 (33) .120 (38) .191 (36) Pennsylvania .025 (47) .025 (50) .037 (50) .090 (47) .172 (37) Puerto Rico 2/ .822 (3) .941 (3) .992 (4) 1.133 (5) Rhode Island .371 (6) :216 (12) .258 (14) .447 (10) .717 (8) South Carolina .086 (22) .105 (26) .155 (24) .256 (20) .613 (11) South Dakota .154 (13) .170 (17) .207 (21) .389 (12) .394 (19) Tennessee .048 (38) .088 (30) .135 (29) .132 (33) .1)7 (32) Texas .016 (51) .027 (49) .046 (47) .062 (52) .061 (53) Utah .161 (11) .167 (18) .215 (19) .232 (22) .447 (14) Vermont .265 (7) .340 (9) .414 (7) .521 (9) .736 (7) Virgin Islands 3.704 (1) 4.183 (1) 5.235 (1) 3.813 (2) 5.033 (1) Virginia .050 (37) .046 (46) .069 (41) .084 (48) .118 (44) Washington .070 (26) .064 (38) .078 (39) .135 (31) .199 (34) West Virginia .144 (14) .195 (16) .211 (20) .303 (16) .312 (25) Wisconsin .017 (50) 2/ 21 .048 (55) .066 (51) Wyaning .263 (8) .369 (7) .458 (6) .563 (8) .670 (9) Total .151-1/ 4/ .148.- .177!1/ :OA .6261Pi Total without New York .0572/ 4/ .082- .103i/ .140 .208/ 2,/ Per capita calculations for 1970-1973 are based on U.S. Census figures for 1970; fiscal 1974-1975 per capita are based on updated Census figures. 2/ Not available. 3/ Does not include Americam Somoa, Guam and Puerto Rico I/ Per capita calculations for 1970-1973 are based on U.S. Census figures for 1970; fiscal 1974-1975 per capita are based on updated Census figures. 2/ Not available. 3/ Does not include American Samoa, Guam and Puerto Rico. 4/ Does not include American Samoa, Louisiana and Wiscbnsin. 5/ Does not include American Samoa and Louisiana. NATIONAL RESeARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS. INC. -352- Adequacy of Funding on Functions and Practices In the study of agencies' funding levels, directors were asked how adequate current funding levels are for the agencies' functions and practices, and'the outlook for the future. A majority of directors do not feel that the fiscal 1974 funding level was at all adequate, and approximately half that the fiscal 1975 fund- ing was not adequate at all for the functions and practices of their agencies. The perceptions.of the adequacy of funding levels do vary somewhat according to the total expekditures of an agency, and particularly among the higher levels in terms of per capita expenditures. The proportion of agen- cies that feel the fiscal 1974 funding levels were not adequate at all actu- ally was greater among those agencies with greater total expenditures that year, but sharp differences can be seen within those expenditure groups; those with higher ppr cazita expenditures were less likely to feel funding was completely inadequate: Table 222 ADEQUACY OF TOTAL FUNDING LEVEL FROM ALL SOURCES FOR THE AGENCY'S FUNCTIONS AND PRACTICES Total Agencies Total 55 100 Fiscal 1974 Completely adequate Somewhat adequate 23 42 Not adequate at all 32 58 Fiseal 1975 Completely adequate 1 2 Somewhat adequate 27 49 Not adequate at all 27 49 Table 223 ADEQUACY OF TOTAL FUNDINGIEVEL IN FISCAL 1974 BY TOTAL EXPENDITURES Expenditures 0 Total Agencies Below $250 000 $250i000-$499,999 Less Than $.17 $.17 Per And Total Capita_ Above $500,0004749,999 Less Than $.17 $.17 Per And Total Capita Above Total 55 15 20 14 6 10 4 6 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1007. 100% Somewhat adequate* 23 8 9 5 4 3 1 2 42% 53% 45% 36% 67% 30% 25% 33% Not adequate at all 32 7 11 9. 2 7 3 4 58% 47% 55% 64% 33% 70% 757. 67% * There were no "completely adequate" responses. $750 0002:d Above Than $.17 $.17 Per And Total Capita Above 10 6 4 100% 100% 100% 3 1 2 30% 17% 50% 7 5 2 70% 83% 50% NATIONAL RESEARCH CCNTER OF THE ARTS. -354= A great majority of directors do see trends or shifts in the fund- ing levels during the coming 3 to 5 years, and again when asked in an open- end question what the trends would be, directors tended to be.optimistic: Table 224 WHETHER TRENDS OR SHIFTS IN THE LEVEL OF FUNDING EXPECTED ARE FORESEEN DURING COMING 3 TO 5 YEARS Total Agencies Total 55 100 Do foresee trends or shifts ,46 84 No trends or shifts 6 11 Not sure 3 5 Table 225 TRENDS OR SHIFTS IN THE LEVEL OF FUNDING EXPECTED - FORESEEN DURING COMING 3 TO 5 YEARS* Total agencies that do foresee trends or shifts Increase\in funding (level not specified) Increase in state support Increase ir(federal support Possible increase in privaie/business support Closer relationships with/increased vitibility in state government Ilecrease in funding Initial decrease, later increase Decrease in private support More legislative limitations on funds Volunteered responses to an open-end question. 4 3 Total Agencies # % 46 84. 20 36 20 36. 6 11 3 5 1, 2 2 4 2 4 2 4 1 2 When directors were asked why they felt the shifts and trends would % - occur, many diverse reasons were mentioned, topped by increasing interest in, , and demand for the arts. The reasons that were volunteered by at least two . 0 directors are shown on the following table: 's Table 226' REASONS WHY TRENDS OR SHIFTS,.IN LEVEL OF FUNDING ARE FORESEEN* Total agencies that do foresee'trends or shifts Total Agencies II 46 84 Increased interest in and demand for the arts 15 .27 Increased interest and/or activity in legis - - lature 11 20 Support for increase from organization of citiz9ns . 7 13 Better communication of needs 5 9 Additional programming and activities 4 7 Proved value of programs supported 4/ 7 Governor is supportive ,3 5 Commission/council efforts 3 5 More arts groups developing 2 f- . 4 Increasing costs require more money 2 4 IMprovement in economy 2 4 Seriously del:Tessed economy 3 5 Difficulty in convincing government of importance of arts 3 5 Volunteered respones to an open-end question NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF.THE ARTS.INC. -356- 4 Future Plans and Goals fhvestigating the future plans and goals of the state arts agencies, the survey determined the existence of formal long-term plans, the likely directiona of programming if the basic state agency grant were raised, and the desired areasof activity, on a short-term and long-term basis, ic sufficient funds were available. Just under half the agencies have formally drawn up long-term plans and goals, wEth a median length of time of 4.5 years for which these plans have been set. Most of the other agencies, however, reported that they expected to formulate long-term plans and goals within a year's period .after the survey. Table 227 A EXISTENCE OF' LONG-TERM PLANS AND GOALS Total AF:encies Total \ 'Have drawn up formal lonA7term plans and goals -411umber of years for Which plans have . been set: 2 years 3 years 4 years 5 years 7 years 8 years A, More than 10 years Median number of years: 4.5 No long-term plans and goals Expect to formulate long-term plans and goals,within one year Do not expect to formulate long-term plans .ahd goals within one'year Multiple responses were possible. 4 3 55 100 27 49 5 9 6 11 3 5 13 24 1 2 1 2 1 2 28 51 . 21 38 7 13 -357= A With the trend- of increasing funds available to state arts agen- cies, long-term plans\and goals would-seem essential to chart the effective 'and efficient use of these fulids. The association of formal plans with in- creased funds is seen in\the fact that agencies with higher than average total'expenditures were mOre likely to have such plans: * Table 228 EXISTENCE OF LdNG-TEBH PlANS AND GOALSi, BY TOTAL EXPENDITURES Have drawn up long- - 1 Ex enditures Below. Total Imam % # % term plans and goals, 27. 49 5 33 No long-term plans and goals 28 51 10 67 $250,000- $500,000- $499,999_ $749,999. # % # %. Total 55 100 15 100 20 100 10. 100 -.war 10 50 6 60 10 50 4 40 Effect df Possible Increases in Basic State Aigency Grant $750,000 and Over # % 4^ 10 100 6 60 t 4 40 The directors of the state arts agencies were asked what directions their programs would take if the basic state agency grant from the National Endowment for the Arts were increased to the $250,000 level and to the $750,000 level. For both levels they were specifically queried whether they would tend to expand the programming now engaged in or would the increased level of funding enable them to engage in new areas of programming. V. NATIONAL RESEARCH Cf INTER of- THE API-S.1NC. -358- At both levels of increased basic state agency grants, a majority 0 of directors would engage in new areas of programming. At the $250,000 level, 18% indicated they would engage in new areas, andanother 35% that they would both engage in new areas and expand present programming\. At the $750,000 level, a higher 38% would engage in new programming and 46% would do both. 0 (No significant differences were recorded by the budget sizes, either in total or per capita.) New areas of progranming most often volun- teered weie support of individual artists, educational programs, canmunity development and support of major invAtutions. Table 229 DIRECTIONS OF PROGRAMMING WITH POSSIBLE INCREASES IN BASIC STATE AGENCY GRANT Total Total Agencies 55 100 Increase to the $250,000 level Would expand programming now engaged in 26 47 Would engage in new areas of programming 10 18 Would do both 19 35 Increase to the $750,000 level Would expand programming now engaged in 9 16 Would engage in new areas of progrring 21 38 Would do both 25 46 Increases in the basic state agency grant would result in expand- ed support for individual areists in most agencies, with such support most often volunteered among the new -areas of programming. In general, however, the areas cited by directors indicate an extension of what is now being done to include more organizations and to serve more people. r 430 -359- Table 230 NEW AREAS OF PROGRAMING AGENCY WOULD ENGAGE IN IF BASIC STATE AGENCY GRANT WERE INCREASED TO THE $250,000 LEVEL Total Total Agencies 55 29 100 Agencies that wuld engage in new areas or would both expand present programming and engage in new areas 53 Support for individual artist 11 20 Services, funding to major arts organizations and institutions 7 13 Community organizations, local arts councils 4 7 Touring 3 5 Outreach programs 3 5 Financial assistamce to arts organizations 3 5 Arts in education 3 5 Technical assistamce, consultant services 3 5 Professional programming 2 4 Artists' reSidencies 2,, 4 Promotion of the arts 2' 4 Research/surveys 2 4 Statewide services 2 4 Information programs 1 2 Special projects 1 2 Leadership program. 1 2 Arts for children (non-education) i i 1 2 Visual arts 1 2 Art in public places 1 2 Film/public media " 1 2 Dance touring programs 4 2 Establishment of professional performing arts company 1 \ \ 2 WA sure 1 \\.2 Vollunteered responses to an open-end question. NAT tONAI RESE ARCH CE N TER OF THE ARTS. INC -360- Table 231 NEW AREAS OF PROGRAMMING AGENCY WOLD ENGAGE IN IF BASIC STATE AGENCY GRANT WERE INCREASED TO THE $750,000 LEVEL Total Agencies that would,engage in new areas or would both expand present programming and engage in new areas Total Agencies II 55 100 46 84 Support for individual artists 36 78 Arts in education 11 20 Basic operating support "..,10 18 Services, funding to major arts organizations and ,institutions 9 16 TO'uTing 9 16 Research conferences, workshops, training seminars 7 13 Community organizations and groups, local arts councils 5 9 Diverse programs, non-specific 5 9 Special projects 4 7 Statewide programs \ 4 7 Outreach programs 4 7 Information programs \ 3 5 Capital projects ') 4 kdministrative guidance to organizat ons 2 4 Artists' residencies 2 4 Technical assistance 1 9 Architecture/environmental arts 5 11 N\ Visual arts/museums 4 7 Establishment of professional performing \ arts company 4 7 Folk and ethnic arts N 3 5 Film/public media 2 4 N Art in public places '- 1 2 -, Not sure 4 Volunteered responses to an open-end question. 4 3 , -361- As a final phase of the exploration of future directions, direc- tors were given the hypothetical situation of the agency's having sufficient funds to make improvements or changes in programming, staffing or other activities. Given this possibility, they were asked in which two or three areas they would most want to spend those funds, both wIthin the near future and over the next five to ten years. In both the long-term and short-term outlook, staff development was the most mentioned area in which funds would be spent. This reflects the previously discussed (in Chapter VII) inadequacy of the number of staff and salaries expressed by directors. i'LATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER ()" THE ARrs INC. -362- Table 232 TWO OR THREE AREAS IN WHICH FUNDS WOULD BE SPENT IN THE NEXT TWO TO THREE YEARS, IF SUFFICIENT FUNDS WERE AVAILABLE FOR IMPROVEMENTS OR CHANGES IN PROGRAMMING, STAFFING OR OTHER ACTIVITIES* Total Increased staff for adequate service to the staxe Increased support/grants to-arts and cultural organizations Increased emphasis on services throughout the state General development of arts in the community Support of individual artists Increased support of major institutions Touring programs Support of community arts councils Educational programs Regional programming, interchange with other states Development of new audiences Information dissemination' Technical assistance Research Ethnic identity programs Publications Increased professionalism in the arts Artists-in-schools Distribution of arts to all segments of state population Rural programming Apprenticeship programs Promotion of sales of works of art Covering budgets in large institutions Special projects Restoration of cancelled services Capital projects Archives, libraries Artists' residencies Development of county budgeting ,programs Annual state audit of grantees \ Combined management efforts Combined fund-raising efforts Planning, non-specific Greater involvement with labor Inner city programming Improvement in agency's facilities Evalum.ion capabilities Cultural preservation Public media Visual arts Crafts Environmental arts, architecture Archives,libraries Development of performing arts organizations Literature Humanities programs Volunteered responses to an open-end question. 4 3 Total Agencies 55 100 28 51 18 33 16 29 11 20 10 18 7 13 6 11 5 9 5 9 4 7 4 7 3 5 3 5 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 . 4 1.2.....\ 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 5 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Total orsreopy AV31ILABLE Table 233 TWO OR THREE AREAS IN WHICH FUNDS WOULD BE SPENT IN THE NEXT FIVE TO TEN YEARS, IF SUFFICIENT FUNDS WERE AVAILABLE FOR IMPROVEMENTS OR CHANGES IN PROGRAMMING, STAFFING OR OTHER ACTIVITIES* Increased staff for adequate service to the state Increased support/grants to arts and cultural organizations Increased emphasis on services through- out the state Support of individual artists Educational programs General development of arts in the community Touring programs . Increased support of major institutions Support of community arts councils Distribution of arts to all segments of state population DeVelopment of new audiences Capital projects Artists-in-schools Increased professionalism in the arts Apprenticeship programs Regional programming Amateur, semt-professional programming Greater involvement with labor Rural programming Evaluation capabilities Promotion of sales of works of'art Partnership programs with government and private funding Encburagement of public support of the arts Programs in trouble areas Regional art centers Publications Libraries Communications with state legislature Development of county budgeting programs Annual state audit of grantees Combined management efforts Combined fund-raising efforts Inner city programming Artists residencies Cultural preservation Architecture and environmental arts Art in public places Performing arts programs Literature Folk and ethnic arts Development of performing arts organizations ,isual arts rafts Plastic a-ts Public media dumanities programs Museums Volunteered responses to an open-end question. Total Agencies 1 55 ^ 20 18 13 13 % 100 / / , 36 33 24 2-24 11 20 10 18 , 9 16 / 7 13 / 6 11 5 9 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 2 4 / 2 4 / 2 4i 2 4 2 4 2 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 5 9 3 5 2 4 2 , 4 2 4 2 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 NATIONAL RE SF AP( CEN/ER OF THE ARTS. INC. -364- Observation: The emphasis on staff seems to indicate an interest by the agencies to supply more in the way ef service than simply project funding, the desire to fulfill a role' as ombudsmen, counselor, technical advisor, back-up.on management, promoter, communicator, etc., in behalf of the arts and cultural interests in the states. Funding remains a primary purpose, however, with high priority given to increased funds to the arts and cultural organizations. The emphasis on arts in the community is also strong, continuing the direction toward community progrmnming expressed earlier. Fur- ther, the emphasis is on functions and problems, rather than on specific art forms. By and large, how- ever, the responses donct indicate any major devi- ations at higher funding levels from present program patterns. 441. NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS, INC 7365- \ APPENDIX A 1 MODEL STATE ARTS02COUNCIL ACT 4 4 NATIONAL REsrApcf4 C ENTER OF THE ARTS:INC 36.6 . Model State Arts Council Act* (Title should conform to state requirements. The following is a suggestion.) AN ACT Relating to the establishment of a State Council on the Arts, and defining the Council's powe rs and duties. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF (state), AS FOLLOWS: , Section 1. (optional introductory declaration of public policy) It is hereby found that many of our citizens lack the opportunity to view, enjoy, or participate in living theatrical performances, musical concerts, operas, dance and ballet recitals, art exhibits, examples of fine architecture, and the performing and fine arts generally. It is hereby further found that, with increasing leisure time, the practice and enjoyment of the arts ate of increasing importance and that the general welfare of the people of the state will be promoted by giving further recognition to the arts as a vital aspect of our culture and heritage and as a valued means of expanding the scope of our edu- cational programs. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the state to join with private patrons and with institutions and professional organizations concerned with the arts to insure that the role of the arts in the life of our communities will continue to grow and will play an ever more sig- nificant part in the welfare and educational experience of our citizens. Section 2. There Is hereby created and established a state commission, to be known as the "(state) State Council on the Arts," to consist of fifteen members, broadly representative of all fields of the perform- ing and fine arts, to be appointed by the governor from among citizens of (state) who are widely known for their competence and experience in connection with the performing and fine arts. In making such appointments, due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by representative civic, educational, and professional associations and groups, concerned with or engaged 490e, production or presentation of the performing and fine arts generally. Section 3. The term of office of each member shall be five years; provided, however, that of the members first appointed, five shall be ap- pointed for terms of one year, five for terms of three years, and five for terms of five years. Other than the chairman, no member of .. *Reprinted from The Politics of Art: Forming a State Arts Council, published by Associated Councils of the Arts. 4 4 0 -:367 the council who serves a full five-year term shall be eligible for reappointment during a one-year period following the expiration of his term. The governor shall designate a chairman and a vice- chairman-from-the-members-of-the-council to serve as such at the pleasure of the governor. The chairman shall be the chief executive officer of the council. All vacancies shall be filled for the balahce of the unexpired term in the same manner as original appointments. The members of the council shaH not receive any compensation for their services, but shall be reimbursed for their actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties as members of the council. Section 4. The chairman may employ, and at pleasure remove, such officers, experts, and other employees as may be needed and fix their com- pensation Within the amounts made available for such purposes. Section 5. The duties of the council shall be: (1) To stimulate and encourage throughout the state the study and presentation of the performing and fine arts and pubiic interest and participation therein; (2) To make such surveys as may be deemed adviSable of public and private institutions engaged within the state in artistic and cultural activities, including but not limited to, music, theatre, dance, painting, sculpture, architecture, and allied arts and crafts, and to make recommendations concerning appsopriate methods to encourage participation in and appreciation of the arts to meet the legitimate needs and aspirations of perse.is in all parts of the state; (3) To take such steps as may be necessary and appro- priate to encgurage public intereSt in the cultural heritage of our state and to expand the state's cultural resourCes; and (4) To encourage and assist freedom of artistic expression essential for the well-b-eing of the arts. Section 6. The council is hereby authorized and empowered to hold public and private hearings, to enter into contracts, within the limit of funds available therefor, with individuals; organization s, and institu- tions for services furthering the educational objectives of the council's programs; to ,enter into contracts, within the limit of funds available therefor, with local and regional associations for cooperative endeavors furthering the educational objectives of the council's programs; to accept gifts, contributions, and bequests of unrestricted funds from individuals, foundations, corporations, and other organizations or institutions for the purpose of furthering the educational objectives of the council's programs; to make and sign any agreements and to do and perform any acts that may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this act. The council may request and shall receive from 'any department, division, board, bureau, commission, or agency of the state such assistance and data as will enable it properly to carry out its powers and duties hereunder. Section 7. The council is the official agency of this state to receive and dis- burse any funds made available by the National Foundation on the Arts. Section 8. The council shall make an interim report to the governor and the legislature not later than (date), and from time to time thereafter. 4 ,1 .1 NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS, INC. \ I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 i -368- \ r APPENDIX B GLOSSARY i 44o NATIONAL RESE ARCH CENTER OF THE ARTS, INC GENERAL TERMS: -369- GLOSSARY Fiscal 1974 The fiscal year ending in 1974. Earmarked orirestricted funds -- Funds received by a ptete arts agency\ for uhich the recipient has been designated and over which the state arts agency has no discretionary granting power. Program and project -- A program refers to a broad area Ol'tfunding or activity such as an agency's touring program, technical assistance p*-- gram, music program, artists-in-schocls program, etc. A project refers to a specific individual project usually within a program area, such as a specific d4nce comPany's tour in the state, the assignment of an advis- or to provide technical assistance to a particular arts organization, the suppert of concerts by a parilicular symphony orchestra, the assignment of an artist tot a school, etc. , Grants -- The word "grants" is used to cover the funding of recipients by the state arts agency, whether such funding is done as a grant or through a contract. Agency, -- Anagency refers to a government agency, usually a state agency; if a federal or local agency is referred to, it will be indicated. Cultural organization or institution =- A "cultural organization or institution" Or "arts or cultural organization or institution' covers all types of organizations, institutions or Aroups, such as performing arts organizations, museums and other similar institutions, visual arts groups, writers' projects, cultural centers, non-governmental arts councils, etc. Commissions to artists -- 'Funds provided an artist for the creation of a new work (painting, drawing, musical composition, dance, play, novel,, etc.) Purchase grant -- Funds provided an artist for the purchase of a work already created. Workuanss. -- Funds provided an artist for general support and.not for the purchase or commissioning of a work. SELF-ADMINISTERED FORM B: 'Art museum -7 A museum whose collection/exhihitions are exclusively or preth:minantly azt, '.ncluding paintings, drawings, sculpture, graphics, etc. History museum -- A museum whose collections/exhibitio'ns are exdlusive2,y ortt predominantly history, including historic houses and sites and inuseum villages. Science museum A museum whose collections/exhibitions are exclusively or predominantly science, including natural history museums, science and technology centers, zoos, aquariums, botanical gardens, etc. 4 4b V. BEST COPY AVAILABLE -370- General upseum -- A museum whose collections/exhibitions, are a relatiVely equal com40.nation of art and history, art and science., history and science, or art, history and science- Cultur.al center -- A structulL'or complex of structures designed-for the public presentation of more than one art form. Civic groap,-- A group of citizens primarily organized for noat-arts our- 'poses (e.g., the-PTA, Chamber of Commerce, etc.) but conducting some .arts-relsted activity such as sponsorship or performances, etc. Orchestral/chamber etc. -- Including all types of orchestral anctchamber music, solo recitals, etc. Theatre -- Including all types of theatrical presentations, such as 'kiwi- cals, drama, children's theatre, revues, dramatic readings, etc. Literature -- The publication Ot presentation of non-dramatic literaf;:, tuiterial such as poetry or fiction, but does not include non-literary publications such as newsletters or pamphlets. Earned Income -- Operating revenues receilied from admission fees and box office and subscription ticket sales, tuition fees, contract fees, membership dues, sales of merchandise, parking fees, monies from concessions, etc. SELF-ADMINISTERED FORM C: Full-time -- a paid staff member (or "consultanE" serving in t staff capaCity) who works a minimum of 35 hours a ideek on a regular basis. Part-time -- a paid staff member (or "consultant" serving in a staff capacity) who works fewer than 35 hours per week on a regular basis or who, works any number of hours for only a part of the year. PERSONAL INTERVIEW: Subordinate agency of a larger agency -- The situation in which the state arts agency.is a full agency 1:lut is under,the direction of another state agency. An office in an agency_that has purposes other than the arts -- The situa- tion in which the state arts agency is not actually a full agency, but is only an office within a state agency that has purfoses other than the arts. 44 ,