ARD News June 1994

CONTENTS: COMMENTS FROM THE DEAN UNL RANKING FOR TOTAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURES NATIONAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURES IN 1993 ANNUAL RESEARCH PROJECT REPORT FORM AD-421 ARDC RESEARCH AND EDUCATION BUILDING INITIATION OF CONSTRUCTION CELEBRATION SPECIAL RESEARCH GRANT PROGRAM AWARDS FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OBLIGATIONS BY AGENCY FEDERAL EXPENDITURES FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT - FY 1994 PROPOSALS SUBMITTED FOR FEDERAL GRANTS TRENDS IN PH.D.S AWARDED IN AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES GRANTS AND CONTRACTS RECEIVED APRIL AND MAY, 1994 NEW OR REVISED PROJECTS ARD ADVISORY COUNCIL ELECTION RESULTS SMALL BUSINESS AND INNOVATIVE RESEARCH PROGRA

Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Inc. - 2006 Annual Report

Contains mission statement, program information, profiles of Bradley Prize recipients, grants list, financial statements, and list of board members and staff

Public Funding for Art: Chicago Compared with 12 Peer Regions

Supported in part by Arts Alliance Illinois, and with the cooperation of several local arts agencies, including Chicago's Department of Cultural Affairs and Special events, and of the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies.This study compares the direct public dollars received by organizations and artists in Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, Denver, Houston, Miami, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland (OR), San Diego, and San Francisco from 2002-2012.Often, studies of public funding for the arts look at appropriations made on the national and state levels and estimates of local expenditures, but this report delves more deeply using grant-level data to examine the dollars received by organizations and artists resident in each city or region.Key findings:In 2012, Chicago arts organizations received $7.3 million in public dollars via competitive grants from local, state, and national public arts agencies combined. Only three of the 13 regions studied received more total dollars in 2012.Though Chicago arts organizations receive among the greatest amounts of public funding in total, a relatively small portion comes from the city's Department of Cultural Affairs and Special Events. Of the competitive arts grants dollars received in Chicago in 2012, 59$1.2 million in grants, which is $0.44 per capita. Of the 13 local agencies analyzed, only Phoenix, Boston, and Baltimore spent less in total dollar or per capita terms in 2012.Over the past decade, DCASE annually awarded among the highest total number of grants compared with other regions' local agencies. In 2012, DCASE awarded 520 grants in total -- 305 to organizations and 215 to individuals. In 2012, it awarded competitive grants to approximately 31% of the arts and cultural organizations in the city.Aside from competitive grants, five of the 13 cities/metro regions included in this study provide support to select arts and cultural organizations through line-items, which serve as significant sources of general operating funds

A Decade of Grantmaking in Global Development and Population

The ten-year picture of Global Development and Population Program grantmaking, including grant type, size, and duration, reflects two factors operating simultaneously in a complex portfolio: the amount of resources available and shifts in strategy. These factors played out during the period from 2004 to 2010, when the work was undertaken within the separate Population and Global Development programs, and after 2011, when the budget was unified under one program

2009 Impact Report

Summarizes the impact of the foundation's 2009 discretionary community investments in education, health, arts and culture, community and economic development, and human services, as well as its Initiative for Nonprofit Excellence. Includes plans for 2010

Strengthening Nonprofit Minority Leadership and the Capacity of Minority-Led and Other Grassroots Community-Based Organizations

Identifies ways to build diversity and capacity among the state's nonprofit leadership, including major multiyear grants to minority-led groups and others serving diverse and/or low-income communities. Outlines each participating foundation's commitments

Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding

Child welfare services are intended to prevent the abuse or neglect of children; ensure that children have safe, permanent homes; and promote the well-being of children and their families. As the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted, states have the primary obligation to ensure the welfare of children and their families. At the state level, the child welfare “system” consists of public child protection and child welfare workers, private child welfare and social service workers, state and local judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement personnel. These representatives of various state and local entities assume interrelated roles while carrying out child welfare activities, including investigating allegations of child abuse and neglect, providing services to families to ensure children’s safety in the home, removing children from their homes when that is necessary for their safety, supervising and administering payments for children placed in foster care, and ensuring permanency planning and regular case review for children in foster care. Most federal dollars dedicated to child welfare purposes are provided to state child welfare agencies, and federal involvement in child welfare is primarily tied to this financial assistance. In recent years, Congress has appropriated just above or below $8 billion in federal support dedicated to child welfare purposes. As a condition of receiving these foster care and other child welfare program funds, states must typically provide nonfederal funds of between 20Apart from the federal funding provided for programs described in this report, state child welfare agencies tap significant program resources—as much as$5.6 billion—from other federal funding streams, including the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant, the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG), and Medicaid. These federal funding streams have federal statutory goals, or support activities, that overlap with child welfare purposes. However, they are not solely dedicated to child welfare purposes and states are not necessarily required to use them for those specific purposes. Neither do states need to meet federal requirements specific to the conduct of their child welfare programs as a condition of receiving this “nondedicated” funding. This report begins with a review of federal appropriations activity in FY2014 as it relates to child welfare programs, including the effect of the automatic spending cuts, known as sequestration. The bulk of the report provides a short description of each federal child welfare program, including its purpose and recent (FY2012-FY2014) funding levels

Foundation Funding for the Humanities: An Overview of Current and Historical Trends

Foundation Funding for the Humanities: An Overview of Current and Historical Trends, finds that funding for fields such as art history, history and archeology, languages and linguistics, area studies, and the humanistic social sciences increased two and one-half times (149.8 percent) from $134.1 million in 1992 to$335 million in 2002. At the same time the report notes that, despite the overall increase, some scholarly disciplines actually lost ground over the ten year period. Support for the humanities grew more slowly than overall foundation giving during this period (up 199.8 percent), and the share of giving for the humanities slipped from 2.5 percent in the early 1990s to 2.1 percent in 2002

Charles Stewart Mott Foundation - 2000 Annual Report

Contains mission statement, president's message, project summaries, program information, grants list, financial statements, and list of board members and staff

Evaluation of the National Parks Sustainable Development Fund

The Sustainable Development Fund (SDF) is a new pilot funding stream for English National Park Authorities and the Broads Authority (henceforth collectively NPAs or ‘Parks’), launched in July 2002 by the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). The aim is to provide a flexible and non-bureaucratic means of funding projects that “aid the achievement of National Park purposes by encouraging individuals, community groups and businesses to cooperate together to develop practical sustainable solutions to the management of their activities”. SDF is a novel and unique funding stream intended to support original and innovative projects. Although the funding is relatively small (some £2.6m or £325,000 per park over the 18 months to this report) the aim is ambitious; with a minimum of preconceptions or formalities, to “develop and test new ways of achieving a more sustainable way of living in the countryside”. In each Park, small SDF Panels, serviced by, but at arms length from, the NPA have been established to oversee delivery of the Fund, to foster innovative projects and to monitor their outcomes at Park level. The SDF Prospectus declares that monitoring and evaluation are to involve a “very light touch regime”.. Auditing of individual projects by the SDF panel is to be achieved mainly by maintaining close contact with the projects as they develop. Whilst responsibility may be delegated, panel members are encouraged to take a personal interest in projects. Each NPA is required to submit to the Minister of State for Rural Affairs (and to copy to the Countryside Agency) an annual report. This should summarise the performance of the fund against performance indicators which are to be developed by NPAs themselves in the light of experience of the fund. First Annual Reports must be submitted to the Minister of State for Rural Affairs (and copied to the Countryside Agency) at the end of March 2004 NPAs are encouraged to learn from the experience of delivering the Fund and to promote the results to a wider rural audience. In addition to this Park level monitoring, the Countryside Agency (CA) on behalf of Defra has commissioned the Centre for European Protected Area Research (CEPAR) to conduct an evaluation of how SDF has performed against its key objectives after the first eighteen months of its operation, to aid decisions about the future of the scheme from April 2005