Krieger, R. L.

English

DigitalCommons@URI

University of Rhode IslandDigitalCommons@URIBerman, Ronald: Memoranda (1975-1984) Education: National Endowment for the Arts andHumanities, Subject Files I (1973-1996)1974Berman, Ronald: Memoranda (1975-1984):Correspondence 15R. L. KriegerFollow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/pell_neh_I_10This Correspondence is brought to you for free and open access by the Education: National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, Subject Files I(1973-1996) at DigitalCommons@URI. It has been accepted for inclusion in Berman, Ronald: Memoranda (1975-1984) by an authorizedadministrator of DigitalCommons@URI. For more information, please contact digitalcommons@etal.uri.edu.Recommended CitationKrieger, R. L., "Berman, Ronald: Memoranda (1975-1984): Correspondence 15" (1974). Berman, Ronald: Memoranda (1975-1984).Paper 12.http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/pell_neh_I_10/12. ,. ' ,. I I l I. I 1 UNITED STATES GL~-:t:r~r\l hCCou;·nn~G OFFICE V.;'ASHINGTO'.·~ ·.:~r:G!ONAL OFFICE FIFTH FLOOR 803 \'/LST BF:OJ\.O 5TR£:i::'.T FALLS CHURCH, ViRGIN!t'\ 2ZC~6 AUG 1.5 1974 "\__ __ -----The Honarabl~ lbnc~,: H.:tr:k~, Chairr-'.l.n National EnG.c1~:c6ncl:orthe 7~rts The Honorable n.ona.ld S. Eer;:n:::m, Ch<iirman ·National Endo':~:-:-.cnt for the Hur::3nit::i.es Dear Miss HanY..s an<l Hr. Berr::an: We appreciated ve=y mu~h the full and frank discussion at our August 6 meeting during w[1ich we provided you those observ.:ttions on the operatior: of the EnC:o>.~.ents t'Z-:::t developed from our work. We had previot:sly discussed with yc':.ir associ2tes our work on t.Ho con-gressio::ial i!:quiries and you will be furnished copies of our le~ters on these r;-..atters. You e:1cc11nHzecl i1c: rn s11f'.1rn:,r:i?'.e nin· rlH'"'~ht~ .:;o ·you \muld be Lllle to further consider them aLJcl provi'de its \d.t:h your reactions. .,,. Our discussions tot.•.ched on tr:e cnique nature and the diverse scope of the Foundation 1 s p::ogr~r:,s .:~nd the colF:plexity that this brir1gs about. The varying size a;1d needs of your grantees makes difficult striking a re.c.son.sble bz.:1<:.nce in desi~ning m.:mage~e.nt and financinl controls t~at will ssrve your r.ceds without imposing excessive bm:dens on the ~rante2s. It is useful, howev2r, to give further thou::;ht to i1'lprcvi:;g existi"'.'.g procedures, especially in l:i.ght of the Fo1.~n<latioa' s 6~C>·:th. \.Je were thr::!r.-:-fore encouraged by your interest in these' F-:'.'o°::Jl.::ns a:-~a your -;.;-illir.gness to consider improvement of managccent and fir<:>r .. cial p·roccdures that '1:.·lOuld help you in managing your affr.irs. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE r!,TIOl~,\T, -cou;;crLS /,}J') G~:..;:rr PAl:D.? The Natio~al Councils could i:c:ll focus rr.::>re o_n._s.uc.h_pug.§t::_ant.,iye issues as P:>_~_?.._g_ <md __ p_~Ql::~a:'.!_.L:u·;~,::Ll~p, and~c aJ19c~~-~~n of scar5:.~-!:_~_8-()_ur_c_e~_!=:2_~9:<::f!?£i!!C.3_-;::_t ___ ~_t\~-·~1_u~n.~1.:y programs, r<}tl)cr than on reviewing and approvi•,& specific grant ap1;1Tcations. We recognize, --------~--------- -------.,..-·--···-c....C. • I () (l Ct U' ~ \ I'-<- -, "' ' ' ', ' .. . ' • ... . . . -however, that the Foundation's authorizing legislation requi1:es en.ch National Council to :review propossd gr~_nts and recor.:rccnd approval of applications to the Enaowment Chair1:'.e.n. One way t_Q allow the Coui1cils to svend _more timc;_gn __ suhstantive matt~rs rn::i.ght b-;-tolli"Creas"<~--Elie-pe-rceritage--"lisfr-ation oLtc.wJ..._ft,inds "which car:-be '_l_'::_~r_4e<l:_:-~ .$~?-~t~~y___Qy _ _t.}].~_.c_tKrrr£U-·~;ith~ spccHic Council a~~y_c:i.1,_. ___ The Councils coulc.l continue to review grants awarded in this ·w::.y but perhaps in broader terms as they relate to overall program objectives. The Encowilients could also bring to the Councils' attention specific grants which raise policy issues. Another of our concerns_ relates __ t.o_th.e.....crited.a. .. fo_Lselection-~--~----------------- ------- - - -----·-- - -of the panel members i;.:ho must review r;rant applic;2t_ions.and Ir.ake ' grant m;ara-rcdifame'iidaffi)ns-"'tothe-Ki~tfonaT 'cs:i.w:i~iJs. There was -conslacr'abl·e--·vaf'ia-tfon between. th,e --E;;-clowillcu't·~ and among progra!!$ as to how panel members were selectE:d and, in turn, how projects were selected. Generally, the National Endowrr-ent for the Humanities had mor.e ----~···· speciLi.c criteria than the Endowii.enL i:oL c[le, __ A_l,:ts relj;.ai.u.i.ub Luc. se!ecticiifc:ff-paner rr:embers-a11d--spE;'c:CrTc-ptoj ects. Within th<' Endow-ment for the Arts there was considcr<:lble variation. For exm:1ple, the Endowment's Public Hedia Division has sped.fie criteria. that ·panel mem'l,)ers must use to select projects. The City Edges Panel, however, received no written instructions or specific criteria for evaluating proposals. We are aware of the difficulty of specifying criteria in pro-grams dealing with the arts, bat it ·would be useful to have criteria for selecting panels and specific gr.:i~tces. 'I'his would er.able the Endowments to better e:.plain to the Congress and the public how decisions are reached. · GRANTS HA."'1AGEHENT We had several oboervations relative to grants managern~nt. One was th~LgJ::~gt~_(?_~ .. f!:.UL .. l}o_t:_at all times be adequately a~~O~i:!_t;­ing for funds. This to a large de~ree was confir::-@-oy""'t11e .~k of ~En(fo~~~~t;s 3~~er,n.-~:.~~:~~it~~-~--:----c~;:tribut.ing to thi~ was the phi-losophy that the Endowments provide only general f inaucial guidance - 2 -• () • I I ·' / I I I to the grantees and place most responsibility f~r such ~atters on the grantees. Program stnffs pl2.ced varying de;ree.s of en:phasi,s on financial ~atters while the Foundation's sb2.red staff '>·~'"s more con-cernE'd about fimmci.::«l T'.'atters. ~·~::: disccsscd ti1e possibility of program and fir-.sncfal staff worki:D£~~or~--ci(i_§~e~y'--tog_e~~-fe·r--J;o_~-eyelop ana implemeiitrinanc:Laraccoun~tin; proced·::1_·c~c; so-£fr,<rndaLaccount-abT1Tty ,.foTi1d-1·e·c.cive~~t:he·d-pr-oper e=?h~s-is. This \:ould be r:iost ben~­fiaaDJ:·:;_ t-~;.as done concurrently with erant approval. _..An.o.ther .caµs~ ..Q_f_!h_e.....p_r.:.o.bl.e!:U:;:,ay be the.-oature of_r;:ost grouJU> --Mla.t--~.ecei~e.-~grants ,,-pa-r-t-i.e u1a-r-L;y._..fr.om.~.t.b§~JLg_i: ion~L.tJJ C. ot,'Jfilill.t._fQ.r. .....t..b&.-M~ As we discussed at our r:eeting, nany of the groups· may not be capable of following all the required accounting procedures. Thus the· Foundation rr...iy ,.:ant to .r: .. ev .. ~e_¥?, .. it§~l?.1'.:.Cl.~-~q,t.Jr.e.s~_f9~_d_et~rinine ~-- .. ------ . . -- . .. - . . .. . . · whether fiscal requirer.ients could be varied depe.ndiug .o_n ... g:i::_an_t V,z.e -orofher-cr1terra-: ~---- ---:··~·---···-·- ··-.. -·-.- ·-· .. ·-·· · · ·-··.-· · --Regarding this, you may wish to seek the advice of the Joint Financial Nanagcl'!lent Improve!!ient Pro~ram, whose Executive Director, Donald C. Kull, can be reached on 376-5372 (code 196-6:372). The Foundation's general grant·provisions require: grantees to sul:iutit iluctl ~xpenciii:urc and narrative rep0rts 90 days after the . project ends; however, many grantees have not submitted the _r:_~P<?J;J:S , on time. This problerthas been noted-- by -tEe-·Found,ifion' s· ii1ternal auditorancCconfirmed by our m..--r1 work. Although the grants office h~s b"egun taking action to correct the problem, improvements could be c.ade. for example, within the National Endowment for the Hurr..anities, 60 grantees, or 7.4 percent of all grantees, v:ere delinquent in subr:;itting final e.:.:penditure reports. Ninety-three, or 11.4 percent,~cre deliuquect in sub-mitting final descriptive reports. Within the National Endov.'"'I!:ent for the Arts, 599, or 13.9 percent of th~ grantces,~ere delinquent with expenditure reports and 763, or 17. 7 percent, were delinquent with.narrative reports. Moreover. at least 10 grantees receivir.g ,_Humanities funds who were-0-.;1b·c_ue2t .. iii .LI Ling rei)Crtc;"subsequently received grants over $100.000. If the Ei~~ir..>.,;:::ents· cci1sider the~e ··· reports to be neces"sary' due .. dfort should. be r.!Ll.dc to obtain them. 3 -r-·· • I I i • I matters of ~.:!na~..;CL'lent conc.ern. 'I'hc aucfit stdf h;::id issued 40 "'-rErpo:fts--tnrot:r;h.~isc~T-yc<ir 1973, 27 of which ~~re issued during that fisc:ll year. In th~ five reports we exmn:Lned,. costs of c:bout $388,000 weri:; identiUe<l by the c,'..!ciitors 2s bc:b::;; !'."Cl<"tul to ae:tiv-ities considered inconsistent ~ith Fcundatiofi policies. The auditors recorrra1cnded -:..·ecovcry of a.bout $81, OC•O. '111 ~ En:lo1:=ents off icfo.lly requested ~rc:.P..tees to retu-::-n about $33,000, but ;;;t the tL::e cf our review no funds had been recovere<l. l·~areover, inforru.:::tion provided to us by rou:1ciation staff showed that about 48 percent of the audi-tors' reco-;:_;~2ndations had been outstanding for over 10 months with little done to resolve the open issues. An effective ?ttdit staff could b~ a ~reat help to you in ass'..1r-ing that proper program and finar..cial accou;it2.bility is being achic·-.1ed. One step in accomplishing this would be periodicc.lly reviewing with tneaunit··st2.f f--the-rcsuTfs"t:>r~fE2ir-~·7ork-ar:a--t:he.stat'Us ot-'toTfc.\i: tnroug11-e.-ction-·-an-the1r-Yecor:=-:end<lti0ris·~· ·-rfis ·c-c:l:id-.fos_t.~r,_b.etter f0Irm,;-ffir'cYl!gn-15y-pro·gram--staff on. ~udi.t recoc-:Je.ndations or resolution of issues raised. Hon~over, this could possibly kprove cor::reunicatiou and provide an additional avenue to exchange usefu1 oper3ting pro-cedures between the Endowments. ,/ Thank you for the splendid cooperation e:-:ten..!ed to us during our _work. We would be pleased to Uleet.with you again to discuss these matters. l·:e also WJuld welcome any lrritten -;om.ments you nay want to make regarding our observations. ·,. Sincerely yours, /VJ...Jf1v'·j~l' h. L. Krieger Regional Ea~1ager .. · ... - 4. -

Berman, Ronald: Memoranda (1975-1984): Correspondence 15

https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&amp;context=pell_neh_I_10

Berman, Ronald: Memoranda (1975-1984): Correspondence 15

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@URI