cuts in, federal funding in the 1990's, increased instability and declines in real dollar expenditures were seen in state and local government funding. A 1995 survey by Americans for the Arts indicated that over 90 percent of the local arts agencies interviewed felt that elimination of federal funding would negatively impact their future funding at the local level. QUESTION: Has private funding for the arts been increasing since the NEA was established? Has it filled in the gaps as significant reductions in NEA appropriations have occurred? ANSWER: The most recent statistics from the AAFRC Trust for Philanthropy printed in its Giving USA 1997 report indicate a strong upward trend in private giving to the arts, culture and humanities from 1965 to 1992, but a downward trend from 1992 through 1995. Recent reports indicate that 1996 showed a small gain over 1995. Private giving to the arts, culture, and humanities sectors (which includes giving to institutions such as science and history museums, public television, and other cultural institutions as well as performing and visual arts institutions) increased from less than $0.5 billion in 1965 to $9.32 billion in 1992. Further, arts and culture giving rose from 3.0 percent of total giving in 1965 to 7.7 percent of total giving by 1992. Over this same time period, the budget of the National Endowment for the Arts rose from $2.5 million to $176 million. Since 1992, there has been substantial erosion in both government and private sector giving to the arts. Despite four consecutive years of expansion in the national economy and growth in total private giving between 1992 and 1995, contributions to the arts and humanities declined by $270 million in real dollars and giving to the arts and humanities declined from 7.7% to 6.9% of total private giving. A slight increase has recently been reported for 1996. However, this still leaves giving to the arts and humanities at only 7.2 percent of total private giving. In sum, the available data suggest that rising federal funds between 1965 and 1992 had a positive impact on private giving to the arts, and that the decline in federal dollars since 1992 has had a negative impact on private sector giving to the arts. While year-to-year variations occur, the trends clearly indicate that the period 1992 - 1996 is a departure from the steady increase in private sector giving to the arts. Between 1992 and 1996, private sector giving to the arts rose only 3.8 percent, while private giving in all other sectors increased by 10.9 percent, almost three times faster. Furthermore, a recent report by the President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities entitled Looking Ahead: Private Sector Giving to the Arts and Humanities examined the ability of private funds to fill in the gap of federal funding in the future and reached the following conclusions: The partnership between federal and private funders has been successful in As one funder has said, 'America's unique cultural system rests upon a from various federal, state and local agencies; corporate sponsors, foundation The loss of federal funding will upset this balance and have many QUESTION: Is the arts a healthy industry? Have total receipts increased, to the point approaching spectator sports? ANSWER: The nonprofit sector of the arts industry, which is the portion of the arts industry that is eligible for funding by the Endowment, grew dramatically between 1965 and 1992 according to Looking Ahead: Private Sector Giving to the Arts and Humanities, growth in the number of opera companies (from 27 to 100); dance companies (from 37 to 250); symphony orchestras (from 58 to 230); and nonprofit theaters (from 56 to 400) has been substantial since 1965 when NEA was founded. Audiences grew as well, with nearly 77 million American adults attending either opera, classical music, jazz, ballet, stage plays, musicals, or art museums in 1992. 19 percent more than in 1982 and nearly five times the estimate for 1965. In the 1990's, however, we have seen some disturbing trends. Arts and culture giving in the private sector which, like government funding, had risen steadily from 1965 to 1992 (even after adjustment for inflation), began to decline in 1993 and continued to decline through 1995. Coupled with real (after adjustment for inflation) dollar declines in federal support, and slowed growth in local support, arts institutions have faced increased pressure to raise additional resources through higher ticket prices or to cut back on services such as fewer concerts, exhibits, or reduced outreach programs. In 1995, for example, 46 percent of nonprofit theaters and opera companies ran a deficit for the year, as did 37 percent of symphony orchestras and 22 percent of major dance companies and art museums. In 1996, two orchestras in California (San Diego and Sacramento) ceased operations while, in that same year, Giving USA found a slight increase in the percentage of total giving to the arts, humanities, and culture. The statistics referred to regarding receipts to performing arts events versus spectator sports do show encouraging growth for performing arts receipts. However, two points should be kept in mind in interpreting this data. First, these statistics are a broad measure of receipts from performing arts events as measured by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and include much more than box office receipts from nonprofit performing arts institutions. They also include rock concerts, commercial theater (Broadway) and dinner theaters, as well as concession receipts. Second, but most importantly, the economic reality is that box office receipts for orchestras, opera companies, resident theaters, and dance companies only cover, at best, 40 percent to 60 percent of the cost of production. QUESTION: Finally, I would like to request an explanation of why the Endowment paid for bulk rate postage for the mailing of the Federal Direct Student Loan Program School Participant Application. I understand that the graphic design for the application was done by the NEA, but [I would like] some clarification as to why funding for distribution would come from the Endowment. ANSWER: In 1994, the Design Arts Program of the Endowment and the Direct Loan Task Force of the Department of Education entered into an interagency agreement. The purpose of the agreement was to assist the Department of Education in developing and attaining a visual communications program and materials to aid in the promotion of the newly authorized Federal Direct Student Loan Program. The communications program was required to meet the highest graphic design standards, utilize the most environmentally friendly materials available, use easily understood direct language and recognize or reflect the diversity of this nation. The Endowment assisted in the selection of the design and use of professionals to implement this program for the Department of Education. The use of the Endowment's bulk postage permit number was an error and upon learning of this in September 1994, we communicated promptly with staff at the Department of Education who agreed that the Department was responsible for the mailing expenses. TABLE OF INDEXES Alexander, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 Armey, 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Baldwin, 59, 60, 77, 78, 79, 80, 84, 85 Butler, 64 Castle, 8, 10, 11, 12, 42, 47, 48, 49, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78 Clay, 4, 5, 11, 18, 19, 24 Cowen, 69, 74, 75 Evans, 67, 69 Hoekstra, 6, 7, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 51, 53, 56, 57, 73, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87 Houghton, 29, 30, 32, 33 Johnson, 5, 33 Kildee, 37, 83, 84 Lewis, 28 Marquis, 65, 78, 79, 82, 83 Martinez, 12, 13, 15, 53, 54, 55, 56, 78, 79 Mink, 7, 8, 18, 45, 49, 50, 51, 81, 84 Nadler, 26 Riggs, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 39, 51, 52, 53, 57, 59, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73, 76 Scarborough, 36, 37 Slaughter, 21, 22, 23, 24, 33 Stearns, 19 Stein, 62, 77, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85 Trueman, 57, 58, 75, 76, 83 |