Jump to content

Recommended Posts

maps   

I researched the NEA grants by category -FY 2017 approved in 2016 total $51,515,500 [not equal to 60% of 2016 budget shown on the 2015 fact sheet].  Total NEA budget was about 146m.  These are grants for projects and only represent a portion of NEA funding which includes grants to states.  This fact sheet explains the NEA and use of appropriations:https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/nea-quick-facts.pdf    The fact sheet is for FY2015. 

 
 
Edited by maps

Share this post


Link to post

The funding history for NEA is here: https://www.arts.gov/open-government/national-endowment-arts-appropriations-history

Note that the largest appropriation in the 50-year history of NEA was $175,954,680 in 1992. None of these numbers is inflation-adjusted!

(NEH typically gets the identical amount to NEA.)

 

Understanding these budgets can be confusing. Each consists of four elements: (1) direct grants (which includes about 1/3 going to state arts councils), (2) NEA administration, (3) gifts-and-matching funds to match private funds with government funds, (4) challenge grants for buildings and endowments.

 

Regardless of the size of the budget, NEA performs an invaluable service, as does NEH, with its elaborate review process. Only the top ten foundations are big enough to run comparable reviews. So a grant from NEA is a "Good Housekeeping seal" that helps grantees raise additional funding from private sources unable to conduct an extensive review. Even a small grant is a huge benefit that way.

Share this post


Link to post
maps   

There have been comments on at least one thread about the NEA and I was surprised at the low amount of money granted by the NEA for major companies, productions, and schools.  Have there been changes in NEA grant limits?  Policies?  On the link I posted to Ballet Theatre Foundation [ABT] some FYs had as much as 1.25m. https://apps.nea.gov/GAAG/frmStart.aspx   ABT requested reimbursement of 900k leaving 350k. 

Grant Number:  85-4621-0006  

1.gif General Information
 
Grantee: Ballet Theatre Foundation, Inc.
Grant Period: 09/01/1985  -  08/31/1988
Grant Amount: $1,250,000

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, maps said:

There have been comments on at least one thread about the NEA and I was surprised at the low amount of money granted by the NEA for major companies, productions, and schools.  Have there been changes in NEA grant limits?  Policies?  On the link I posted to Ballet Theatre Foundation [ABT] some FYs had as much as 1.25m. https://apps.nea.gov/GAAG/frmStart.aspx   ABT requested reimbursement of 900k leaving 350k. 

Grant Number:  85-4621-0006  

1.gif General Information
 
Grantee: Ballet Theatre Foundation, Inc.
Grant Period: 09/01/1985  -  08/31/1988
Grant Amount: $1,250,000

The dramatic cuts in NEA's overall appropriation explain much of the decreases. They just don't have the money. And for political reasons, they can't just send  it all to NYC, but need to recognize good programs around the country.

Share this post


Link to post
ABT Fan   
On 3/2/2017 at 0:12 PM, California said:

The dramatic cuts in NEA's overall appropriation explain much of the decreases. They just don't have the money. And for political reasons, they can't just send  it all to NYC, but need to recognize good programs around the country.

 

The NEA should recognize good programs around the country so I don't see that as being politically motivated. If they wanted to send it all to NYC, that would be a shame. There's a reason why it's called The National Endowment of the Arts, and not The New York Endowment...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Natalia   

I'm wondering how high-quality classical ballet companies in smallish cities, like Sarasota, produce their seasons with minimal, if any (?), NEA funding. Perhaps the folks who live in the Sarasota area are especially generous...or perhaps the programming policies of their leaders (conservative) pull-in additional audience members? So no need for NEA money and accompanying rules on diversity and what-not? I'm looking for answers. Maybe my suppositions are wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
dirac   

Natalia, I'd refer you to California's comment above:

Quote

Regardless of the size of the budget, NEA performs an invaluable service, as does NEH, with its elaborate review process. Only the top ten foundations are big enough to run comparable reviews. So a grant from NEA is a "Good Housekeeping seal" that helps grantees raise additional funding from private sources unable to conduct an extensive review. Even a small grant is a huge benefit that way.

 

It is certainly part of the NEA's remit to encourage diversity. Traditionally it's not hard to get culturally aware rich people to support ballet, opera, or orchestras (although even that is changing), but even those establishment endeavors can benefit from NEA recognition. It would obviously be better if the NEH and NEA could give more and I have a feeling the Sarasota Ballet wouldn't send the checks back.

 

The appropriations for both the NEH and the NEA are drops in the budgetary bucket and cuts to them, or eliminating the NEH and NEA entirely, will not affect the government's bottom line one way or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
sandik   

Chiming in here -- dirac and California put their finger on it.  An NEA grant is not supposed to supply the majority of the funding for a project or an institution (with a few exceptions).  I hesitate to use this term but it's the most accurate -- they offer a kind of vetting for non-profits, and getting assistance from the NEA (or NEH) is indeed a proof of legitimacy.  This is also true with regional, state and local agencies -- they certify a level of good practice on the part of a company or producer.  This is extraordinarily helpful when organizations approach other donors who don't or can't do the same kind of evaluation that the agencies do.

 

And because they don't supply all of the funding for a project, they encourage organizations to do the kind of private fundraising that Natalia describes. On one level, it encourages the community to invest in their local arts groups, and helps the organization buffer itself against shifts in support.  I remember when the Arts Council in the UK cut their support of The Cholmondeleys and The Featherstonehaughs -- the companies, following the standard UK model, had no other support and had to close up shop. 

 

True, these monies come with requirements, about how you run your organization and what you spend it on, but so do the appropriations for other government money.

Edited by sandik

Share this post


Link to post
dirac   
Quote

True, these monies come with requirements, about how you run your organization and what you spend it on, but so do the appropriations for other government money.

 

And private money often comes with strings attached, as well.

Share this post


Link to post
maps   

NEA has an OIG-Office of Inspector General and some reports online with partial audit info.   Project grants with links to categories and jurisdictions:    .  

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
sandik   

Along the lines of this thread, I noticed this tag line on a profile of a Seattle contemporary dance artist working in Vermont on a project.  Just an example of the connected nature of arts funding.

 

"Alice Gosti's residency and related events are made possible with major support from the New England Foundation for the Arts' National Dance Project and the National Endowment for the Arts and VPL's Community Engagement Circle Supporters: Applewood Studios, Farnum Insulators + Silver Forest."

Share this post


Link to post
JumpFrog   

The more I read about Trump the more I need to remind myself that a vast portion of the population voted yes to him and his policies. The fact that the majority (it appears) supports a cut and more probably and elimination of the endowment for the arts is terrifying. I am completely lost on how to even attempt to fix that. How does anyone prove the value of art? 

Share this post


Link to post
dirac   

Trump lost the popular vote by a huge margin - almost three million. Considering that might make you feel a bit better. :unsure:

 

Arts groups are seeking out those Republicans who may be open to pressure and persuasion. Most of these are in the Senate, but there are also some representatives, as well.

Quote


In Nebraska, where Mr. Trump took nearly 60 percent of the vote, officials from the state humanities and arts councils last month visited the office of Representative Bacon, a former Air Force brigadier general, and made sure to tell his staff about a high school program about world affairs and an art guild run by military veterans they were trying to help.

 

 

(Note that the article to which I linked is a few weeks old; Trump's budget, which proposes eliminating the endowments altogether, had not yet been announced.)

Share this post


Link to post
JumpFrog   
15 hours ago, dirac said:

Trump lost the popular vote by a huge margin - almost three million. Considering that might make you feel a bit better. :unsure:

 

Arts groups are seeking out those Republicans who may be open to pressure and persuasion. Most of these are in the Senate, but there are also some representatives, as well.

 

(Note that the article to which I linked is a few weeks old; Trump's budget, which proposes eliminating the endowments altogether, had not yet been announced.)

You know it actually does make me feel a little better dirac thank u! Here is to hoping this will be a mere blip in our countries history . . 

Share this post


Link to post
pherank   

Some further information around the arts funding fight - if the Admins think this should not be posted, I'm sure they will remove it.  ;)

Dick Blick Art Materials Stores and other arts-related organizations are emailing people regarding an organization named Americans for the Arts -

"Americans for the Arts is committed to providing information on top issues affecting the arts today."

So yes, this is about politics - sadly it has come to that.

 

The NEA budget has been stated at $148 million.
"As of 2014, only 4 percent of all arts funding in America ($1.2 billion) comes from public sources. While funding has increased numerically, it has not kept up with inflation, leading to a decrease of around 26 percent in public art grant money since 1995."

Here's a list of what other countries put towards their arts and culture budgets:
http://www.alternet.org/culture/culturally-impoverished-us-nea-spends-140th-what-germany-doles-out-arts-capita
 

"In Australia, government expenditure for the arts and cultural activities in 2011-2012 period was estimated to be approximately $7 billion for a population of only 22 million."

Edited by pherank

Share this post


Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×