PUBLIC POLICY TOWARD THE ARTS IN TEXAS: A Case Study LYNDON B. JOHNSON SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS POLICY RESEARCH PROJECT REPORT Number 27 PUBLIC POLICY TOWARD THE ARTS IN TEXAS: A Case Study A Report by , The Public Policy Toward the Arts in Texas Research Project Lyndon B. Johnson School ofPublic Affairs The Universz"ty of Texas at Austin 1978 Libruy of Conpess Cud Number: 78-63333 CopJrilht 1978 The Board ofRepntl The University of Texas FOREWORD The Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs has established interdisciplinary research on policy problems as the core of its educational program. A major part of this program is the nine-month policy research project, in the course of which two or three faculty members from different disciplines direct the research of ten to twenty graduate students of diverse backgrounds on a policy issue of concern to an agency of government. This "client orientation" brings the students face to face with adminis­trators, legislators, and other officials active in the policy process, and demonstrates that research in a policy environ­ment demands special talents. It also illuminates the occa­sional difficulties of relating research findings to the world of political realities. This report on the arts in Texas was produced as part of a policy research project conducted at the LBJ School in the academic year 1975-76. The study examines some of the substantive issues which have arisen since the crea­tion of the National Endowment for the Arts in 1965, with particular attention to the funding and functioning of local arts councils in Texas. The project, supported by a grant from the Lyndon B. Johnson Foundation, makes policy recommendations to the Texas Commission on the Arts and Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts regarding federal funding criteria, organiza­tional restructuring, and increased local participation in arts programs. · It is the intention of the LBJ School both to develop men and women with the capacity to perform effectively in public service and to produce research which will en­lighten and inform those already engaged in the policy process. The project which resulted in this report has helped to accomplish the former; it is our hope and expec­tation that the report itself will contribute to the latter. Elspeth Rostow Dean PREFACE On September 29, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the law that launched the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities. The creation of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) became the first official recognition of the need to have a permanent home for government policy toward the arts. In the wake of the Great Depression of the 1930s, the government sponsored Works Progress Administration (WPA) programs to provide jobs for unemployed artists. Also, there have been tax policies favoring those who contributed art to public places. But the issues then were as much a matter of tax and employment policies as they were support for art and artists. The firm commitment to art for its own sake had to await the willingness of Congress to enact the law setting up the NEA. As a result of their action, the public policy alternative facing Americans today is no longer whether government should assist the arts, but rather how much public support should be rendered in which ways. Not only did the Act ensure that the support would come from the federal government, but its use of block grants helped develop what now exists in every state: a state arts council, partially financed by state as well as federal funds. The Texas Commission on the Arts and Humanities is such an organization. Moreover, in thousands of communities throughout the country, the momentum started by the 1965 law resulted in the formation· of local arts councils, some directly a part of local governments and supported by them, other created by volunteer groups. The most signifi­cant results of the Act, however, are these: since 1965 a political structure has emerged in the United States to help foster and support the arts; and a burgeoning bureaucracy has sprung up to handle the administration of new arts programs. It should also be noted that the period since 1965 has been one of increasing public interest in the arts. Whatever measure one uses-attendance at concerts, plays or mu­seums; purchases of records or paintings; public opinion surveys; or numbers of college students majoring in the arts-all testify to the increasing importance of the arts in American life. This growing interest has been equalled only by a growing economic deficit facing many of the arts-a deficit which frightens the forces fighting for increased governmental commitment. What has brought about this curious phenomenon? One . reason is that art is the creation of human beings-some­times working alone, as the creative artist who tries to bring order out of chaos he preceives, or sometimes as performing artists who are part of a group-all of whom attempt, as individuals, to create something intangible and not easy to define. There are very few ways to increase the tangible productivity of these individuals. The arts; to use the economists' terms, are basically labor intensive; to lower the costs involved would require making them more capital intensive. But how does one do that to ~onard Baskin, Sarah Caldwell, Aaron Copeland, Judith Jamison, Robert Merrill, and Isaac Stem? A man studies to be a violinist; a woman studies to be a singer. If lucky, they eventually secure positions in the orchestra and in the chorus. They want to perform and they want a good livelihood. So the artists ask for more money often through more performances. This, given the growing public demand, should create no problem except that ticket sales (unless priced so high that only the rich can attend) cannot bring in enough revenue to pay for the performances. Every additional performance may increase the loss. Who can help make up the difference? In the past, it was the individual patron, and the patron still gives much.,In addition, the large private foundations have assisted the arts. But it is clear that our government has to fill the gap if the arts are to remain vital and to reach more of the people. This increased commitment by government to the arts, despite early fears, has not resulted in control of artistic content and censorship of dissident ideas. No direct control has been imposed since the creation of NEA, and there is no immediate reason to anticipate that it will occur in the near future. In fact, government control of the arts, if and when it does occur, would more likely be in the open, discovered, and probably unconstitutional. On the other hand, private control by a patron has always existed, can be much more secretive, is probably constitutional, and surely is insidious. Despite the lack of governmental control of the arts, there is an ingrained American fear of governmental bureaucracy on the part of many artists. As a result, the paperwork in securing grants may deaden the desire to apply for one. Some of those concerned with public policy toward the arts worry, moreover, that the grants may go . mainly to the more established arts groups or artists whose qualities are more easily translated to bureaucratic fonns; and that original, spontaneous, or truly innovative artists may suffer from the failure of grantors to take risks. But, ironically, although those concerned bemoan the growing bureaucracy, they want that bureaucracy to hand out · increasingly larger "bunches of money"-an apt tenn, popular in Texas. The concern with funding is related to the problem of "art for whom?"-the elite or the masses? "Democratiza­tion of the arts" is a phrase often used, although people differ concerning its exact meaning and the impact "demo­cratization" may have in the decades to come. "Art for whom" also involves choosing among the host of communi­ties art should reach-children, the poor, the handicapped, and residents of New Braunfels as well as New York. But this fascination with funds and this concern with communities often lead to a failure to analyze more deeply some of the substantive issues involved. More funds for what-popular arts? the Metropolitan Opera or a communi­ty opera? creative or performing artists? individuals or insti­tutions? new and innovative or old and established? art for social goals or art for art's sake? What criteria should be used in making these and other equally crucial decisions? It is easy to respond to all of these alternatives by saying that each of them ought to be met by governmental allocation of more money to the arts, either by raising the total public budget or by spending less in other sectors of government. That is too easy an answer, however, and it begs reality. What one needs to study in public policy toward the arts are more facts in addition to feelings, so that alternatives in addition to cash can be contemplated and carried out. To secure such facts, particularly with reference to Texas, was the purpose of a special seminar held at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs during the academic year 1975-76 and supported by a grant from the Lyndon B. Johnson Foundation. The students examined the data, interviewed the participants, and prepared various drafts for the faculty in charge of the project (which explains why much of the data for this report is for the 1975-1976 period). All of them worked hard and in varying degrees provided the kinds of input essential to the completion of the report. A host of other people also cooperated-and the list is too long to name all of them-including the person who first proposed the idea for this study and whose commitment to and understanding of the arts illuminated the work of the project. Perhaps Maurice Coats, who was the Executive Director of the Texas Commission on the Arts and Humanities, will be willing to have his name stand for all of those who are too numerous to mention individually. And last there are the two faculty members who worked with me on the project. They are Professor Dagmar S. Hamilton of the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, and Professor Leslie Wyatt, then Assistant Dean of the College of Fine Arts at The University of Texas and now Dean of the College of Fine Arts, University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Both of them contributed to the implementation of the project, and influenced the final output in many indescribable but permanent ways. To all of these people I give my thanks. I wish I could ask them to share the responsibility for any of the mistakes that may appear in the manuscript, since the work of so many people increases the chance of error; but ultimately, the burden of producing this manuscript-as well as the pleasure-must be mine. Albert A. Blum Professor POLICY RESEARCH PROJECT PARTICIPANTS Students Ms. Deborah Cartwright Mr. Michael Faubion Mr. Rick Gentry Mr. Tom Howarth Mr. Frank Jefferis Faculty Professors Albert A. Blum Ms. Christie Kennedy Mr. Kirk Kimball Mr. Norman Linsky Ms. Kathy Love Ms. Carol McDonald Dagmar S. Hamilton Mr. Walter Moore Mr. Joe Murphy Ms. Phyllis Parker Mr. Paul Smolen Mr. Norman Wigington Leslie Wyatt TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD ..•........................•...........................•...........•..... i PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . • . • . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . iii POLICY RESEARCH PROJECT PARTICIPANTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . • . • . • . v CHAPfER I: FEDERAL POLICY TOWARD THE ARTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • . . . . . • . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I CHAPfER 2: STATE POLICY TOWARD THE ARTS: TEXAS COMMISSION ON THE ARTS AND HUMANITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 0 CHAPfER 3: COMMUNITY POLICY TOWARD THE ARTS. . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • • . • 22 CHAPfER 4: ARTS AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR. . . . . • . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 42 CHAPTER 1 FEDERAL POLICY TOWARD THE ARTS INTRODUCTION America, in its infancy, seemed too busy for art. Yet Benjamin Franklin hoped that1 After the first cares of the necessities of life are over, we shall come to think of the embellishments. Already, some of our young geniuses begin to lisp attempts at painting, poetry, and music. Today, two hundred years later, America's view of art and its artists may still be tempered by what the late historian Richard Hofstader termed "the anti-aesthetic bias of our Puritan intellectual inheritance,"2 that they are luxuries to be enjoyed only after the more practical goals of life are achieve<). But there . is one major difference. Since 1965, when Congress enacted the National Endowment for the Arts, the United States government has been committed to · using its resources to help the arts directly. · Ralph Purcell distinguishes among three roles played over time by our government in the arts.3 The first is to decorate governmental buildings and public places with works of art to portray the history of the nation's life. The second is to acquire and display works of art from private citizens and from other lands in order to enhance its citizens' appreciation of art and other cultures. And last, the government can promote artistic performance and creativity. From the earliest days of the Republic, the government has commissioned works of art to decorate its buildings. In 1817, it commissioned four paintings by John Trumball for the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. With the extension of the Capitol in 1852, the War Department commissioned additional works to celebrate the military victories of the country. From 1852 to 1861, the Italian artist Brumidi was at work on the Capitol dome. As early as 1859, American artists, concerned about the importation of foreign artists to work on the Capitol, formed a National Arts Commis­sion to try to ensure that such work be given to American artists. The role of government as collector began when private collections of works were bequeathed to the federal government. The Smithsonian Institution, whose focus ~as been on natural and physical science, served for some years as the depository of art collections. It was, however, not until 1921 that the National Gallery of Art secured a staff and a curator. In 1937, after the ·government had acquired the rich Mellon Collection, it established the National Collection of Fine Arts, made up of the Mellon contribu­tions and all others stored in the Smithsonian. The ·Smithsonian now was able to play an important role as a collector and as museum sponsor. Prior to 1933, the federal government's interest in art was mainly limited to display, decoration, and acquisition. As Purcell notes, ''The work of art and its use were the primary considerations that governed public patronage." The government did not directly assist the artist, but left that role to private patrons until after the Depression in 1929-1933. The condition of art and artists, already precarious, worsened during the 1930s. Since art had been viewed "largely as a profession ofleisure to be enjoyed and sustained primarily by the wealthy, [it] ... was all but forgotten in the search for employment."4 With the coming of the New Deal, the government began to view artists as producers as opposed to consumers of culture, and just as impoverished and needy as the rest of the suffering unemployed. A host of programs evolved in the 1930s to provide jobs-including jobs as artists for artists. But a complex dilemma faced the government as it sought to aid the unemployed artists-a dilemma that it did not have to face in other programs . and which still exists today. First, there was the dilemma of the artist as a worker. Plumbing is viewed as work, but painting is frequently viewed as leisure. Moreover, if one wants to provide jobs for twenty plumbers, it is relatively easy to define who is a plumber, but it is far more difficult to define who is a painter. And last the output of a plumber is practical and useful; the output of an artist is often not viewed as practical and useful, and indeed may be viewed as politically dangerous. All of these issues confused aid to the artists of the 1930s; they still are viewed as specters when direct aid to artists is discussed today. The contrast in perspectives concerning New Deal aid to the arts is reflected in the views of George Biddle, an old friend of FDR who fought for aid to the arts, and WPA administrator Harry Hopkins. Biddle argued that "For the first time in our history the government has recognized the social necessity of art in life," while Hopkins curtly remarked, "Artists have to eat, too." Still, they set up the WPA Arts, Writers, and Theatre Projects. The projects' opponents attacked them as frivo­ lous wastes of taxpayers' money. They were run directly from Washington, under a Roosevelt executive order. They, therefore, neither enjoyed the benefits nor suffered the shortcoming of state and local direction. While centraliza­ tion simplified decision making, it denied the programs the type of protection gained when a member of Congress can claim a program as his or her own. The art projects of the New Deal met their demise for both economic and political reasons. Prominent Congress­ men attacked the program as being Communist infiltrated. American Legion officials had two murals removed from a San Antonio, Texas municipal auditorium because they included "symbols of communism." Although the arts projects were to expire on June 30, 1943, they were prematurely given an "honorable discharge" by FDR on , December 4, 1942. · Still, the WPA programs produced works of lasting value: 5,309 artists produced 2,250 murals for public buildings; 85,951 oil and water paintings were permanently loaned to schools. Community arts centers were estab­ lished. The WPA writers project employed such writers as Saul Bellow, Ralph Ellison, and Richard Wright. Plays and playwrights were produced. Massive unemployment had forced the government to recognize its responsibility to help artists as people who needed to have the opporturlity to make a living at what they did best or wanted to do most. On the other hand, the government did not take advantage of the opportunity that World War II was to give Great Britain-namely, to evolve a philosophy of public policy toward the arts as a factor in society. This had to wait until the surge of legislation under Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s. From the outbreak of World War II until the passage of a law in 1958 creating what was later to become the Kennedy C~nter for the Performing Arts, America did little directly for the arts. It did provide tax benefits prompting patrons to promote the arts. Also, the State Department launched a cultural exchange program as an element in the propaganda war with the Soviet Union. William Benton, then at the State Department and later a U.S. Senator from Connecti­ cut, analyzed the rationale for the cultural exchange program in the following terms: To demonstrate that Americans, who are accused throughout the world of being a materialistic, money-mad race, without interest in art and without appreciation of artists or music ... have a side in our personality as a race other than materialism, and other than science and technology. 5 In 1958, President Eisenhower established the Cultural Preservation Program to be administered by the State Department and U.S. Information Agency. Federal support for the arts continued to have as its main goal something other than the stimulation of artistic expression. But there were those in Congress and elsewhere who wanted stimula­tion to be included among the main goals of public policy toward the arts. In 1959, Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas held the first hearings ever on the subject of direct federal aid to the arts and humanities. These hearings, with Robert Frost as the lead witnes8, eventually led to the creation of the National Endowment for the Arts. THE ARTS AND THE NEW FRONTIER The expansion of the federal government's _role in domestic policy in the 1960s can be explained in each case as the end product of political, economic, and social developments in society. Medicare, for example, resulted from an increased number of elderly citizens; educational aid was made necessary by the post-World War II baby boom; and anti-poverty efforts followed the mass migration of the Southern rural poor to Northern urban ghettoes. And what about the arts? Why was it the 1960s that saw the creation of the National Endowment for the Arts? Alvin Toffier in his book, The Culture Consumer (1956), estimated that out of the then 185 million Americans somewhere between thirty and forty-five million could~ considered culture consumers. This constituency was said to be composed of young, mobile, professional, or technical workers with a better than average education, but did not include the mass of American workers or farmers. It included a new and expanding group of people with money to purchase, the time to enjoy, and the education to . appreciate art. It,;.was this_ constituency to which federal policy responded in the 1960s. In addition, the expansion of higher education and changes in the nature of work created new opportunities for artistic expression. A conference sponsored by the AFL-CIO in 1963 focused on "the constructive use of free time," which reflected the irowing concern with the use of the time made available through technological advances. Also, automation and bureaucratization caused many to be concerned with standardization, conformity, and a loss of identity. The supposed vivid, spontaneous, and uninhibited nature of art seemed to many a counter force to the more undesirable aspects of modern life. Also, art provided a symbol of status to those people moving from one class to another. Art acquisition and appreciation became a way of keeping up with the Joneses. Art became the latest form of conspicuous consumption, as wives became docents and members of symphony leagues and their daughters filled the classes in art departments. When John Kennedy took office in 1961, the arts, thanks to Ralph Yarborough and other activist Democrats, were on the agenda of things to do. In 1962, Kennedy . appointed August Heckscher as special White House consul­tant on the arts. Heckscher's report to the President of the United States in May 1963 took account of the elevated prestige of the arts provided by the activities of the Kennedy White House. Furthermore, the report analyzed the performance of a host of federal agencies in the arts, and prescribed means to improve and expand each agency's role. Heckscher recommended the appointment of a special Presidential adviser on the arts, the establishment of an Advisory Council, and a grant-making foundation. Each of these proposals was, in time, to become a reality. In June of 1963, by Executive Order, President Kennedy created an Advisory Council on the Arts. In may of 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed Roger L. Stevens as Special Assistant to the President on the Arts. On September 16, 1965, Congress passed P.L. 89-209, which was signed into law by President Johnson on September 29, . establishing the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities. In 1966, the Arts Endowment received its first appropriation of $2.S million. THE STRUCTIJRE AND FUNCTIONING OF THE NEA The National Endowment for the Arts is one part of the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities estab-. lished under P.L. 89-209; the other is the National Endowment for the Humanities. The Foundation is part of the Executive Office of the President. Each Endowment has its own national council of advisors. The Councils, which meet at least twice yearly, are composed of members serving staggered six-year terms. The National Council of the Arts members, for example, in 1978 included Martina Arroyo, concert and opera singer; Theodore Bikel, actor and union official; William Boyd, University president; Angus L. Bowmer, educator and tµeatrical producer; Richard R. ·Brown, Director, Kimball Arts Museum, Fort Worth, Texas; Henry J. Cauthen, president, South Carolina Educational TV; Van Cliburn, concert pianist; Hal C. Davis, musician, union official; Maureen Dees, community activist; J.C. Dickinson, Jr., museum director; Clint Eastwood, actor; William H. Eells, businessman; Jacob Lawrence, painter and professor of art; Harold Prince, director­producer; Jerome Robbins, choreographer/director, New York City Ballet; James D. Robertson, investment banker; Franklin J. Schaffner, film director; Gunther Schuller, composer and music educator; George C. Seybolt, presi- Federal Policy Toward the Arts dent, William Underwood Company; Geraldine Stutz, cor­porate-executive, fashion leader; Billy Taylor, jazz pianist; Harry M. Weese, architect; Eudora Welty, author; Dolores Wharton, author/collector/patron; Anne Potter Wilson, cultural activist, Nashville; and James Wyeth, painter . Both Endowments with their respective Councils come under the umbrella of the National Foundation with its National Council on the Arts. The Federal Council's other roles include advising and consulting with the Chairpersons of the National Endowment for the Arts and for the Humanities concerning major problems arising out of the work of the Foundation, coordinating the policies and operations of the Endowments including appropriate joint support of activities, promoting cooperation and communi­cation among the programs of the Foundation and those of other federal agencies, and planning for participation in major and historic national events. The Federal Council is made up of the heads and representatives of the following federal offices: Chairman, National Endowment for the Arts; Chairman, National Endowment for the Humanities; U.S. Commissioner of Education; Secretary of the Smithsonian; Director, National Science Foundation; Librarian of Congress; Director, National Gallery of Art; Chairman, Commission of Fine Arts; Archivist of the United States; Assistant Secretary of State for Educational. and Cultural Affairs; Director, National Park Service, Department of Inter­ior; Commissioner, Public Building Service, General Ser­vices Administration; Executive Secretary, United States Senate Commission; and Representative appointed by the Speaker of the House. Heading the National Endowment for the Arts while this study was being made was Miss Nancy Hanks, former Director of Special Projects for the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and president of the Associate Council of the Arts. Miss Hanks succeeded Roger L. Stevens as chairperson on October 6, 1969. Miss Hanks was reappointed to a second term as chairwoman in 1973. Assisting her was Deputy Director Michael Straight, former editor of the New Republic magazine, and six executive assistants. In addi­tion, each Endowment program has its own director. (These programs will be discussed shortly.) The structure has been altered under the NPW chairman, Livingston L. Biddle, Jr., so that he now has three assistant directors instead of one associate director. NEA METHODS OF FUNDING The NEA uses two methods to make grants. First, program funds are given on a dollar-for-dollar matching basis so that a grant from the Endowment may not represent more than one-half a grantee's total budget. A grant request is first reviewed by the advisory panel, it then goes to the National Council on the Arts and to the chairman for final approval. A second method involves the use of funds from private donors. When Congress passed the law creating the Endow­ment, it sought to preserve and expand the role of private donors to the arts. As a result, the Endowment allows private individuals or groups to make a specific grant for one of the NEA program areas. When such a restricted grant is received, it frees an equal amount from a special Treasury Fund which is then combined and distributed in accordance with the conditions of the grant. The decision as to who specifically receives the grant and the conditions under which the grant it given rest with the NEA, not with the donor. The funding policies of the NEA have a built-in inhibition against funding unestablished, perhaps avant­garde art. Given the matching provisions, a situation is created where those who have, get, and those who have not, go without. While some relief from this condition is provided by some NEA programs, still, the general thrust of funding is limited to the established art forms. A possible solution to this problem, in line with Congressional intent, might be a close working relationship with such offices as the Center for American folklife and other federal-level offices which might broaden the base and give depth to arts participation and support. THE PROGRAMS OF THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS Fiscal year 1976 is the last year for which an annual report of the NEA was available at the time of writing this report. During that year, the NEA operated some twelve separate programs, each with its own director and advisory panel. The following is a listing of NEA programs for fiscal year 1976 with total funds obligated for that year. The figures in parentheses are the estimates for 1978. Also, a brief description of the purposes of each program is included. Program* Architecture and Environmental Arts: Supports profes­sional education and the furtherance of the design profes­ *Sources: NEA, Annual Report 1976 and telephone inter­view, M. Coats, May 8, 1978. sion. Seeks to stimulate public interest and awareness in the designed environment. In FY 1973, the national theme "City Edges" emphasized the design and planning for problems related to urban b~undary conditions. For FY 1974-1975, the theme "City Options" concentrated on the distinctive character and identity of communities. Total Grants FY 1976: $3,618,853 ($4.0 million) Dance: Supports touring for professional dance com­panies as well as provides fellowships to individual choreo­graphers. Broadens existing repertories and creates new dance works by providing production grants. Supports resident professional dance companies as well as the activities of mimes and mime companies. Total Grants FY 1976: $5,612,687 ($7.0million) Education: Provides direct support to artists by employ­ing artists to work in elementary and secondary schools­the Artists-in-Schools program. The program, developed in cooperation with the U.S. Office of Education, is one of the NEA's largest direct aid to artist programs. In addition, the Education program funds alternative education pro­grams and provides fellowships in arts administration. Total Grants FY 1976: $4,543,970 ($5.0million) Expansion Arts: Seeks to expand involvement in the arts via production of original works, cross-cultural exchange, and the establishment of community cultural centers. Total Grants FY 1976: $5,537,972 ($7.0million) Federal-State Partnership: Provides a matching grant to state agencies out of a special appropriation designed to stimulate arts support by the states. Each state receives a basic grant. Funds under this program are also used to enhance regional cooperation via special grants. Total Grants FY 1976: $15,640,694 ($19.0 million) Literature: Places creative writers in schools via Poetry­in-Schools program (a component of the Artists-in-Schools) and in small colleges. Also provides indirect grants to sml!ll literary magazines. Total Grants FY 1976: $2,130,857 ($3.87 million) Museums: Supports essential museum activities such as the mounting of special exhibitions, aids visiting specialists, preserves collections, and provides fellowships for museum professionals. The program also purchases works by living American artists. Total Grants FY 1976: $11,460,099 ($11.2 million) Music : Offers assistance to established symphony orches­tras and opera companies in a variety of ways, including touring and administrative development. Assists American composers, librettists, and translators. The largest granting program, music is divided into such sections as planning, choral, jazz/folk/ethnic, opera, orchestra, and composer/ librettist/translator. Each section has its own advisory panel with some additional consultants. Total Grants FY 1976: $17,249,296 ($15.0 million) Public Media: Support production, research, and devel­ opment designed to improve arts programming in film, television, and radio. The program has worked in coopera­tion with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the American Film Institute. Total Grants FY 1976: $9,312,374 ($8.0million) Special Projects: Fulfills specific needs within total programming for activities which do not fit elsewhere. Interdisciplinary programming in folk arts falls under this category. Total Grants FY 1976: $5,390,214 ($3.4 million) Theatre: Assists creative activity in theatre arts and seeks to raise artistic standards. New plays and playwrights are funded. Total Grants FY 1976: $6,346,890 ($6.2 million) Federal Policy Toward the Arts Visual Arts: Assists in the commissioning of arts for placement in public places and short-term residences for artists, critics, craftsmen, and photographers in educational and cultural institutions. Total Grants FY 1976: $3,588,955 ($4.4 million) Program Development and Evaluation•• Total Grants FY 1976: $2,357,960 Miscellaneous•• Total Grants FY 1976: $19,881 Some indication of the trend in the budget for the NEA (and for the NEH) is shown in Table 1. In his fiscal 1978 budget, President Carter recommended a $150 million budget, a $26 million dollar increase over the 1978 appropriation of $123.5 million. TABLE I HISTORY OF AUTHORIZATIONS AND APPROPRIATIONS THROUGH FY 1978 NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANmES ARTS HUMANITIES ARTS HUMANITIES ADMINISTRATIVE Authorization Appropriation Authorization Appropriation Fiacal 1966 Program Funds Treasury Fund* Total Funds for Programming $ 5,000,000 $ 2,250,000 $ 7,250,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 34,308 $ 2,534,308 $ 5,000,000 5,000,000 $ 10,000,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 727,000 Fiacal 1967 Program FUBds State Arts Agencies (bloc) (Subtotal-Program Funds) Treasury Fund* Total Funds for Programming $ 5,000,000 2,750,000 (7 ,750,000) 2,250,000 $ 10,000,000 $ 4,000,000 2,000,000 (6,000,000) 1,965,692 $ 7,965,692 $ 5,000,000 5,000,000 $ 10,000,000 $ 2,000,000 106,278 $ 2,106,278 $ 1,019,500 'Fi8cll l968 Program Funds State Arts Agencies (bloc) (Subtotal-Program Funds) Treasury Fund* Total Funds for Programming $ 5,000,000 2,750,000 (7,750,000) 2,250,000 $ 10,000,000 $ 4,500,000 2,000;000 (6,500,000) 674,291 $ 7,174,291 $ 5,000,000 5,000,000 $ 10,000,000 $ 3,500,000 325,257 $ 3,825,257 $ 1,200,000 ' ' 1 Fi8cll 1969 Program Funds State Arts Agencies (bloc) (Subtotal-Program Funds) Treasury Fund* Total Funds for Programming $ 6,000,000 2,000,000 (8,000,000) 3,375,000 $ 11,375,000 $ 3,700,000 1,700,000 (5,400,000) 2,356,875 $ 7,756,875 $ 8,000,000 3,375,000 $ 11,375,000 $ 3,700,000 1,262,473 $ 4,962,473 $ 1,400,000 **No estimate for 1978 while 1978 has an estimate of $1.5 million for Folk Art. Fiscal 1970 Program Funds State Arts Agencies (bloc) (Subtotal-Program Funds) Treasury Fund* Total Funds for Programming Fiscal 1971 Program Funds State Arts Agencies (bloc) (Subtotal-Program Funds) Treasury Fund* Total Funds for Programming Fiscal 1972 Program Funds State Arts Agencies (bloc) (Subtotal-Program Funds) Treasury Fund* Total Funds for Programming Fiscal 1973 Program Funds State Arts Agencies (bloc) (Subtotal-Program Funds) Treasury Fund* Total Funds for Programming Fiscal 1974 Program Funds State Arts Agencies (bloc) (Subtotal-Program Funds) Treasury Fund * Total Funds for Programming Fiscal 1975 Program Funds Treasury Fund* Total Funds for Programming Fiscal 1976 Program Funds Treasury Fund* Total Funds for Programming Transition Quarter JULY 1, 1976­SEPTEMBER 30, 1976 Program Funds Treasury Fund* Total Funds for Programming Authorization TABLE I (continued) ARTS HUMANITIES Appropriation Authorization Appropriation ADMINISTRATIVE $ 6,500,000 2,500,000 (9 ,000,000) 3,375 ,000 $ 12,375,000 $ 4,250,000 2,000,000 (6,250,000) 2,000,000 $ 8,250,000 $ 9,000,000 3,375 ,000 $ 12,375,000 $ 6,050,000 2,000,000 $ 8,050,000 $ 1,610,000 $ 12,875 ,000 4,125,000 (17 ,000 ,000) 3,000,000 $ 20,000,000 $ 8,465 ,000 4,125 ,000 (12,590,000) 2,500,000 $ 15,090,000 $ 17,000,000 3,000,000--· -­$ 20 ,000,000 $ 11,060,000 2,500,000 $ 13,560,000 $ 2,660,000 $ 21 ,000,000 5,500,000 (26,500,000) 3,500,000 $ 30,000,000 $ 20,750,000 5,500,000 (26,250,000) 3,500,000 $ 29 ,750 ,000 $ 26,500,000 3,500 ,000 $ 30,000,000 $ 24,500,000 3,500,000 $ 28,000,000 $ 3,460,000 $ 28 ,625 ,000 6,875,000 (35,500,000) 4,500,000 $ 40,000,000 $ 27 ,825 ,000 6,875 ,000 (34,700,000) 31500,000 '$ 38,200,000 $ 35,500,000 4200,000 $ 40,000,000 $ 34,500,000 3,500,000 $ 38 ,000,000 $ 5,314,000 $ 54,000,000 11 ,000,000 (65,000,000) 7,500,000 $ 72,500,000 $ 46,025,000 8,250,000 (54,275,000) 6,500,000 $ 60,775,000 $65,000,000 7,500,000 $ 72,500,000 $44,500,000 6,500,000 $ 51 ,000,000 $ 6,500,000 $ 90,000,000** $ 10,000,000 $100,000,000 $ 67,250,000** $ 7,500,000 $ 74,750,000 $ 90,000,000 10,000,000 $100,000,000 $67,250,000 6,500,000 $73,750,000 $10,783,000 $113,500,000** 12,500,000 $126,000 ,000 $ 74,500,000** 7,500,000 $ 82,000,000 $113,500,000 12,500,000 $126,000,000 $ 72;000,000 7,500,000 $ 79,500,000 $10,910,000 $ 33,437 ,000** 500,000 $ 33,937,000 $20,750,000 500,000 $ 21,250,000 $2 ,727 ,000 6 Federal Policy Toward the Arts TABLE I (continued) ARTS HUMANITIES ADMINISTRATIVE Authorization Appropriation Authorization Appropriation Fiscal 1977 Program Funds $ 93,500,000** s 11,soo,000•• $93,500,000 s 11,soo,000••• $11,743,000 Treasury Fund• 10,000,000 7,500,000 10,000,000 7,000,000 Challenge Grants 12,000,000 9,000,000 12,000,000 9,000,000 Photo/Film Project 41000i,QOO Total Funds for Programming $119,500,000 $ 94,000 ,000 $115 ,500,000 $ 93,500,000 Fiscal 1978 Program Funds $105,000,000•. $ 89,100,000 .. $105 ,000,000 s 87,800,000••• •••• Treasury Fund• $ 12,500,000 7,500,000 12,500,000 7,500,000 Challenge Grants $ 18,000,000 18,000,000 18,000,000 17,500,000 Photo/Film Project 210001000 Total Funds for Programming $137,500,000 $114,600,000 $135,500,000 $112,800,000 Administrative Funds*••• As necessary 8,900,000 As necessary 8,200,000 *Federal funds appropriated by Congress to match non-federal donations to the Endowments. ••Not less than 20% of Program Funds are required to go to State Arts Agencies and Regional Arts Groups. •••Not less than 20% of Program Funds are required to go to State Humanities Councils. ••••Beginning in Fiscal 1978, each Endowment will receive separate Administrative Funds. Source: NEA News, January 23, 1978 The NEA gives only a small portion of its funds directly to artists .to support themselves while they create art. Some communities, however, havtaken advantage of the Com­prehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA), passed in 1973. Although the Act's intent was not to provide employment for artists, CETA is the one area of federal policy which is reminiscent of the New Deal and the WPA in their relationship to the arts. It has been used to assist unemployed and underemployed artists, arts technicians, and support personnel. Unlike the WPA, the CETA program is administered at the state and local levels, although like the WPA the funds come from Washington. Under CETA, it is possible for an artist to receive up to $10,000 working full or part time on an arts project designed to benefit his or her community. Examples of such projects are: · the hiring of four new dancers for the Chicago Ballet; -the painting of murals in the Mission District of San Francisco where $1 million was devoted to CETA help for artists; the addition of twelve employees at the Wadsworth Atheneum in Hartford, Connecticut; -the use of $211,000 by the Cell Block Theatre in New York City; and -assistance to the film industry in Hollywood, Cali­ fornia. San Francisco and Chicago have made extensive use of CETA. A limited survey in 1976 in Texas showed little use of the CETA outside of Houston, where both the Parks and Recreation Department and the Emergency Jobs programs have assisted artists. Two key spin offs are possible as a result of CETA. Advocates of CETA useage for artists point to the need to develop far better counting of the unemployed and underemployed artists in their communities.6 Additionally, CETA funds as a function of a decentralized special revenue sharing program will tend to accrue to those best organized and well-equipped to deal with bureaucracy. Still, the lure of CETA may encourage various arts communities to improve their level of organization, communication, and ability to work with government. The National Endowment for the Arts has lent its voice to the cause of increasing the use of CETA funds in support of artists and the arts. A February 6, 1976 memorandum from Nancy Hanks, Endowment Chairman, went out to executive and legislative leaders of state and local govern­ments pressing the case for CETA usage. Since that time, the NEA's Cultural Resources Development Project has attempted to keep track of CET A-supported arts projects and makes periodic reports to Endowment contacts con­cerning actual and potential use of CETA funds. It also informs those interested of other potential sources of federal funds to help the arts-such as the Local Public Works and Cultural Development and Investment Act of 1976 under the Commerce Department as HUD's old Community Development Act. Indeed, a good portion of August Heckscher's report to President Kennedy in 1963 was devoted to acknowledging and assessing the often unacknowledged activities of federal agencies in the arts. Quite often federal agencies give significant support to the arts without associating their program with an arts-related role. The development of an information system which would acquaint those interested with the various federal sources of funds is essential. The Associated Council on the Arts attempted to catalog federal arts funding with publication of the Cultural Directory: Guide to Federal Funds and Services for Cultural Activities in 1975. This publication referes to some 252 federal programs and agencies that produce cultural events or provide funds for such events. In addition, forth-seven federally related arts advisory groups are listed. In an attempt to uncover the use of non-NEA federal funds in Texas, we surveyed sixty-five federal agencies and offices chosen from the Cultural Directory on the basis of their applicability to Texas. Responses were received from fifty percent of those surveyed. Of those responding, more than half had neither funded nor produced an arts program in the State of Texas in the last fiscal year. A number did, however, make some contributions to the arts in Texas. The following is a listing of federal agencies that responded affirmatively, with examples of program presented and projects funded. Department of the Anny -A loan of five Peter Hurd paintings to Texas Tech University in Lubbock -Provision of Music, Theatre, Arts and Crafts, and Libraries at Forts Sam Houston, Hood, and Bliss Tours and performances by the four Army bands located in Texas Department of the Air Force Art programs and activities as services to Air Force personnel throughout the state Department of the Navy -Promotion of cultural activities at Navy installations Marine Corps 1975 tour of Lubbock, Midland, Dallas, and Texar­kana by the Marine Corps band Department of Justice · 1975 pilot artist-in-residency project in three Texas prisons cosponsored by the Texas Commission on the Arts and Humanities (TCAH) and the Bureau of Prisons. Each correctional facility maintains an an­nual arts and entertainment budget Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Grants from 1974 through 1976 totaling $7,500 under the Alliance for Arts Education (of which the TCAH is an active member) to organize such an alliance in Texas -Special Arts Projects under Emergency School Aid program to provide funding for professional artists in three school districts through grants of $107 ,000 from 1974 to 1976. The TCAH administers this program in Texas, developed the projects, and selec­ted the community. TCAH competes with other states for these funds and Texas is the only state to have been funded for four consecutive years. -A grant of $451,000 for El Paso public TV under the Educational Broadcasting Facilities Program Department of Commerce A grant of $133,120 by the Economic Development Administration to Tigua Indian Community of El Paso to restore a stagecoach shop and arts and crafts workshop Smithsonian Institution Programs on American Folklife presented by "On Tour," a national outreach program which appeared in three Texas cities Department of the Interior -Chamizal National Memorial in El Paso, a part of the National Park Service, which has imported profes­sional artists to perform in its theatre and on its grounds. (The TCAH has helped support performan­ces there. The Memorial was a direct result of the El Paso Arts Council seeking such a memorial rather than a monument.) National Trust for Historic Preservation $500 matching grant to study the possible creation of an historic district in the Munger Place area of Dallas American Revolution Bicentennial Commission -Although funding, of which some portion is arts related, was terminated at the end of 1976, the hope was that communities would convert their Bicenten­nial Commissions tq pennanent art councils. SUMMARY The role of the federal government in America's two­hundred-year search for its cultural identity has been limited. The arts have been and continue to be viewed by many Americans as embellishments, a nonessential part of our national life. To a great degree, the United States is still too busy for art. The creation of the National Endowment for the Arts in 1965 represents the first time that the federal government directly supported the arts for their own sake. Unlike the WPA programs, whose focus was increased employment, or the state department tours, whose accent has been propa­ganda, the creation of the NEA was based on the recognition of the arts as an important segment of American life. It would be incorrect, however, to state that govern­ment's pre-1965 role, because it was indirect, was therefore insignificant. Indeed, indirect support in the fonn of copyright protection for creative artists and tax breaks for those who support the arts have represented a most significant contribution in the past. In fact, in Alvin Toffler's book, The Culture Consumers, the author con­cludes that indirect U.S. government support, when judged in dollar tenns represents more money than the direct subsidies granted the arts in several European countries. 7 In 1965, the arts gained not only direct government subsidies, but also the symbolic legitimacy which went with the financial support. After the creation of the NEA, each state in the union ratified the federal government's action by creating state arts councils which cooperate with the NEA and with local arts organizations throughout the state. The question of government support for the arts has ceased to be a question of "whether," but rather is now a question of "how." How can one prevent bureaucratic requirements Federal Policy Toward the Arts . which have accompanied government subsidies from be­coming more of a hindrance than a help to the arts? How can private support for the arts best be maintained while public support expands? How might a balance be struck between support for individual artists and support for i,iistitutions, and between what has been called art for the elite and art for the masses? These and other questions will · occupy public policy makers for the arts in the future. Critics of federal funding priorities at this time have to be cautious. The great shifts in available funds from year to year make it difficult to assess what NEA would do if the organization were able to set priorities based upon a steady expectation of available funds. Then it will be easier to judge NEA's aggregate spending in tenns of which art fonns it encourages and which it ignores. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations are made concerning federal support of the arts in Texas: (1) TCAH, in cooperation with the NEA and state and federal regional agency officials, should collect and main­tain data on available arts-related federal funds in Texas and make this infonnation available to interested parties; (2) TCAH, to help those Texas artists who are unemployed or underemployed, should press the case for greater use of CET A funds to assist the arts in Texas. Contact should be established with federal, regional, and state manpower officials as well as with state and local elected officials, particularly mayors of the state's cities. (3) The NEA, with the cooperation of the states, should help the Bureau of Labor Statistics improve its collection of unemployment and underemployment sta­tistics among artists. (4) TCAH should insure that available federal funds, such as those for prison programs, are not allowed to lie donnant while prisoner, the elderly, children, or others are denied access to the arts. REFERENCES 1 Ralph Purcell, Government and Art (Washington: sIbid. p. 47. Public Affairs Press, 1956), p. 4. 6 See, for example, Paul Bullock, Creative Careers: . 2 lbid. p. 14-15. Minorities in the Arts, Institute of Industrial Relations, University of California, 1977, passim. 3 Richard Hofstader, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life (New York: Random House, 1962), chapter XV. 7 Alvin Toffler, '/'he Culture Consumer (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1964), p._ 188. 4 Purcell, op. cit. chapter II. CHAPTER 2 STATE POLICY TOWARD THE ARTS: TEXAS COMMISSION ON THE ARTS AND HUMANITIES INTRODUCTION What the NEA is on the national level, the Texas Commission on the Arts and Humanities (TCAH) is on the state level. Since it is supported both by NEA and state funds, it tends to reflect policies of both constituencies. It is not alone in this balancing act, as all the other states receive block . grants from the NEA and varying amounts from state legislatures. This chapter then will examine the TCAH by reviewing its enabling legislation and the history of that legislation, studying the history of the operation of the agency, and then describing the funding pattern employed by the Commission. Finally, the agency's problems will be ana· lyzed, alternative solutions to similar problems in other states will be discussed, and recommended solutions to each of the problems will be offered. One issue will be discussed-namely, whethe1: or not the government should fund the arts. That decision was made on the federal level with the start of the NEA in 1965 and in Texas when, on June 2, 1965, the legislature established the Texas Fine Arts Commission, later to be called the TCAH. Our basic concern, therefore, is with an analysis which seeks to improve public policy toward the arts, not to judge whether or not there should be such a policy in the first place. LEGISLATIVE msTORY As a result of national legislation creating the National Endowment for the Arts, which authorized block grants to the states, Texas created a commission in 1965. The 59th Legislature passed House Bill 273, establishing the Texas Fine Arts Commission (later to become TCAH). It provided that no state funds could be 'used, although contributions could be accepted. Its goals were: ( l)To foster the development of a receptive climate for the fine arts that will culturally enrich and benefit the citizens of Texas in their daily lives, to make Texas visits and vacations all the more appeal­ing to the world and to attract to Texas residency additional outstanding creators in the field of fine arts through appropriate programs of publicity and education, and to direct other activities such as the sponsorhip of art lectures and exhibitions and central compilation and dissemination of information on the progress of the fine arts in Texas. (2)To act as an advisor to the State Building Commission, State Board of Control, Texas State Historical Survey Committee, Texas State Library, Texas Tourist Development Agency, State Highway Department and other state agencies in providing a concentrated state effort to encourage an .apprecia­tion of the fine arts in Texas. (3)To act in an advisory capacity relative to the creation, acquisition, construction, erection, or re­modeling by the state of any work of art. (4)To act in an advisory capacity, when requested by the Governor, relative to the artistic character of · buildings constructed or remodeled by the state. The Commission is made up of eighteen members. Appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate, they are supposed to represent all fields of fine arts and to be known for their professional competence and experience in connection with the fine arts. The commissioners are appointed for six-year terms, with six members retiring every two years. Retired commis­sioners are asked to become members of the Advisory Council. Most have agreed to join and as of 1976, the Council had a membership of eighteen. If the Governor does not name a new commissioner before a term's expiration date, the commissioner scheduled to retire is asked to continue until a replacement has been appointed and approved. Members serving extended terms retain full voting and membership privileges. THE filSTORY OF THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON THE ARTS AND HUMANITIES Three factors fostered the growth and development of the TCAH. The first was a blcok grant given to the state by the NEA; the second was state support; and the third was considerable effort on the part of many interested Texans who believed strongly in the principle of government support for the arts. A $25,000 grant was given to Texas by the National Endowment for the Arts in 1965 (similar grants were given to the other states) to study the arts resources in Texas, and to help establish an agency if deemed advisable by the people of the state. The result was the establishment of the Texas Fine Arts Commission in 1965. Governor John Connally appointed the original eighteen commissioners for terms of six years. The Commission first met on August 23, 1966. A review of the enabling legislation and NEA grant guidelines led it to elect officers and define a program of work. The commissioners started an inventory of the state's cultural resources by analyzing 390 communities and forty institutions of higher education. The survey was to serve as the base for ... an overall Commission operational plan to utilize the cultural resources of the State to meet the needs of the greatest number of persons possible with .its objective, the encouragement ofthe arts at the highest level of artistic excellence and the improvement of education in and appreciation of the arts. The Commission also spelled out a wide variety of future task, including starting a statewide Information Task Force, providing traveling exhibitions, sponsoring a Governor's Conference on Business and the Arts, encouraging the fonnation of local arts councils, establishing a program of recognition and awards for Texas artists, organizing "an aggressive campaign to save the few remaining bandstands on public s_quares" and leading a ... concerted effort to encourage the establishment of more nighttime family entertainment in Texas communities, such as summer theatre, concerts, recitals, pageants, festivals, art, craft, and historical exhibits, book fairs, literary lectures, folklore and imported performances, and exhibits. During the first year of its existence, the Commission was relatively inactive; in fact, low attendance at Commis­ sion meetin~ during 1967 resulted in a delay in choosing a chairperson. The Commission, however, did pursue its survey of the state's cultural resources, which it completed in late August 1967 but never published. In September 1967, the legislature appropriated some funds for the Commission which, in addition to the annual NEA bloc grant, permitted the Commission to begin developing a five-point plan in 1968: (1) Analyze and evaluate the Texas Cultural Re­sources Survey; (2) develop sound, realistic financial operation for state and community programs; (3) aid State Policy Toward the Arts in incorporating the arts into the Texas educational system; (4) establish resources for arts management and professional assistance; and (5) create cultural and aesthetic growth of our cities. The Commission and its staff continued to work for the establishment of local councils because they believed that the "local councils were the tool through which we can accomplish the most with the least expenditure." But the Commission recognized in 1969 that such councils have problems: There is one problem that faces most Arts Councils when they are first formed-they find it difficult to program themselves and to continue the momentum they have built up. This is an area in which they obviously need assistance. We think it is possible to initiate a program under which students from the various Fine Arts Schools in the state can obtain practical experience in working with arts councils while working toward their graduate degrees in the arts-either a master's or doctor's degree. The Commission, therefore, planned to ask for funds to establish graduate-level internships, but there is no later mention of this request. It further hoped to develop a touring program to bring "quality attractions to smaller communities and metropolitan neighborhoods." The 70s brought many changes for the Commission's operations. Its executive director J. Pat O'Keefe resigned; Maurice D. Coats became the new executive director in June 1971, and he continued in that position until 1978 when he resigned. The budget in 1971 increased to slightly more than $75,000 in federal funds and about $106,000 in state appropriations; in 1972, federal funds doubled to $148,770 while the state allocation was $149,000. Another change was in its name: the Texas Fine Arts Commission became the Texas Commission on the Arts and Humanities. One reason for the addition of humanities is that the National Endowment for the Humanities had not given bloc grants to states to set up special commissions as had the NEA. The NEH, instead, has set up state organizations as integrated parts of the NEH. Still, there has been continual pressure on the NEH to follow the NEA record, and recent NEH changes bring it closer to the NEA model. The TCAH appears ready to become the NEH agency in the state of Texas. In any case, the TCAH has committed some of its resources to the support of the humanities. In its 1971 annual report to the Governor, the TCAH reported its accomplishments: New means of involving respected, professional artists and humanists in the Commission decision making process has been developed and will be instituted by February of 1972 (the first advisory panel was organized in May 1972). A new simplified application procedure has been developed and is now in use so that those who need our assistance have easy access to the Commission. We have made a new commitment to take the initiative in developing projects to serve specific needs of the state when we see those needs. We have developed new policies and new guide­lines to assure more objectivity within the grant making process of the Commission. The concluding paragraph of the same report summarizes t!te Commission's and the new Director's "overridlng con­cerns." 1. The professional artist trying to earn a livelihood by working at this art in Texas; and 2. the right of the general public, the whole com­munity, to participate in the arts, to see good theatre, to hear good music, to have the human civilizing benefits of these resources, incalculable in dollars and cents. The year 1973 brought more changes in procedure. The NEA told the Commission that funds would be available "for the development of a Community Assistance Program to help communities develop their own local cultural resources." Since the funds could cover administrative costs, the Commission wanted to insure these funds were spent wisely. Ittherefore adopted the following stipulations: 1. Local council must have detailed job description for the position of director. 2. Local council must develop a program of work for the first year's activities of its director. 3. Local council must have an understanding of the internal relationship between its director and the TCAH office. 4. Local council must give assurance that matching funds are available. 5. Local council must select a qualified director. By 1974 the Commission was expending a total budget of $616,130, including federal funds. Total State Appropriations $152,776 Touring Program 75,000 Agency Administration 77,776 Total Federal Grants $274,471 Assistance in developing Commission Programs 127 ,000 Artists-in-Schools Program Visual 36,600 Film 6,000 Poetry 10,000 Theatre 25,000 NEA Film Administration 16,000 NEA Regional Meeting 4,776 Coordinated-Residency-Touring Program 14,858 Museum 15,250 Total Private Grants Moody Foundation 25,000 At the first meeting in 1974, Mr. Coats reported thatit had been decided by the Chairman . of the Commission and the Chairman of the Grants Application Committee ... to use a portion of this fund in an effort to identify specific objectives of the Commission in the various areas of specialization. A small honorarium will be presented to two members of each Advisory Panel to prepare proper objectives of the Commission in their particular discipline over the next year, five years, and ten years. The position papers will be distributed to all members of the respective Advisory Panels; they will be asked to respond to the ideas and concepts in the papers. All data will come back to the Grants Applications Committee and from the com­mittee will come a specific recommendation or series of recommendations to the Commission for consi­deration. The objectives will then be publicized, and programs and projects with those objectives will be encouraged and stimulated. THE FUNDING PROCESS IN TEXAS: AN ANALYSIS The Texas Commission on the Arts and Humanities makes grants only to nonprofit organizations in Texas which sponsor arts and humanities activities in the . state. This assistance may be either an outright grant which requires a minimum match of 50 percent from the grantee (credit may be given for in-kind expenditures), or an underwriting based on the project's costs, income, and deficits. The Commission funds a broad range of projects, but activities specifically excluded from receiving assistance are student projects such as theses or dissertations, scholar­ships, the underwiring of past deficits, and capital outlays for buildings or pennanent equipment. Activities eligible for financial assistance fall into two broad program areas managed by the Education Division and the State/Community Division of the agency. The former administers the Artists-in-the-Schools Progiam, which is funded largely with money from the NEA, and other miscellaneous educational . activities. The State/ State Policy TowaTd the Arts Community Division administers Touring Programs, which. . looked because of a lack of professional organization in include activities by professional and nonprofessional per­forming companies, and concert series and exhibitions. In addition, the -Community Resource Development Program provides administrative assistance, programming assistance, and planning activities, and the General Projects Program handles nontouring exlll"bitions, publications, special events, and special educational activities. An organization seeking financial assistance submits a standard "Project Support Application" to TCAH. This application contains identification data concerning the applicant, a description of the proposed project, and a summary and detailed budget. The application also requests information about project staff, the organization and its past activities, and other miscellaneous information. On receiving an application for assistance, the staff of the agency examines it for accuracy and thoroughness. The applications are then sent to the appropriate media advisory panel for review and evaluation. There are nine media advisory panels, each made up of ten Texas authorities appointed for four-year temis. Panel members are drawn from the areas of Architecture, Education, Dance, Humanities, Music, literature, Theatre, Public Media, and Visual Arts. Until recently, the activities of these panels were extremely limited. They did not meet, but rather read applications on an individual basis and · submitted their recommendations by ballot. The panels now meet, discuss applications, and rank each application on a scale of one Q.ow) to ten (high) in four areas: Concept, Personnel, Budget, and Quality. When the panels complete this evaluation, their ballots and the applications are sent to the Grant Application Committee (made up of at least five of the Corilmissioners), which selects the applications to be recommended to the full Commission for funding. According to TCAH's "Guide to Assistance," the Com­mission considers six criteria in making its funding deci­sions. These criteria are "demonstration of need, quality and merit of the project, organizational stability, potential to achieve objective, constituency served, and the appli­cant's ability to raise funds in addition to those provided by the Commission." Although the "Guide to Assistance" does not define these criteria, the Commissioners do rate certain criteria as more important than others. We asked the commissioners what criteria they looked for when voting on a grant application. Because most mentioned some of the criteria given as examples, the questionnaire may have skewed the responses. However, the question was open­ended, and certain patterns emerged. Twelve of the fifteen current commissioner cited "num­ bers served" as important, while six stated that geographic distribution was essential. This included distribution be­ tween urban and rural settings. One commissioner, for example, tried to insure "that rural areas are not over-their areas." Eight of the fifteen current commissioners included artistic quality of the project as one of the criteria they used when voting on grants. Although one of the commis­sioners reported that the first criterion he followed was "quality and the existence of professionalism," he felt the need might be greater for cultural activities in small towns and communities-precisely those places where the profes­sional standards required as a condition for receiving assistance might be most difficult to find. Eight of the responding commissioners stated that staff recommendations were important in their decision making process. Twelve commissioners mentioned that they found the advisory committees useful, with responses ranging from "generally follow their recommendations," to calling them "for further information," to giving "careful consider­ation for recommendations given." One response noted that "commission members, while they may have a favorite area of interest, cannot be qualified in each area of the arts and the professional opinions are invaluable." One commis­sioner advocated more meetings and input by the adVisory committees and also suggested that they have a "broader base to include volunteers knowledgeable and experienced in art forms." Four responses mentioned what might be called "project feafilbility." For example, one commissioner looked for applications "within the limits of ability of sponsoring group to carry out-and that will enrich their present program and purpose." Another looked athe "strength of the applying organization and ability to complete success­fully the project." Several mentioned that they had to keep in mind the limited funds available for grants, which prompted one commissioner to state that she tried to assure "that the monies requested are in fact necessary for that particular event, and in reasonable accorwith the Commis­sion's budget," and another raised the question of "whether financial aid is necessary to put on productions." One commissioner considered "how well thought out their (the applicant's) plans were for a continuing ongoing activity." Another mentioned the "use of money to encourage additional expenditure of locally raised funds." One commissioner looked for "student exposure to and participation in the arts and humanities." Another hoped to fund "programs that would develop and provide opportuni­ties for talented individuals or groups." When a commissioner's term expires, he is asked to become a member of the Advisory Council. The Advisory Council, as of March 1976, had eighteen members; twelve responded to the questionnaire. The Council members generally used similar criteria in judging grant applications as do the present commissioner, i.e., number served, geographic distribution, concern for rural areas, feasibility of the project, and consideration of the "quality of the proposed project." Council members noted that in the early days, when they were commis­sioners, the number of requests for grants had been very small and that the Commission had suffered from a lack of funds. One Council member said he had tried to look at the "cost-effectiveness ratio," which he admitted, however, was difficult to evaluate. Four Council members mentioned following staff recom­mendations. A smaller percentage of Council members found the advisory committees useful, largely because these were not functioning earlier, but also because as one ex-commissioner said, "I always ignore committee advice. I can guess as good as they can." One Council member said that he considered it most important that the "artists benefit directly; not some teacher or educator or privater entrepreneur or museum, gallery, etc. I like to see money go directly into the pocket of the individual artist. When more money becomes available to the arts, then other criteria may be more important." Another ex-commissioner stated that "the best use of funds if always education of the young-the optimum exposure for the dollar." One councilman, after listing criteria he followed, added candidly: "Let's be honest. Political considerations were also a factor at times." With the program of TCAH and the criteria and the concerns of the Commissioners in mind, it is interesting to examine the actual allocation of resources by TCAH. In order to do this, we conducted a computerized study of the TCAH funding pattern to determine how TCAii dispersed the monies it has received from the state legislature and from the National Endowment for the Arts to various art forms, types of institutions, by purpose and to the cities of Texas. The data were collected in two groups (from 1968 through 1971, and from 1972 to 1975), since additional variables were more accessible .in the later years. The data were collected from TCAH grantfolders, minutes of Com­mission meetings, yearly reports to the Governor, and fiscal records.* The first part of the data analysis indicates thnumber of grants made to each art form. From 1968 until 1972, music was always the most frequently funded art form, receiving 35.6 percent of the grants made. In 1972, both dance and the visual arts received a greater number of grants than *The project research staff had difficulty securing all of the data and discovered what it believed to be discrepencies in the figures. TCAH does not understand why there were any difficulties since it is audited. Some of the discrepencies, TCAH believes, can be explained by the policy of under­writing projects. music. In 1973, dance and music received the same number of grants, followed closely by theatre. After that time, dance was the most frequently funded art form, receiving 26.4 percent of the grants from 1972 to 1975. Although this trend appears to reflect an increasing interest in dance, the data are a little misleading. While it is true that dance has received a greater number of grants since 1972, music has always received the greater dollar amount. The amounts received by dance, theatre, and the visual arts exceeded that received by music only in 1973. There are several explanations for the changing frequen­cy of grants for dance and the greater dollar amounts for music. During the early 1970s there was an increase in interest in dance in this country-an interest that did not necessarily reflect itself in a higher level of financial security for dance. In fact, the 1974 Ford Foundation Report, The Finances ofthe Performing Arts, declared that dance companies were the performance organizations near­est to financial collapse in the 1970-1971 season. The interest in dance and its financial difficulties help explain the increase in the number of grants. The greater frequency of grants to dance could also be attributed to changes in federal programming. In 1971, the NEA established a special dance touring program from which state arts agencies could receive monies to fund dance companies to perform and give lecture demonstra­tions during brief residencies. TCAH has taken advantage of that opportunity even though it does not limit its grants to this special program. Finally, the greater dollar amount granted to music can be explained in terms of the size of the organization receiving the monies. Further analysis of the data revealed that in music, TCAH has supported symphony and opera more often than it has funded soloists or ensemble groups. And symphony and opera require a much greater invest­ment to produce than do dance companies, which tend to be smaller, require less equipment and fewer elaborate costumes, and pay its dancers less than musicians. Although dance and music have received the greatest number of grants made by TCAH, this does not mean that other art forms have been entirely neglected. Table II shows the percentage of grants made in each period to each art form. Further analysis of the data also provides interesting information about the distribution of TCAH grants to different types of institutions. Almost without exception, the three most frequently funded institutions were educa­tional institutions (usually institutions of higher learning or some concert series attached to a college or university), nonprofessional companies, and associations (clubs, foun­dations, and societies that supported various arts). These State Policy Toward the Am TABLED 1968-1972 1973-1975 Percent of Percent of Percent of Percent of Art Fonn Total Grants Total Dollars Granted Total Grants Total Dollars Granted (219) ($432,837) Dance 19.2 13.5 Music 35.6 41.2 Theatre 6.9 19.6 Visual Arts 21.9 17.3 Mixed Media 1.4 2.7 Crafts .5 1.2 Literature 0.0 0.0 Humanities 0.0 0.0 Public Media 0.0 0.0 Other 4.6 5.2 three types of institutions accounted for at least fifty-nine percent of the grants made in each fiscal year. Educational institutions alone have accounted for at least twenty percent of the grants made each year. This is particularly interesting in light of the Commission's policy of giving a low priority to grants to state supported institutions­"e:xcept where wide community import is clearly indi-· cated." · Without exception, the most frequent purpose behind the grants was to help organizations bring performances by a local or out-of-town symphony, opera, dance company, or theatre group to their community. These performances have almost always been one-shot activites in which one arts organization brought in one performance group for one show or concert. Only occasionally did organizations apply for funds to bring several groups to their areas. The data also reveal the geographic distribution of the grants made by TCAH. From 1968 to 1972, fifty-two percent of the grants made went to twelve cities, including Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio, El Paso, Corpus Christi, Galveston, Temple, Lubbock, and Midland/ Odessa. Forty-eight percent of the grants went to all the other cities and towns in Texas. From 1973 to 1975 the percentage of grants going to these smaller communities declined to about thirty-six percent. Regardless of the Commission's aim to bring art to rural areas and to insure (250) ($557,187) 26.4 24.5 21.6 26.6 13.6 12.6 15.6 17.3 4.0 3.1 .8 .3 2.8 1.7 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.5 12.0 11.3 that smaller communities are not neglected, the statistics indicate a greater commitment to art in locations with already existing substantial art establishments. On the other hand, some of the grants to the big cities funded, for example, an urban orchestra to tour a rural area or a smaller city. Therefore, TCAH is convinced that more than fifty percent of its budget, in fact, went to smaller communities. The Commission tended to use National Endowment monies in cities with art establishments and to spread its state allocations among the other communities. This funding pattern reflects the Commissioners' feeling as expressed in the response to our questionnaire discussed earlier. The Commissioners had emphasized that quality, professionalism, and numbers served as their main criteria in making grant decisions. This may, therefore, explain the concentration of grants in larger cities, despite the Commis­sioners also seeking geographic distribution of grants. Moreover, the · data also taise some other important questions. For example, the data collected for the 1973-1975 period reveals that 51.6 percent of the grants were devoted to performances and exhibitions while only six percent were made for conferences, workshops, plan­ning activities~ or administration. The Community Resour­ces Development Program, which provides funds for admin­istrative assistance, programming assistance, and planning activities, received only 6.8 percent of the grants made in the 1973-197 5 period. The question is whether TCAH is "fostering arts in Texas" by supporting one-shot perfor­mances or merely providing entertainment in order to build audiences. The funding pattern shows little emphasis on the development of new artistic resources,,in planning ways to involve actively more people in artistic activities, or in finding ways to make careers in the arts more worthwhile and less fraught with economic risk. The TCAH believes in all of these goals. It argues that using established artists attracts audiences and, therefore, involves more people in the arts. Moreover, many artists are employed directly through the Artists-in-Schools Program and indirectly through grants given to organizations who have to hire artists. Moreover, as stated earlier, TCAH operates three pro­grams, the Touring Program, the Community Resource Development Program, and the General Projects Program. While the "Guide to Assistance" lists certain specific activites to be carried out under each program, there is actually little differentiation among those receiving grants under them. Rather than issuing definite guidelines for each program and calling for applications for specific programs, the TCAH receives applications and assigns them to one of the three-semmingly more as a result of the availability of monies than because of the actual purpose of the program. The process of fitting applications into programs rather than having programs determine applications, the extent that this is the process, limits the overall impact the TCAH might have even if it determines, as it has tried to do, what the artistic needs of the state are, or decides what artistic resources should be developed. The TCAH argues that it has maintained flexible program categories to permit it to respond to the needs as reflected by the applications received. It prefers placing a "high priority" on the needs of the field as reflected in the grants rather than determining itself what the arts needs in the state are. Another TCAH policy is its practice of underwriting certain projects. The agency claims that this practice gives it greater flexibility in its budgeting and a greater turnover of. funds by allowing it to retain funds which the grantee does not really need. If this is true, then there should be a high degree of variation between funds expended and grant amount approved. However, in computing the Pearson Correlation Coefficient and developing a scattergram for this data, we find that this is simply not the case. The r2 of .96247 at a .0001 significance level indicates that the two sets of figures vary almost exactly together. The amount approved explains almost all of the variation in the amount expended. It may be that the values claimed for this funding technique are exaggerated and that grantees, knowing that a certain amount of funds are available should they be needed, will almost certainly need them. This is not to suggest, however, that the practice of underwriting be abandoned. It does suggest that other effective ways of increasing budget flexibility should be sought.• Other problems with the funding process were raised by Advisory Panel members during their meetings of March 8­March 23, 1976. A common complaint among panelists was that the grant applications were often incomplete. Resumes of staff were missing. Budgets were sometimes incomplete. Some applications even lacked project descrip­tions. This incompleteness hampered the process of making their judgments. There are two possible explanations for this incompleteness. One is that the instructions of the "Project Support Application" have not been clear. The other is that the staff examination of the applications for "accuracy and thoroughness of information" is not thor­ough. In the latter case, the closeness of the application deadline in 1976 (February 23) to the date established for mailing the applications to the panelists (March 1) may have prevented the staff from making a thorough examina­tion. It must also have limited the time available to solicit further information from the applicants. Staff members also indicated in interviews that they were uncertain about the degree of further information they could solicit. Although the "Project Support Application" seems clear about the information desired, it was not designed to facilitate the delivery of much information. It stresses brevity, and the space provided for project descriptions. and other information is limited. Even though additional pages may be attached, the design of the application seems to. discourage these additions. Other problems in the funding process have been poor control of the advisory panels' volume of work and the duplication of effort in differing levels of review. The panels reviewed 133 applications during their March 1976 meetings. One panel, Architecture, reviewed only two applications while the Dance panel revieweq thirty-six. Workload for the panels varied greatly although this is obviously difficult to prevent. After review by the panels, the Grant Applications Committee of the Commission reviewed all 133 applications again. After the committee formulated its recommendations, the whole bundle was reviewed again by the whole Commission. This process involves a great deal of duplicated effort. The comments are not meant to reflect criticisms of the Panel approach. The use of outside consultants who are experts in a field is one accepted way of making recommen­ *In fiscal year 1975, TCAH claims it recycled $15,000-$18,000 through underwriting. As TCAH staff has expanded and improved, they have worked closer with applicants and their budgets. This has made the amounts requested more realistic and reduced the amount of recycled funds. dations as to who should receive a grant. But the whole process requies less duplication, more planning, more time for TCAH to secure more complete information, and more effort to prompt applications from those in the state hesitant to apply. To meet the latter need, the TCAH has hired an Information Coordinator who is supposed to disseminate information about the application proeess so that more persons may apply. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Texas Commission on the Arts and Humanities has proceeded without substantial and current research on the state of the arts in Texas. Although the Fine Arts Commission conducted a study in 1965, it was neither a professional study nor one which was brought up-to date. Without such research, TCAH lacks an important planning tool and any basis for judging what the cultural and aesthetic needs of the state might be. TCAH also needs such information to fulfill its legislative obligation to "compile and disseminate information on the progress of the Arts and Humanities in Texas." Not only does TCAH lack such information, but the breadth of the state makes it difficult to secure such information, to develop needed plans, to disseminate what is learned or proposed in Austin throughout the state, and to provide needed technical assistance. The communica­tions network in the arts is difficult enough, but in a state the size of Texas such difficulties are even more pro­nounced. And how can one effectively administer such an amorphous program, and sell its merits, solely out of an office in the state capital? . Research and Planning Group It is therefore suggested that the TCAH might consider the following proposal, which at relatively low cost will give them both a research staff and agents throughout the state. At various colleges and universities, there are those who are concerned with arts policies and programs as well as those concerned with research in the arts. Such persons ought to be identified and asked to serve on a part-time and compensated basis as adjunct staff to the TCAH and as members of a statewide research and planning arm for TCAH. This group, for example, could analyze in the various geographic regions the benefits that accrue to the areas from the arts, the financial status of the arts, audience attendance, employment of artists, the role of various art forms in the different communities, and suggest areas of needed development. Moreover, these people would serve as disseminators of information in their regions, motivators and evaluators of applications, representatives of TCAH in examining how grants are spent, facilitators of community State Policy Toward the Arts . involvement in TCAH programs, and instigators of ideas to . the TCAH. As part of an overall research and planning group advisory to the TCAH, they could meet as TCAH felt appropriate to discuss common problems. As mentioned earlier, these people would be employed part-time by TCAH but they would be full-time in their commitment to the arts, and both can thereby benefit. Thus, not only would some needed research and planning input be pro­vided to the TCAH, but also some needed decentralized staff would become available. Some states have moved somewhat in this direction in hiring staff to handle regions. But the proposal offered here might achieve a combination of goals at a minimum of cost and with a maximum of involvement. Development of Long-tenn Commitments The TCAH's present program provides much more support for single performances and less for the develop­ ment of permanent artistic resources, for enlarging the market for such resources, and for adequate planning. This emphasis on performance is difficult to evaluate in terins of long-lasting impact on the arts in Texas. In contrast, some states appear to have actively sought to develop institutions and audiences. The Indiana Arts Commission has relied heavily upon the subsidy-of-salary grants to promote local art councils. In addition, the Indiana agency promoted the touring of three state institutions into rural communities: the Indiana Repertory Theater, the Indianapolis Museum of Art, and the Indiana­ polis Symphony Orchestra. The Indiana Arts Commission initiated a special project entitled "Arts for Rush County" to counteract the "scatter­ shot" funding pattern that it observed in its granting. The agency combined the lack of arts in rural areas with the problem of inadequate performance opportunities by Indiana's preprofessional artists; for example, students. Each college or university in Indiana which offers a degree in performance was invited to submit a proposal for soloists and ensembles in vocal and instrumental music, dance, and/or theatre. At the same time, in conjunction with the Indiana Department of Commerce, the Commission pre­ pared a profile of cultural activity for each county in the state. The results showed that three quarters of all Indiana counties possessed a population of less than 50,000. The Indiana Arts Commission identified ninety-five such com­ munities and contacted the relevant Chamber of Com­ merce, the mayor, and all interested persons. Each community was offered from two to six cultural events free of charge. Each community had to provide facilities for the troupe or actor, grant adequate support, administer the project, and handle all local coordination. The funding oflocal arts groups in order that they might sponsor the visit of a touring company may generate more local interest than when the State Commission unilaterally sends in touring companies. The local groups can determine which art forms they would most like to have visit the community from all available art forms. Also, the local groups remain in the community, committed to the arts, when the touring companies have departed. Indiana thus attempts to build up the local artistic resources through pressure from and on local arts groups. One might consider another alternative. The universities have, for example, music faculties, consisting of many excellent artists who hunger for the opportunity to perform. If TCAH, in cooperation with the universities and local art councils around the state, would sponsor, for example, a recital by a member of the University of Texas piano faculty in Paris, Texas, not only would performances be facilitated, but aid would be given to Texas artistic resources-namely, the faculty who would perform at relatively low cost. The same could be done with the drama and art faculties. EnJarging Audiences It is not enough to bring Bach to the boondocks; the boondocks have to be brought to Bach. There also has to be a concern with developing an audience. The state art agencies of Massachusetts, Maryland, Rhode Island, Tennes­see, and Oklahoma all operate ticket subsidy programs designed to create a larger culturally-conscious audience. The subjects of ticket subsidy programs have frequently been the handicapped, the inner-city poor, the disadvan­taged, school children, senior citizens, and servicemen. The subsidy program will often cover only half of the cost of the ticket, and in Rhode Island, the total ~ubsidy is limited to $500 for any given performance or event. In Massachu­setts, the Arts Ticket Service of Boston has established booths throughout the city. The Service sends to interested persons vouchers with which they may purchase tickets. The Rhode Island agency requires at least a week's notice prior to the purchase of the ticket. An interesting ticket subsidy program takes place in Baltimore, where a potential consumer may purchase a membership card for $5.00 entitling the holder to $30.00 in performances or membership in art galleries and museums. The Urban Service Agency coordinates the programs for the Maryland Arts Council. The choice of activities is entirely the responsibility of the consumer. When a participant orders a ticket, the Urban Services Agency makes the purchase and the art agency or organiza­tion receives the full value of the ticket. The Urban Services Agency believes that the program relieves the consumer of the stigma of welfare or subsidy programs. . Since TCAH is committed to "the development of a receptive climate for the arts and humanities in Texas," it might focus more on performances which build up an institution, such as it has with the tours of the Texas Opera Company, Houston Grand Opera, the Fort Worth Sympho­ny, the Museum Consortium Program of shared exhibitions, the Houston Ballet, and the bilingual theatre of Texas A&M. It might also focus more funds on developing programs that will result in the grantee continuing to play a role in the arts in the communities around the state; plan more ways for people to watch performances; provide services for artists (finding employment, legal advice, etc.) and opportunities to perform; develop artistic resources that the state lacks by analyzing what it has; explore some of the chronic problems of the arts (marketing of art, audience building, employment and unemployment of artists, and greater public involvement); and develop ways of dealing with such problems. Evaluation of Funded Projects But no matter what the objectives of the grants given by TCAH, one concern has to be to discover whether the goals sought are achieved. This is frequently difficult in the arts and perhaps explains why performanc.e is emphasized. One can count how many show up for a concert, but it is difficult to evaluate the impact of a painting. Nevertheless, an arts agency has to be concerned with evaluation. In some states an evaluation form is an elementary source of control and a method of descriptive feedback to the agency. Oklahoma has a Project Evaluation Report which is a two-page summary completed by the director of the funded organization. An additional third page is also filled out, but by a disinterested obverver who is qualified to comment on the project. The remainder of the evalua­tion is lengthy and requires detailed and specific informa­tion. The Tennessee Arts Commission Evaluation Form is a single page document requesting the information which the Commission feels is necessary for its operation. Maryland does not possess a formal evaluation. However, each project funded by the Council is judged by a member of the Council on four criteria: number of persons affected, artistic excellence, economic impact, and community respoonse . TCAH should develop a program that can be used to evaluate the impact of its programs on the art environment of the state. The agency should be able to report how many State Policy Toward the Arn site visits were made to the projects, how much and what kind of technical assi.stance it has rendered, and what contributions the projects have made to develop cultural resources in Texas. The advisory and research group recommended earlier could be of help here. Program Guidelines The current program guidelines and grant applications give the agency little control over its own program. Rather than soliciting applications or proposals for certain kinds of projects designed to meet specific needs and objectives, the agency accepts applications and assigns all those not clearly unacceptable to general program categories, where they are then judged. This process limits. the direction TCAH can give to its program of meeting objectives it deems impor­tant The TCAH might consider establishing clear and ~pecific guidelines for a number of its programs, more general guidelines for the others, and require applicants to name the program to which they are applying. The specific guidelines should indicate what elements a project must contain to be funded, what it should not contain, and what activities the agency encourages. This will permit TCAH to direct some of its funds in specific ways. The general program will permit what is also essential: freedom to attract those who have something worthwhile to develop in ways and in programs not designated by the TCAH. A common complaint among advisory panelists was that grant applications often did not contain enough informa­tion about project activities and often were incomplete. The staff indicated that it did not have time to deal with incomplete applications because of the limited time be· tween the application deadline and the deadline for sending the application books to the panelists. Other states handle the issue diffetently. The staff of the North Carolina Arts Council, like the staff in many states including Texas, is available to aid in the preparation of the proposals. After the proposal is received by the Council, a staff member may contact the applicant to discuss the proposal and to clarify issues concerning the application. Art councils in the communities are frequently asked to rank the proposals for the benefit of the staff. The North Carolina Arts Council staff will also rank the applications prior to submitting the proposals to the Council for review. Certain procedures might be helpful in Texas. For example, incomplete applications or proposals should not be reviewed but should be sent back to the applicant with an explanation of the document's defects. In addition, the agency should reschedule the deadlines for its applications and review process to provide the staff with more time to go over applications for their completeness. The agency should also develop a procedure for more efficient handling of grant applications and project records, and for keeping basic information about projects and expenditures of funds on hand. This data should be combined with the goals and objectives mentioned above into an effective management information system that could be used by the Commission and other oversight agencies to determine the effectiveness of the TCAH policies and programs. The application review process contains too many levels of review. First the advisory panels review the applications and make recommendations to the grant applications committee of the Commission, which also makes recom­mendations to all the commissioners, who make the final decision. The procedure duplicates effort and waters down the role of the lower levels of the process. Furthermore, the current nine advisory panels suffer from a poorly distribu­ted workload. Some panels review many applications, while others review only a few, and a scanty budget for their operation results, at times, in the panel having inadequate attendance. The procedure, consequently, might be im­proved if the nine advisory panels were reduced in number with representatives of several art forms working on the same panel. The Commission's grant application review committee might be disbanded and its members apportioned among the review panels. These new enlarged panels could then review applications and make recommendations to the full Commission. Such a process would permit direct interaction between advisory panel members and the commissioner and among the various art forms, and thus enrich, while shortening, the review process. Securing Public Support The responsibility of the Texas Commission on the Arts and Humanities repiains to the public-the citizens of Texas. To secure the kind of support it wants requires not only that it do a good job, but that it win supporters. When this report was being first written, the TCAH had not attempted to organize and maintain a citizens support group-an integral part of many other states' arts councils programs-although it had worked closely with some that have existed. The Texas Commission was forced to reject its passive role and to help take the initiative in order to gain the statewide support which it did not have. In 1976, the Texas Arts Alliance was created "as a means to actively assist the Texas Commission on the Arts and Humanities, a state agency. The Commission has adopted goals that can greatly benefit the arts in every sector of Texas. The Alliance is dedicated to supporting these goals." The Alliance's projects i:nclude the following: "sponsor the Annual Texas Art Showcase; inaugurate the Texas Arts Journey, a routing for tourists that will be publicized nationwide; develop recognition awards for achievement in Texas arts and humanities, and for outstanding volunteer workers and patrons; [and] sponsor public focus on the needs of the arts and artists of Texas." It is, obviously, too early to tell what impact the Alliance will have. Will it be just another place for "art voyeurs" who want to be known as supporters of the arts, or will it be, in Texas, the equivalent of the national "Advocates for the Arts," a staunch supporter of more public support for the arts? Other states work closely with similar agencies. This relationship in the state of Wammgton will be disc~d later. Another way to secure public support for the arts is for TCAH to develop programs that the population demands. Arts administrators soon realize that the publicity and goodwill that result from programs that search out and find the person who is unfamiliar with, and learns to be appreciative of the arts, in the long run pays off in public support for the arts. Examples of such programs include the South Carolina ARTStruck and Craftstruck, Virginia's Torpedo Alley, and the purchase of capital equipment such as the colotype in Michigan. These are examples of programs which attempt to bring the full array of the arts to otherwise neglected rural areas. The local state legislature can then point to a specific program that the state arts agency has brought to its community. The risk of such popular programs is that one can seek out the lowest common art denominator to assure popular acceptance rather than support those pro­grams that are attractive to specialized audiences-even if small in number-but which may be more lasting in their impact on the arts. In short, the needed concern for the popular should not cause the TCAH to forget its commitment to helping the individual artist develop. To accomplish this might require it to support what may be unpopular; it might force TCAH to look into methods to facilitate the marketing of art and with this, the posfilbility of TCAH becoming the agency that insures that the artist is protected in his dealings with galleries, etc. (One state arts agency is developing an arbitration procedure to deal with the problem too often inherent in the artist-gallery relationship.) It should explore additional ways of directly helping the individual artist which, at present, it cannot do directly. Political Appointees The appointment of political contributors and politi­cians as Commissioners has not improved the effectiveness or the image of the Commission. The Commission shoold not be the political spoil which some governors have made it. It needs bipartisan support; it must have the guidance of the poor and the powerless; the black, chicano, and the white; and the artist and nonartist. In many states the appointment of the governing boards is a highly publicized event that reflects the careful political consequences of such a decision. In contrast, the appointments to the Texas Commission are usually reported as obscure news announcements that do not arouse the public. The Governor of Texas, therefore, should appoint commissioners who reflect the interests of the arts in Texas. They should be people who are artists themselves· or have demonstrated an awareness concerning arts. These are minimum criteria. In addition, the Commissioners should reflect the various types of art creators and consumers in Texas so that they might be able to act as catalysts within their own communities and foster a climate of growth for the arts throughout Texas. The Texas Commission on the Arts and Humanities should have to rely less, in the future, on the grant-making powers of federal agencies and more on funding aid from the state. Texas is at the bottom of the list in per capita state support for the arts. This shocking situation . has crippled the Commission and until this situation is altered, other states will have arts programs far in advance of those in Texas. Thus, the TCAH supporters of arts in Texas must fight hard for more funds from the state, and it must explore methods of funneling more private funds into the arts. The latter will be discussed in the last chapter. The TCAH, since the original writing of this report, has developed the following goals for the 1978-1979 period. I . Seeks to expand the opportunities and programs in the arts· and humanities for small towns and rural areas throughout Texas. 2. Supports expanded opportunities for specicil audiences including Texans of varied ethnic back­grounds, senior citizens, handicapped persons, and confined audiences. 3. Emphasizes to Texas business leaders the impor­tance and benefits of financial support and parti~ cipation in the arts and humanities. 4. Provides leadership · for audience development which will provide new income for programs in the arts and humanities. 5. Encourages full and complete educational oppor­tunities in the arts and humanities for Texans of all ages through community and educational or­ganizations, recognizing the family unit as an effective foundation for education of both parents and children. 6. Seeks to develop an information network to pro­mote better communication, increased coopera­tion and effectiveness in program planning and presentation among individuals and organizations in the arts and humanities. State Policy Toward the Arts 1. Urges cooperation among cultural, financial, · busin~, and political organizations to improve the cultural climate andimage of Texas. 8. Develop a cooperative effort with organizations in metropolitan areas to promote programs of statewide aesthetic and economic importance. The budgets for fiscal years 1977 and 1978 are given in Table III. These budgets still show Texas among the states giving the least per capita aid to the arts. TABLE ID FISCAL YEAR 1978 OPERATING BUDGET FY 1977 FY 1978 Expenditures Budget Exempt Salary (Executive Director) $ 27,500 $ 28,400 Salaries of Classified Positions 180,544 174,138 Extra Help 2,079 3,000 Merit Increases 787 6,360 Professional Fees 13,649 3,480 Employees Insurance 2,947 180 Consumable Supplies and Materials 6,820 11,100 Postage 7,082 8,000 Telephone 14,141 15,150 Travel 31,856 32,150 Rent-Machines 4,177 6,100 Rent-Office Space 11,940 21,000 Other Opetating Expenses 17,431 13,014 Grants 619,597 662,464 Capital Outlay 5,345 3,820 Totals $94.5,895 $998,356 Source of Funds: FY 1976 State Appropriations $ 28,307 $ FY 1977 State Appropriations 293,599 29,447 FY 1978 State Appropriations 355,557 Federal Grants 607,565 601,072 CHAPTER3 COMMUNITY POLICY TOWARD THE ARTS At the symposium held at the LBJ Library in 1975 to commemorate the ten th anniversazy of the passage of the NEA, Nancy Hanlcs, the Chairperson of the National F.ndowment for the Arts, stated that the relationship between the arts and the local communities would be one of the most difficult issues facing the Endowment during the next decade. She then emphafilz.ed that the states' role concerning this matter would be more important than federal involvement. What then is the Texas Commission on the Arts and Humanities' role in the policy area of the arts and the community? Specifically, what is its role toward community arts councils?1 STA'ffi.COMMUNITY RELATIONS The development of truly active community arts coun­cils hz been a fairly recent phenomenon; therefore, the Texas Commission had no distinguishable policy in this area until about 1973. Pressure from community a.rtS people on TCAH to distribute more money to local arts organizations and arts councils had been growing for some time, howe~r. Although the Commission's fiscal 1973 .. Report to the Governor" contained strong statements and promises about funding local arts organizations, many people in the communities became dissatisfied with the implementation of these promi<;es. The 1973 Report stated: 2 Community effort is the most important effort to sustain and expand opportunities in the arts and humanities for the people of Texas. Ultimately, each community provides the leadership, talent, and facilities for all programs. For many people, these organizations provide the only opportunities available in a lifetime for participation in the arts and humanities. Community theaters, orchestras, bands, ballets, museums, and arts councils are all serving a vital function by providing public programs for the public service they can give to the community in programs and educational activities in the arts and humanities. Assistance to these community organizations is essen­tial to the development of a statewide climate "that will culturally enrich and benefit the citizens of Texas in their dialy lives. .. " They provide the first contact for children and young talent. They provide the only opportunity for talented adults of their community to use their individual talents. They provide local leadership in expanding opportunities for the whole community. Our belief in the value of these community efforts far exceeds our ability to provide assistance; neverthele§, they continue to do as much as they can. They are capable of much more service to their communities if the necessary funds were available. During 1974, the Texz Assembly of Arts Councils was established, in part because of the feeling that the Texas Commission wz not emphzizing local arts organizations and councils enough. Other reasons for its creation included the need for more communication between arts councils and the Commission; more support for local arts councils; and more education for local arts council personnel in learning such skills as grant writing, audience development, and creative progmnming. The Texas Assembly of Arts Councils has worked closely with TCAH in order to implement the abo~ objectives. Relations seem to have been effective, for the Assembly no longer feels that the Commission is not paying attention to local arts councils. TCAH is now making direct grants to local arts councils and now has a staff member who coordinates state/community affairs. Although the community assistance division ofTCAH is small, its members try to provide information, technical assistance, and if pos.tjble, grant money to local arts councils. From this experience with community arts coun­cils, the TCAH's State.Community Office has developed definite ideas about what an arts council should be and about how to measure its success-views not necessarily held by the TCAH z a whole. A summary of these views and opinions are contained in the following statements: 1. Arts councils should not be creatures of local governments. They should be private agencies with a Community Policy Toward the Arts public responsibility. When created under the bureaucratic structure of city governments, councils become too political. 2. An arts council must decide what group it exists to ·serve: its member arts organizations, individual artists, the consumer public, etc. Its goals and funding may then be directed toward this group. 3. Arts councils with members from specific arts organizations usually have problems in serving the community as a whole since their primary interest is related to their individual organizations. 4. Arts councils with members representing general areas of the arts, on the other hand, usually have problems because the members are forced to repre­sent areas of interest that are larger than their own particular interests. 5. Whatever the members represent, they should be elected by their constituent groups and not appointed by City Councils, etc. In this way, a group of theatres is more likely to elect a person who will speak for all their interests on the arts council. 6. Professional directorship of an arts council is highly recommended. Most arts councils do not know how to use the money they already have, much less how to obtain more funds. A professional director can usually double the amount of money available. 7. In funding an arts council, cities should contract for services from the various arts groups through the arts council. In this way, the city is not giving a hand-out to the arts but is really getting a service in return. 8. For · all of their good deeds, arts councils can destroy the arts of a community by encouraging competition for funds and attention. An arts council must have the cooperation of influential and power­ful leaders of the community in the arts, business, and politics. 9. More often than not, the success of an arts council also depends on the personality of its leaders. Councils are run most efficiently by one person who has the trust and confidence of all arts groups in the city. The director's most important function is to convince each group that he/she is trying to help each of them as much as possible. l 0. Arts councils cannot build successful programs on grants alone; they must have support from city government, business, and the community-at-large. Grants are transitory in nature, but public support should be a constant objective. During 1976, the State/Community Office has initiated pilot programs in several Texas communities to help them identify their cultural needs and to develop a plan of action to implement a study of the arts in their community. Although no fµnds have been eannarked for the project, advice and assistance have been provided to the Brazos Valley and Lubbock Arts Councils, among others, for completing their community arts plans. In addition to these pilot programs, the State/Commu­.nity Office consults with local arts leaders on how to establish arts councils in their communities. Guidelines on correct approaches to develop support for arts councils have been developed. In addition to its advisozy capacity, TCAH has begun offering direct grants to community arts councils, primarily for the hiring of professional directors. Recent grants (since May 1975) include:3 Arts Council of San Antonio for a residency by the Joffrey Ballet Co.; Galveston County Cultural Arts Council, Inc. for resi­dencies by Ballet Hispanico and the Joffrey II Dance Company; Junior Service League of Victoria for salary ~pport for staff; Arts Council of the Brazos Valley for four concerts by the Houston Symphony Orchestra; Arts Council of Brazos Valley for a presentation of the "Nutcracker" by the Houston Ballet; Galveston County Cultural Arts Council, Inc., for a touring production of the bicentennial drama/musical "Yankee Doodle"; Arts Council of the Brazos Valley for financial assistance for salaries; and El Paso Council on the Arts and Humanities for financial assistance for salaries. The obstacle presented in implementing such a support policy does not lie in an unwillingness to help arts councils or in a lack of understanding of their problems. Rather, the problem is one of money. With the burden of support for arts councils placed on the states instead of on the NEA, TCAH is finding it difficult to meet the demands of Texas arts councils because of meager state appropriations from the state legislature. Consequently, the Commission is giving technical advice to the Community Arts Councils in lieu of increased financial assistance. At its fall 1975 meeting, the Commis­sion adopted a new "Guide to Assistance," in which it affirms that "technical and informational services such as assistance to arts organizations for program planning, and consultation with local arts councils and other patrons of arts and humanities activities about promotion, fund raising, management and structure are now specifically acknowledged as Commission responsibilities."4 Several conclusions may be drawn about the Texas Commission's policy toward community arts councils. 1. Most funds from TCAH go to individual arts organizations, especially touring ones, instead of arts councils. A few arts councils that are extremely well­organized with dynamic directors have received salary support for a professional director. But Commission mem­bers and the director are concerned with getting the "biggest bang for .their buck;" consequently, giving money to arts councils mutes the bang that can come from the buck spent directly by the TCAH. 2. Most direct support to arts councils from TCAH is in the form of professional advice on developing a community cultural plan and identifying local arts resources. This involves no money but may well lead to future grants if a good plan is developed. 3. The Commission usually advises local arts councils to apply to the National Endowment for specific projects because of the larger amount of federal funds available for such programs. TCAH will offer much advice on grant application to NEA, will "lobby" for such grants at the Endowment, and will inform local councils of available programs on the federal level such as NEA's "City Spirits." LOCAL ARTS COUNCILS But what about the local arts councils themselves? In the preceding sections of this report, we have examined public policies toward the arts on the federal and state_levels. We have attempted to define, on both these levels, the nature and the process of some of these governmental policies. Federal involvement in the arts is a relatively new phenomenon. When compared to state policies, federal policy is a single entity, even though it has been in considerable flux since in began in 1965. State policies, however, vary from state to state. Still, there are similari­ties. In large part, the history of state arts policy develop­ment has been determined by the history of federal arts policy development. Through block grants, the NEA has encouraged all states and territories to form state arts councils. The resulting state and territorial councils have not been identical; nevertheless, there have been many common organizational characteristics. Compared to federal and state policies toward the arts, community policies toward the arts have been much more varied. One reason, of course, is the large number of communities and the differences in size, region, level of urbanization, etc. among them. Also, one finds more direct involvement by private and nonprofit groups in community art agencies. As Chapter One of this report has shown, the federal government since 1965 has committed itself to encourage and support the arts. Through the NEA's granting of public funds to state and local governments, Congress and the President hoped to encourage these governments to develop regional and community arts councils. The first two chapters of this report have evaluated the effectiveness of this policy by examining federal and selected state activi­ties. Here; we hope to examine the effectiveness of this policy as concerns the cities and towns of Texas. Case studies of out-of-state communities will be included for comparative purposes. Historical Background of Community Arts Commilmions Our society's major art organizations-symphony orches­tras, dance companies, drama groups, chamber music socieities, and artists guilds-emerged and developed with little centralized direction. These organizations persist because large groups of individuals have believed in them, fought for them, and sacrificed for them. This "has resulted sometimes in a great vitality and authenticity in areas of the artistic community, but it has also meant too often a ran­dom, miscellaneous, haphazard, formless, fragmented, anarchial, and chaotic melange of cultural activities where each group pursues its own course without heed for any of the others ... This is the basic circumstance out of which arts councils have sprung ... " 5 Community arts agencies, then, were frequently the creations of the major local art organizations themselves, and were supported early in their existence by organiza­tions such as the Junior League, the American Symphony Orchestra League, and the Rockefeller Foundation. The first arts commissions developed in U.S. cities at the turn of the century. Elected officials appointed the commissions to advise on urban design and collection of painting and sculpture for public exhibition. The first privately incorporated arts councils emerged in the 1940s. During the 1960s and early 1970s, many community arts councils were created in the wake of the newly formed state and federal arts commissions. Like the other social institutions created during this period to cope with the social problems of the society, the arts councils attempted to deal with an issue that many thought could best be handled through cooperative, rather than individual, efforts. The pace of their creation has accelerated in the past five years and represents a substantial concentration of funds. As they now exist, community arts councils cannot be strictly categorized. "Each council will work in a slightly different way from every other council since the needs and demands it answers will be different." Community arts councils could be categorized under three broad categories: publicly sponsored councils or commissions, privately incorporated councils with full-time directors, or privately Community Policy Toward the Arts incorporated councils with volunteer staffs. Publicly spon­sored councils-municipal or county arts commissions for example-are appointed by elected officials to advise local governments on local cultural matters and to carry out certain programs. Private councils with full-time directors are incorporated as privately held nonprofit corporations with tax~xempt status. Such councils are chiefly concerned with united arts fund campaigns or the planning and operation of arts centers, housing two or more constituent agencies. Private councils with volunteer staffs often con­fine their work to arranging publication of cultural calen­dars, undertaking central promotions to encourage greater attendance at arts events, and sponsoring performances and exhibitions.6 "Because the characteristics and resources of every community are unique, councils develop in many different ways. The basic problems that are created to solve, however, are remarkably similar. Whatever the immediate circumstances of a community's resolution to form an arts council, it is likely to be in response to one or more of the following needs: to develop new arts programs, to finance the arts, to house the arts, to attract audiences for the arts, and to improve urban design. Some councils sponsor programs in all these categories; others may be concerned with only one or two .."7 For the purposes of identifying arts councils in Texas, these organizations will be defined as follows: a community art council is an organization working for the comprehen­sive development of the arts in the community and carrying out one of the following functions: 1. coordinating and strengthening arts in the commu­nity;. 2. encouraging community people into arts activities; 3. providing educational services in arts and related fields; 4. representing art concerns in community action; 5. arts fundraising; or 6. operating a building or coordinating spaces to be used for arts. In Texas, it is difficult to determine how many councils are operating. According to TCAH records, there are approximately twenty-seven councils. However, further investigation reveals a total of only seventeen in 1977. The Dallas Arts Council has disbanded since its beginnning in 1972. The three organizations in Houston do not really serve the comprehensive advancement of the arts in the city. The Midland Arts Council has disbanded as a separate organization. The Waco Arts Council in 1976 was planning its structure and organizational strategy and is not an official council at this time. The Wichita Falls Council does not function as an official community arts organization. In Garland, such a council is believed to exist;however, it has been impossible to locate. This is also the case with the Henderson Arts Council. Two are committees affiliated with Chambers of Commerce-one in Fort Worth and the other in Abilene-and these do not fulfill the criteria (although there is one that does fulfill the criteria in Fort Worth). Backstage, Incorporated in Schulenburg fulfills the criteria but it is not recognized by TCAH because it has not applied for funding. Therefore, according to available information, the following councils currently operate: I. Amarillo Fine Arts Council-Amarillo 2. Arts Council of Austin, Inc.-Austin 3. Southeast Texas Arts Council-Beaumont 4. Brazosport Fine Arts Council-Brazosport/Free­port 5. Arts Council of Brazos Valley-Bryan/College Station 6. Corpus Christi Arts Council-Corpus Christi 7. El Paso Council of Arts and Humanities-El Paso 8. Arts Council of Greater Fort Worth-Fort Worth 9. Galveston County Cultural Arts Commission- Galveston IO. Hereford Fine Arts Council-Hereford I I. Lubbock Cultural Affairs Council-Lubbock 12. Odessa Arts and Humanities Council-Odessa 13. Pampa Fine Arts Association-Pampa . 14. Arts and Humanities League of San Angelo­San Angelo 15. Arts Council of San Antonio-San Antonio 16. Backstage, Inc., A Fine Arts Council for South Central Texas-Schulenburg 17. Cultural Activities Center-Temple A Commission on the Arts for the City of Austin was also created in 1975 by the City Council as part of the Mayor's office. This development resembles the arts organizations in some communities in other states that are run by the city, but its effectiveness will have to await future study. In the cities of Texas (with a population of 50,000 or greater), the institutions and organizations which support . and present the arts have taken many different forms. Part of this report is concerned, with the institutions and community policy toward the arts in six of Texas' largest cities-San Antonio, Galveston, Austin, Fort Worth, Hous­ ton, and Dallas. Another part deals with communities of less than 50,000 population. Our studies have suggested that when a council exists at all, it usually carries out only a few or even only one of the functions mentioned earlier. The cities of San Antonio, Galveston, Fort Worth, and Austin, for example, have had arts cou~ils since the early 1960s. Most of the councils operate informally, with membership corning from the various art organizations throughout the community. None, in the early stages, had full-time paid staff, so their work was limited to that which they could accomplish while meeting as volunteer commit­tees on a part-time basis. Often this was so little that within two or three years the council's membership lost interest in the work and became inactive. Arts councils expanded markedly in the '70s. In 1971, the Galveston County Cultural Arts Council was reor­ganized, and it hired a full-time professional director. The reorganization coincided with a concerted effort to develop the city as a cultural and tourist center. The city began a drive to restore most of the historical buildings on the city's waterfront. As in other cities, the more powerful economic groups control the arts council; the same people also oversee the historical preservation of the city. While the Galveston arts council has a large bud~t, most of it is spent promoting arts in the city and bringing nationally known artists to the community rather than encouraging communi­ty people in the arts. The City of Galveston has no established perfonning arts organizations. The Galveston arts council could be described as a fund raising agency; it does provide some educational services by supporting artists:in-the-schools programs. + The cities of San Antonio and Fort Worth are similar, in that prior to 1975, their arts councils were inactive. During 1975, the communities reorganized the councils and pro­vided sufficient funds to allow them to hire full-time staff. In Fort Worth, the performing arts organizations have not been established long enough to develop their own bases of support. The Fort Worth arts council, with a full-time director, now tries to raise such support by serving as a united fund-raising organization for the large performing "' arts institutions. San Antonio's council, meanwhile, hired its first full-time director in January, 1975. In the past, the San Antonio Council concentrated on supporting perfor­ming arts organizations within the city. Itprovided research and development for grant applications, publicity, and other functions• but did not function as a fundraising agency. The councils of Galveston, Fort Worth, and San Antonio are good illustrations of a dual-faceted problem, certainly not unique to Texas' large communities. These community councils attempt to coordinate limited resources of time, money, space, and audiences among a wide assortment of art groups and individual artists, presumably to enhance local culture. But frequently that goal becomes lost as problems of inter-organization squabbling and politics take precedence. The S7 1967~ 1968-69 1969-70 197&-71 EARNED INCOME 1010 Subscription Ticket Income 16,007 ,989 17,254,619 21,780,317 23,427,345 25,453,347 26,418,0S8 1020 SinglefBlock Ticket Income 9,461,416 11,992,770 12,S30,797 12,533,781 13,657,802 14,979,436 1030 Student/Block Ticket Income 1,()87,278 1,203,190 1,497,560 1,479,974 1,712,753 2,235,()29 1040 Toflll Main St!!tl&On Tic/cet Income 16,646,683 l0,450,579 35,808,674 37,441,100 40,823,902 43,632,523 1050 Other Performance Ticket Income 6,189,958 6,117,835 6,199,533 6,029,977 7,011,442 8,782,768 1060 Totlll Ticket Income 32,836,641 36,568,414 42,008,207 43,471,077 47,835,344 52,415,291 1070 Services Income from Gort Sour~ 1,927.SllO 3,817,682 3,935,601 3,927,749 3,487,313 5,930,249 1080 Serri~ Income from Other Sources 5,238,772 6,656,193 7,124,964 8,204,122 9,107,548 9,2()1},271 1085 Total &nncu Income 7,166,352 10,473,875 ll.G60,S65 12,131,871 12~Jl6l 15,139,520 1090 Recordings/Films/Radio/TV l.S06,S12 1,564,856 1,649,208 1,903,267 2,176,010 2,115,418 llOO Total Nonticket Per{ont11111ll I~ 8.672J164 12,()38,731 12,709,773 14,835,138 14,770,871 17,254,938 1110 Tobi Pedomwtce IDCIOllle 41,509,SOS 48,607,145 54,717,980 57,506,215 62,606,215 69./170,229 ll20 Income from Perfs of Other Groups 2,942,lll 3,()23,176 2,323,344 1,774,105 1,285,726 938,257 ll30 ScboolJClassfTraining Income 617,303 735,129 914,602 1,079,379 1,206,695 1,107.594 ll40 Other Nonperformance Earned Income 2,782J)93 3,777,305 3,997,124 4,372,366 4,148,723 4,240.J4'j ll50 Tobi Noapedormmce Eamed lllllOIDe 6,341,507 7,535,610 7,235,070 7,225,850 6,641,144 6,286.197 1160 TOTAL EARNED INCOME 47,851,012 56,142,755 61,953,865 64,732,865 69,247,359 75,956,426 UNEARNED INCOME ll70 Individual Contributiona 8,931,773 10,663,414 11,739,1)89 14,()12,710 15,975,663 15,438,365 1180 Business Contributions 3,391,423 4,037,148 4,121,446 4,185,919 4,917,899 5,739,358 1190 Combined/United Art Fund Contn"bs 1,602,457 1.587,340 2,075,565 3,725,()40 4,149,983 4,675,,()43 1200 Local Foundation Contributions 1,839,856 2,203,586 2,621,432 3,731,639 4,698,324 5.S20,345 1210 Other Local Contributions 2,611,278 2,317,205 2,856,295 2,995,488 4,120,003 4.593,860 1220 Total Local NofrKOVt ContributiolU 18,376,787 20,808,693 23,413,827 28,650,796 33)161,872 35.996.972 1230 Federal Government Grants 549,436 1,362,838 1,217,406 1,397,217 1,861,633 3,390,338 1240 State Government Grants 202,489 360,538 320,866 401,542 472,714 2,426,971 1250 Local Government Grants 983,445 1,151,103 1,394,581 1,610,367 1,959,751 1,960,585 1255 Totlll GoVuted/Grant Income 23pl6,262 30,()83.568 34,376,795 40,917,106 46,,896.093 51,937,987 1276 Total Local Contributions/Grrmts 19,360,232 21.959,796 24,808,408 30,261,163 35,821.623 37,9D~57 1277 Total Income from Govt Sources 3,662,950 6,692,161 6,868,454 7,336,875 7,781,411 13,708,143 1280 Corpus Earnings Used for Operations 2,359,785 4,637,433 5.509,450 6,986,450 6,630,193 7,794,127 1290 TOTAL UNEARNED INCOME 25,976,047 34,721,001 39,886,652 47,903,556 53,526,286 59,732,114 TOTAL INCOME AND CORPUS 1300 TOTAL OPERATING INCOME 73,827,()59 90,863,756 101,839,702 112,635.621 122,773,645 135.,688,540 1310 Corpus Principal Transf to Operations 1,013,032 2,249,201 2,924,255 3,206,064 2,774,384 2,660,946 1320 TOTAL INCOME INCL CORPUS TRANSFERS 74,840P91 93,112,957 104,763,957 115,841,685 125,548,829 138,349,486 1330 Corpus Increase-Gifts/Grants/Other 3,731,111 13,853,271 23,963,694 24,035,639 23,373,989 40,614,396 1340 Accumulated Endowment Corpus 45,796,406 50,778,336 65,393,431 81,202,543 93,561,254 122,639,647 1350 Accumulated Other Corpus 5,776,224 7,973,136 9,488,802 6,923,254 5,189,421 5,359,343 Arts and the Pri110te Sector There are several tax benefits that facilitate the raising of money for the arts. Since almost all performing arts organizations are nonprofit corporations, all gifts are tax deductible up to thirty percent of one's taxable income. This incentive to give is offset in high tax brackets by a progressive tax on any gift above $3,000. The tax-exempt status for arts groups is a benefit enjoyed by all nonprofit corporations. The art group must apply to IRS for tax exemption as a nonprofit corporation. The application is normally approved after a short period of time. The approval then allows the organization to file only an informational return to IRS for federal taxes and permits contributors to take IRS deductions in the amount of their gifts. Such approval from IRS and from the appropriate Texas agency further qualifies the arts group to apply for grants from the TCAH. Who are the contributors these laws affect? Baumel and Bowen have made an attempt to find out what income groups give what percentage of the total gifts to an arts group. They conclude that the "performing arts obtain the bulk of their support from upper income groups, that the share of these groups in the nation's income and wealth has slowly been declining ... ; and that the philantropic contri­butions of wealthy individuals as a gorup have increased less rapidly than the philanthropic contributions of individuals in general since 1954." People with less income make up a larger share of the total number of people who contribute to the arts, but that is because there are so many of them and the amount they give is proportionately small. None­theless, this middle and lower income group is a source that needs to . be tapped further while new fund raising approaches have to be developed to reach the rich and those who are poorer. 5 There seems to be a direct correlation between the organizations strength of the arts group board and the group's ability to raise funds from individual contributors. Ifa group is well organized with wealthy contributors on its board, it appears more likely to collect the seed money that will allow the group to put together a successful fundraising campaign. Therefore, individual contributors will be greater in numbers in those groups that are socially attractive. For this reason, we find performing arts groups and established cultural centers doing better in terms of individual contri­ butors than creative and folk arts groups. This is reflected in the fundraising programs of two very different arts organizations: the Houston Ballet and Theater Three in Dallas. The Houston Ballet is a successful performing arts group with a large budget, while the Theater Three is a relatively small arts group with a correspondingly small budget. Contrasting the budgets and fundraising campaigns of these two organizations as case studies will show a range of fundraising activities. The Houston Ballet Company had a 1974-75 budget of $987,000. Of this budget, only $489,000 was covered by ticket sales, leaving $498,000, or 50.4 percent of the budget, to be raised through unearned income. Of this amount, the National Endowment gave a grant of $40,000 and the Texas Commission, $10,000, leaving private sector fundraising to raise $448,000. This goal was reached with $290,000 in individual contributions, $113,000 from foun­dations, and $40,000 from corporations. The individual contributions accounted for 58.2 percent of all unearned income and even this figure is substantially low, for the $40,000 from corporations was primarily raised through Houston corporate executives who, it was claimed, were looking for higher tax deductions through corporate gifts. Thus, the individual contributor is the main focus of fundraising for the Ballet. What the preceding paragraph does not show is the gamble involved in a fundraising effort with such a large goal The Ballet had to sign contracts concerning most of the $987,000 budget long before either the earned or unearned income was on hand. Since the governmental monies are matching grants for specific programs, the· appli­cations must be filled out with the knowledge that fifty percent of the program will have to be raised through either ticket sales or contributions. Therefore, the performing arts organization must expand cautiously, for one error in planning could provide an expensive deficit for a whole season. On the other hand, if the artistic growth of the company is not continued, the company will not have a following among both subscribers and donors. It must be dynamic to attract audiences and contributions, but it must also be cautious in its growth patterns to avoid fiscal catastrophe. Fiscal catastrophe is an ever-present danger for those arts organizations with a relatively small budget and following. Theater Three in Dallas is such an arts group. It operates on a $320,000 budget and must cover sixty-five percent of its costs through ticket sales, quite high when compared to the fifty percent norm that most arts organizations try to cover in earned income. The sixty-five percent represents $208,000 in income, some of which was earned in a one night Pops concert fundraiser by Arthur Fiedler and the Dallas Symphony. This is considered earned income. Individual donors contributed $89,600 and corporations made grants totaling $22,400, though the theater treated their corporate donors as individual contributions from the officers. Fundraising activities aside from the Pops concert included a direct mailing to 16,000 theater-goers and a series of dinners in board members' homes to broaden the contributing base among large givers. Even though the treasurer recommended closing the doors due to the increasing deficit, the theater was able to stay in business in 1975. This was made possible by the 500 Club, a group of Dallas arts patrons that formed a fundraising group on behalf of all Dallas arts organizations. The 500 Club raised enough money to remove the deficit in 1975, but the treasurer believes that the future of the company remains uncertain. The arts have had a difficult time raising the funds needed to defray the costs of performances and exhibits. The primary reason for this difficulty is that many people :He not aware of the fiscal plight of arts organizations. In a Harris survey taken in January 1973, only eighteen percent of those asked about their perceptions of the fiscal status of most cultural organizations felt that these organizations lost money , while fifty-six percent felt that they either broke even or made money . In the same survey, twenty-two percent of the respondents stated that they had taken out a membership or donated money to a cultural organization. This figure seems to be far too high ; perhaps respondents felt that a ticket is considered a donation. Only fifty-seven percent of those giving knew that a gift to an arts organization is tax deductible . The implications of this poll seem clear for governmental agencies supporting the arts. Money should be invested in educational campaigns focusing on the enlightenment of the public as to the fiscal crisis faced by the arts organizations. Since the individual contributor is the backbone of most arts groups, the recruitment of more contributors through educational programs, including bro­chures and visual and broadcast media should be under­taken immediately by governmental agencies. _The com­bined Arts Corporate Campaign and the Society for the Performing Arts in Houston provide examples of how outsiders can raise substantial funds for arts groups through education of seemingly disinterested parties. An education campaign undertaken by the Texas Commission would be an investment which might reap high profits for arts groups throughout the state. LABOR The history of organized labor in the arts is long and predates much of the labor law that affects most persons in the work force. Often unions and the arts are viewed only in terms of stike actions closing down Broadway, or as a headache to artistic directors and backers. However, unions have helped raise the standard of living and increased the opportunity to be creative. Unions have also, through educational programs, brought the arts to the working class and at times used its resources to bring the arts to the general public. Organized labor has also been interested in increasing jobs for artists. At the state level in Texas, assessing the relationship between labor and the arts is difficult. While the national record is replete with examples of labor testifying on behalf of programs and appropriations for the National Endow­ment for the Arts, organized labor in Texas has no such record. Support of the arts, as such, has not been an issue for Texas labor leaders. Union activity within the arts in Texas is not highly visible, as it true of union activity, in general, within the state. The American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) and the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) are estimated to have a combined membership of 200 to 250 members. Most of the members of AFTRA reside in Dallas and are employed in the business of making television commercials. The employees of the state's dinner theaters are usually members of Actors Equity (AE), as are members of the various travelling shows that tour the state. The international Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) membership in Texas consists mostly of motion picture operators. INTEREST GROUPS It was almost ten years after Congress created the National Endowment for the Arts that a truly national pressure group for the arts was founded. In May of 1974, Advocates for the Arts was formed, using the Associated Councils of the Arts as its organizational base. Advocates for the Arts styles itself as a citizens' action group. So far it has been successful in stopping or reversing decisions by the Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. Postal Service, committees of Congress, and local political subdi­visions that they believed would have been detrimental to the arts. Their future activities will be directed toward those institutions or individuals whom they believe to be impeding the progress of the arts in the United States. It lobbies effectively for increased public aid to the arts in Washington and through some of the member organizations in the states. In Texas, lobbying in behalf of the arts is usually directed at school boards, city councils, chambers of commerce, and the state legislature. At the community level, the lobbying efforts are concentrated on those organizations which are in a position to provide funds, space, or in-kind contributions, or to make policy decisions affecting the arts. At the state level, the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, the Speaker of the House, and all members of the legislature are targeted for lobbying because they ultimately determine the size of the state appropriation for the Texas Commission on the Arts and Humanities. The TCAH appropriation for fiscal 1975 was $160,000 or about 1.3 cents per capita. That figure compares to a national average of seven cents per capita. From the 64th Legislature, which convened in January 1975, TCAH requested $2.8 million for fiscal 1976 and $2.9 million for fiscal 1977. The Governor's Office recommended $181,253 Arts and the Private Sector and $187,768 for FY 76 and 77 respecitvely. The Legis­lative Budget Board, however, recommended $326,014 for FY 76 and $350,980 for FY 77. When finally signed by the Governor, the new two-year appropriations bill had given TCAH $410,454 for FY 76 and $323,046 for FY 77. TCAH had managed to increase its appropriations by 156.3 percent over the previous biennia. A large share of the credit for this significant increase goes to the work of the Concerned Citizens for the Arts (CCA), a Texas-based interest group that was put together rather hurriedly by TCAH's executive director, Maurice Coates, and Richard Haynes of Dallas. CCA was constituted as a nonprofit organization whose basic purpose for existence was the furtherance of the arts in Texas. The group was chaired by Richard D. Haynes, and had an executive committee composed of some 100 citizens, including the wives of the Governor and the lieutenant Governor. CCA generated increased support for TCAH by issuing press releases, having its members testify before the key House and Senate committees, circulating a petition (7,655 signatures) that advocated increased funding for TCAH, receiving favorable treatment in the state's press for its activities, and one-on-one lobbying of the state legislators. Given the fact that CCA was not fully organized until December 1974, one month before the legislature con­vened, it managed to accomplish a great deal. And, given that it spent only $5,396.87 in its efforts and that the contributors numbered only fifty-eight, the initial try as a functioning interest group appeared successful. RECOMMENDATIONS The following are recommendations for policy initiatives that the Texas Commission on Arts and Humanities could take in terms of the private sector: 1. The TCAH should make a detailed investigation of the state arts foundation concept. The TCAH might then be able to determine if the concept might work in Texas. The appropriate entity to conduct such research would be the research and planning unit recommended earlier in this report. Issues would include the political ramifications of an art foundation, the success of such founda­tions in other states as compared with their goals, the foundation function as compared with the state art council concept, and the economic con­sequences of a state art foundation. 2. TCAH should conduct a statewide arts need survey as compared with private and public re­sources now available to satisfy those needs. Recommendations concerning how the public and private groups could cooperate in bringing arts to Texas should be made. 3. The TCAH should try to study the economic impact of the arts in Texas. Although the main justification for support of the arts should not be that it brings dollars to Texas, the fact is that it does, and the fact further is that this argument may be effective in securing more public and pri­vate funds for the arts in Texas. 4. TCAH should take an inventory of the state's art collection and wealth. TCAH should be given the ability and responsibility to catalog, recom­mend, and otherwise oversee the wealth of art presently within the state's domain. 5. New state office buildings should be required to expend a certain percentage of their capital outlay on the acquisition of art for decorative purposes and for work environment enhancement. TCAH should be consulted in an advisory.capacity as to the direction of any significant acquisitions. The present state law should be mandatory rather than permissive. 6. There should be an advisory group made up of various representatives of private groups ( cor­porations, foundations, organized labor, ethnic groups, etc.) to serve as a catalyst and carrier­a catalyst of ideas and a carrier of communica­tions between the TCAH and these various groups to facilitate achievement of a richer cultural life for all citizens. 7. A meaningful pressure group has to be organized to fight for the arts in the state. REFERENCES 1 Washington International Arts Newsletter, April 1975. 4 Ford Foundation, The Finances of the Performing 2 1974 sales as reported in Dunn and Bradstreet, Million Arts, 1974, Appendix C, p. 3. Dollar Directory, 1975. 5 Baumol and Bowen, op cit., p. 328. 3 William J. Baumol and William G. Bowen, Performing Arts, The Economic Dilemma (New York: Twentieth Century Fund, 1966) p. 366.