Bowen, William G.

English

DigitalCommons@URI

University of Rhode IslandDigitalCommons@URIReauthorization: Hearings and Reports (1990) Education: National Endowment for the Arts andHumanities, Subject Files I (1973-1996)1988Reauthorization: Hearings and Reports (1990):Speech 02William G. BowenFollow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/pell_neh_I_73This Speech 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 Reauthorization: Hearings and Reports (1990) by an authorizedadministrator of DigitalCommons@URI. For more information, please contact digitalcommons@etal.uri.edu.Recommended CitationBowen, William G., "Reauthorization: Hearings and Reports (1990): Speech 02" (1988). Reauthorization: Hearings and Reports(1990). Paper 23.http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/pell_neh_I_73/23~"r . ----------TESTIMONY -TO THE INTERIOR AND RELAT~D AGENCIES SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTE:i:; ON APPROPRIATIONS ON THE FISCAL YEAR 1989 A:P:PRO:PRIATION FOR TH~ NATIONA._L ENDOWMENT FOR T.HE HUMANITIES PRESENTED ON 6f;ti_AI..F OF THE NATIONAL HUMANITI~S ~I..J:..IANCE Will.ia~ G~ B6~en President, Andrew w. Mellon Foundation. :p~e~i~ent Erneri~us, PrincetOfi UhiVet$ity March 17, 1988 ' "' Mr. Cha.irman and Members of the Committee: My name .j:s Wi:t.:U,a.m G. Bowen, and I am now (as of January 1, l9ee> Pre$ident o·f the Andrew w. Mel.ion Foundation, having ~erved a.s Professor of Economics and Public Affairs and President Qf Pl."il"lceton University from 1972 to igss. I a.ppl."eciate 'the opportunity to appear before you this afternoon. You do not need ~e· a.. sometime econo-~i~t -- to i:-estat.e the generai case f o;- su:ppoJ;t Qf the l:iYrna.n-ities that has been :qtcsqe $9 often, and so eloquent:ly, bY the ~E:a itself, by schola·:ts such as Stanley l{a.ti, P:i;-e$i4ent of tl'le ~e:rica.n council. of Learned societies, and by colJ.eague$ of mine at 'the Mellon Foundation. But I c:i9 wa.~nt to a.$SQciate myself emphatically with the view that strong programs in the fundamental disciplines of the humanities are of great ir.:por-tance to t.his country and to its pl."ospects. Moreover, I believe that, Qf a.11 the principal a:rea$ Qf stYdY, 'the humanities are the lea.st \lell l.mde!'stood and the least generously su:ppoJ;"t;eg. we have made too little pro9ress fr;om the historical perception of b\lma.nities fund-ing, descri.beg in. the Ford Foundation's Gaither ~epc;>:rt in 1949, which conc;:;LJ~deg that 'the "history of philanthropic 1 support for the humanities may bear the subtitle, 'the short and simple. Annals of the poo~. ''' The humanities offer exceptionally good value for the money, if I may put it that way. Modest expenditu~es can ~ccomplish so much. Having spent a good deal of the last two decades of my life raising money for labo:rato:rj.es, tllcrnipnu~nt, ~nd :rtll~~~:rch $Upport for the sciences and engineering, I am p~~ticYl~:rly cQnscic:n.is of what small sums can do in the humanities. Teachers and scholars who are hel,:ped te:> g~in access to research oppo;-t~n.itie$ here and abi;oad, and who are given the freedom and stimuiation to think freshl,y, 9~n 4:raw us back to· renewed con~iget:~tion of the largest questions concerning life and its meani_ng. ***** M:y spe~if i~ ~$$ignment today is to examine the support fot the bumanities provided by the NEH as seen .in tne context of $YPPC:>~t provided by private sources., and particu~ l,~~1¥ by the li!~9e$t private foundations. There is one primary conclusion: The N~J:i i~ by fa:r; the most important external source of funding fo~ th~ human-2 itie$ in tbe t111ited states today. It is no exaggeration to say that the decisions made concerning the budget for the NEH (overall size and composition), and the subsequent ~cl­-mi11i1?tr~tj.on of the funds, have .An absolutely decisive impac~ on the health and character of the humanities in America. It m_ay s\.J~~i$e the <;o~~·ttee to le~~n ........ ~ t sur-pri~eg me to leat-n -- that the 30 lar9est private foundations in the United States. taken together. make grants to the numanities in a given year ,that are less than HALF the grants made l:>Y the NEH alone. 'I'beit sing;l.e, stark f.i.ndin9 explains why so many of us concerned about the humanitdes att.ac;:h such .i!UPQ~tance to the NEH a11d to the support it receives from this committee and the Congress. To be sure; the data available on private support for the humanities are incompiete and far from precise. I g~m1Qt give :you a definitive ana:iys~s of donations from all sources, and we know that individuals and corporations pro-vide help to the humanities directly as well as through such mediating institutions as colleges, universities, assoc-:i.Cit!c;ms, and state counc::ils. Nc;metbele$$, tbe iJJ:1pre~!?icm• ;i.stic:: evidence that is available $\J99e~ti; tb~t fl.IDQ-~Cii$ing for the humani'ties is unusually difficult, as contrasted, for example, with fund.-raising for more readily \ffiders~ood cate~ gories of need such ai:; welfare and heal th .. 3 Within the fQY.l'lgiltion '\!IQ:rlg -.-. wbicb is l?~~m t>y many people as t;he most obvious and perhaps even the most logical source of private funding for the humanities -- it is $ignific;:C!nt t:Q J"lQte tbilt '.J'he Foundation Grants Index Ct:he primary source of detililed dilta on giving by foundations) hCl? no specific category for the "Humanities," wbereCl~ t:bere are specific categories :for the "Social sciences," "Science," and of course ''Heal th," and "Welfil~e." $o~et:iJlle$ t:he w~y we orgC!nize gCltil, illld e!?tat>lish categori$s, contains a message <!$ illlPOJ:t:C!_nt: il$ t.he re$Y.lting tC!bulations themselves. Tbe lllO$t :r;elev<!nt bro~g category is "Culture," which of course includes grants for:- m?lnY pu:r;po~es outside the humanities as normally defined (the theater, music, arts council~ and organizations of all kinds, public broadeasting in many -forms, monuments, etc.). In 1985, $294 miiiion of gran'ts for all of these diverse purposes we:r;e reported by the 444 :foundations in the universe covered by The Foundation Grants Index. AA~ tl)i? t:c;rt::.ct:L fol' even $'YGh an all)Ql'ph~us aggregate is, it is interesting to note, no :La:r;9er than the combined budgets of the N~H and tbe NtA. Unfortunately, I. cannot provide data of any reli.--abilit-y on 'trends. The crude fi9-ures that ar:-e ~v~ileil:;>l~ ingic~t• t;.hat qiving to the broad field of ••culture" has been on someehing of a plateau for t}l~ l~$t 7 Q~ $ Y•~~$, witl'l g;-Q\mg c;l,e~17J,.y having been lost to i·nflation. 1 Anecdotal information suggests that a number of pr~vett~ c;lono~$ tQ tbe b~~nities have shifted their prior-ities over the last decade or so. :Ft:Qlll 1980 Qn, tbe ''Wel-fat'e" categQn' b~$ i'lCCQ\mted for about one:-quarter (or slightly more) of all. grants of $5,0QO anc;l up i,nc;l\J.c;led in the Fc)l~ndct.ticm Center's analysis of the giving patterns of 444 major foundations. ''Heal th" is the other dominant cate9ory, and "Welfare" and "Health" together now receive al.most exact-ly one-bCilf Qf i!ll grants made by these foundations ($996 million in 198S). 1. A recent compilation of the :releva,:nt 4C!tCi by the .Ameri<::an Association of Museums indicates tl:lct.t -- Cl.S tl'lis Colnl):li ttee knows so well -- the NEH has pa<;i ~ !Si.lllilCir eliCPer-ien<?e. Thanks in sign if icClnt llle~$Y_re to the leadership o.f this Committee and .its chairman (as wel_l Cl$ senator Pell and Senator Stafford and others ·in tne Senate), it hCi$ l;:>een possible to maintain tbe 4oll~t' level of appropriations tor NEH in spite of tl'le diff,icu,l.t. blJ.dgetCl.IY climate t;hat has prevailed. However, we must alsc;> ~ec::c;>gnize :t.he reality of a S'ig.fiificafit decline in the real val~e Ct.be inflation-adjusted value) of approp:ri.Cltic:>n~ over recent years. The American Association.of Museums has calclilateq th~t FY 87 funding for the NEH woulg b.Cl.ve b~ci to have been $53 million (38%) higher than 1t. in f~ct wa~, if we were to have mairttained the FY Bl level of fundi.ng expressec:i in c::onl?tCl.nt dollars. ----------- -****** It is possible to say more about the g~ant•making patterns of the largest foundations, the group generally expected in any event to be most generous tC> the humanities. The 30 largest foundations together made t¢ta,l 9t~nts j.n ail f.ields of activity of $923 million in 1986. we have made a detailed analysis of every individual grant of $100,000 or more within the l:>:roC!g fielcJ of "Cylt;qre" (recognizing that grants of this magnitude account for 80% of all 9~ant dollars in thi$ C:::<\tegory). The overall conclusion is that $29 mil-lion of these 9t'i!!nt~ we~Ei! girecteg to orget.nizet.tiom; C!JlQ activities within the purview of the humanities as we believe the N~Ji woulc:t bet.Ve clC!$$if ied them. This is approximately one~auarter of the 9:tants made tor compa:rable purposes by the NE_H itself! If we now look at all 9~ants e>ve~ $5,000, and ~lso inc;J,.\J,9,~ g~et.llt!> for which "Culture" was said by the foundat;ion making the grant to be the second or third major field served by the grant, we can extrapolate the findin<Js from our more cletet.iJ.eg grant-by-grant analysis to estimate (Vefy roughly) that " D1ore int:lusive humani1des totai for 1986 migh~ have been in the neighborhood of $50 million. This is clearly 6 both an educated quess and, almost certainly, an outer bound. ~~t. it i$ ~ Q$eful fiqu:re. It highlights the fact that, at most, something li>te 5\ of all 9j.ft$ f:rQJl tbE! largest fo~n­dations went to tbe b~~nities. We learn that even under a very generous definition of wti~t c;C>n$tit\.ltes gr~nt$ to the hqina:ni ties, ~ot.al_support from the largest private foundations_was less than half the support provided by the NEH -- hence the conclusion highlighted at tbe J:;u~gin_ning of tl'lis tE!stj.p:iony. This may not have been true in the past, when a larger number of the .inaj or foundations had mo;-E! s~_b­stantial proctrams in tbE! hµ:mani ties, but i.t is the inescap~ able reality today. (See Chart J..) Detailed examinati.011 Qf the specific put"poses for which the p:riv~te foundations made these grants; as compared with the pattern of 9rant-~~)cin_g i:eported by the NEH, is also i11stnictive. Grants of over $100, ooo by these foµ_11g~t.tc;ms can be expressed as the following percentages of grants itade :t;:>y thE! NEH. within·each category: "Education" -- 14% (of gr~nts made by the NEH) : ''Feiiowships and Semina~s" 39%; ":th.11n'ln-it.ies, Genera1 1i --- 35%; '·'Research" -- ~%:"Stat~ Pro-grams" -~ 1%; "Pr-eservation" -- ~et; ~nd "Challenge Grants" ~- 47%~ (See Ch~rt 2 and Table 1.) !fi ~h6tt, in none of these specific cate9orj.es ~seg by t,h~ NEH to describe its gran't-makifig did the sum total of the :p~iv~te gran~~ 7 included in this analysis come even close to reaching the level of support provided by the NEH. 2 It is hardly surprising that the NEH is so much more important than these private foundations in promoting humanities activities by state councils -- which is not to say that the major foundations do not take into account their own geographic locations in making grants, as they plainly do. But it is noteworthy that the NEH plays a pivotal role in supporting research. I should add that, in reviewing 2. Nor is this conclusion changed qualitatively if we impute to the private foundation grants in each category: (1) a pro-rata share of the additional grants assumed to have gone to the humanities in the form of grants of between $5,000 and $100,000 for "culture" and (2) a pro-rata share of grants assumed to have gone to the humanities in the form of grants in which "CUlture" was stated to be a second or third field of interest to be served by the grant. When we add these imputed amounts, all of the percentages cited above rise by slightly less than one-half of the original percentages. (More precisely, each percentage moves to a new level egual to 44%/24% of the original percentage.) (See Table 1.) How-ever, it seems clear that whereas this kind of extrapolation may be of some value in bounding the overall level of giving to the humanities, it is a good deal more suspect when the approach is extended to individual categories. In the case of "Research," for example, it is highly improbable that smaller grants, and grants in which "culture" was not the primary objective, would be anything like as supportive of research, on a proportionate basis, as grants of $100,000 or more from these large foundations. Thus, the original per-centage is surely much closer to the truth in describing the relative importance of the private foundations in supporting research than is the extrapolated percentage. 8 N~_I{ g~~-nt~ fQ:r :r~~ea:rc}l, :J: hav~ b~en f ~vQ:r•l>lY i~p:r;e$$eQ by the overall quality of the work being supported. The NEH staff •n4 it'5 p1,n9l'5 ~hc;n.~.l,.g be CQ~ende4, l: t>~lieve ! for courage and farsightedness in supporting various scholarly editions, for example -- as well as research. that is much l~$S ti;~g.itio11~l· Tbe f;:_:rit.ical :r;Q:l,e PlaYeci by the NEH in t:.hi$ ~i;e~, @$ wel-1 ~!? iri !?~PPc::>:rting individual scholars, i~ cle~:r fo:r all tQ $ee. ******** L66king ahead, my strong hope is that both the NEH and. priv .. te donors will do more for the humanities. Medest sums of money :rai,$e $Pi:r,i,t$ as well as pe~it su.Pstantive accomplishments; they stimuiate new ideas and encourage the training of new scholars at the same time that they invigor-~te the thinking of established scholars and give 'the iarger p~lic;: ~ neignt,epeq ~pp:t'eciatoion of the role of tohe ·:numafl-i ties in American life. These two sources of :funding are, I believe, power~ fu:u.y c;Q~plelllent~ry ~ While :t have made no systematic study of "matching" programs, it is my definite impression that 9 the kind of mutual encouragement t.hat t.his process can en-genc3.~r ilS Qften vecy v~lqable. At the minimum, NEH funding has given stability (and, for that matter~ life it1S~lf) to many important orqaniza.tions that have then been able to appeal. for help from other donors p:reci~elY ~ec:::~Y._$e it i$ evident t'.hat tbe e>:rg~ni~~tions a_re very much alive and well. In this way, NEH f\ihdihg has led tQ incre~sed private don-ations with or without explicit :matching requirements. There are no grounds, in my view, f9:r fe~:r th~t N~H fundin9 will be ~n e~cuse fo:r p:rivC1te donors to do less. That might conceivably happen if tbe N~H we:re to have a grant-making capacity t.en times what it has at present: but, for now at least, other nightmares seem mo:re pl,~q_sible ! The needs are enormous, and there is far too l_ i_· t_ t1e_ . f _ lllO:ney, _ rol'!I ~11 ~QY._J;ce~, for funding from a:ny single source to be a legiti1Dctte excuse for others to back a.way. The far 9reater danger, I believe, is that there will be inadequate c::gre funding for activities and orgahi!ations of 9:re~t i~por­tance ~- and that., as a ·Consequence, they will not be taken seriously, and will not be assi$teg_, by other potential dC>llQI'.'$· The NEJi has a vital function to perform in giving worthy enterprises c-i:•edibiiity ih approaching othe!" donq:r:;; for support. of new efforts as well as of ~~i~ting programs of consequence. 10 I do have one worry about challenge grants. They are deli~ate inst~~nt$, and while they can be extremely useful in the right circuinstances, the:y can also be counter• productive if \J.~ed tC>c;> oftE!n, Qr in situations where the r~~li$tic;: pro~pec;:t fQr ~\lcces~ iri f.inding matching funds is bieak. .Also, it is not wise, in my view, to issue matching chaiienqes when the amount in question i~ $~~ll· TbE!re is the ever present danger that organizations will ):>e ing\lced to spend' too much time, too much intellectual energy, and too many resources on what are (if we are honest about it) in-efficient forms of fund-~aisin9. "Y plea, then, is that. we continue to challenge those who can raise si9nif icant amounts of :111oney in field~ where this is feasible ..,...,. to do so, but that we not encoura9e te:>o '.lll~ny c;>~g~nizations, all of the time, to see themselves as fund-raisers .Rll excellence. They often have different,.and more important, contributions to make. The NEH will, I hope, find other mechanisms that can be used to encourage projects that do not lenc:i tl'le!t!!?elve? to the "matchinct' apptoa¢h. Once again, Mr. Cbi:li~C!n, tha_nk you -for this oppo:t-tuni ty, to testify, and, even mote, fo~ th.a exceptional leadership you have provided in $\l~taining support for the NEH during difficult times. All of us al-"'~ in YQlJI" g~l;>t. il T~Bu; 1 SUPPORT FOR THE HJ.JMAlU-TIES, BY CATEGORY, FROM THE NEH AND THE 30 LARGEST PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS · IN 1986 (in millions of doll.lllr•> - -- - ------~ -30 Largest Private Foundations Direct Grants over l•ti.ute Qf categories (!) QH·@ $10Cf Tboue.S @- all Grants (!) --·- --------Education $ i4,840 2,111 (14t) I 3,7$6 cast> I Fellowships ,, ~nd sq in, rs 14,370 5,645 (lit) 10,l).O (7Qt) General 24,7~3 8,620 (35t) I 15,670 (6lt) Re111•~~ch 2Q,951 3,715 (lit) I 6,770 (32t) I state Programs 24,107 300 (lt)@ 535 (2t) Preservatic>n 4·, 059 1,135 (28t) a,015 (5lt) Challenge Grants 16.17_1 7.647 C47il 13 .. 752 casu Total $119,221 29,17~ (~4t) 52,673 (44t) ---------·- -- ---------Notf:ls: ffi See NP An_n"Qlll Report, 1986, for definitions. ~ •ttqpt was mJe to c::la•sify the private foundat~on 9:1:1nt~ •cc;ording to . these same categories. @ Includes T:re~~uey fi .• e. matching) funds utilized by each Pivision or Offic9. · . @ Based on a qr•nt•by•grant analysis of all q·rants of $lOO,QOO or ~o:re PY the 30 largest foundations, di:rectfil4 ~pecifically to the h~anities. . © A rough estimate of the total of All. grants to the humanities by ~es9 fo~ndations, including al~ grants over $5,ooo ancl ~?l @&;ti••t@ of grants for which t)}e hU.tnitie~ were a second or third field of interest. 'l':tle 4.i~tribution of this larger total by category was done on ' straight pro~rata basis, even though we doubt that-in fact the p:ropc;>~ions would remain the sue. Thus, these estimates by c'tegoey @re only crude extrapolations. ($e• t~n for a further discussion~) ~ T~is sm,ll nq~er reflects the relativ, 1aQk of qrant~ ~Y t.b~ la:rgE! private fog_~gations to state organizations: of course, many of these fou_ndatiQJ'lS m~4E! numerous grants to local and regional activi~ ties and o:rganization!? of special impott&il¢• to the foun4l!tion in question. -I I • CHART l St.JPPORT FOR THE HUMANITIES FROM Tll_E QH AND THE 30 LARGEST PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS rN 1986 (in ~u.;u.ons of dollars) s:u.9 M I $29 }1 Private Founda"" NEH t:ioti~ Note: 'l'ne 59lid line for private foundations shows 9rants of $100 1 000 or .more by-the 30 largest foundations, direct~d ~pecifica~ly to the humanities •. The (higher) da$1led line is an estimate of what t.his total might have be~n if ~ll g~~nt!l' over $5,000 were included as well as grants for which the humanities were a second or third fif!ld of interest. (See notes to Table l and text for further ~xpl~n~t.ion.) 14.8 :E:c)~c;~­tiQP CHAAT 2 SUPPORT fOR ';['HE HUMANITIES, BY CATEGoRY, FROM THE NEH AND THE 30 I.ARGE$T P~lVA~ FOUNDATIONS IN 1986 (in millions of dol-lars) 24.7 21.d Feiiow- General Research ships and Seminars 24.1 4 • 1. [ l.lJ 0.3 --· .= -· -- -- -State Preser-Proqrams vation 16.2 7.6 Challeng~ Grants Legend: Grants by NEH. ----Grants of $100,000 or more by the 30 largest private foundations, directed specificaiiy to the humanitdes. 

Reauthorization: Hearings and Reports (1990): Speech 02

https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&amp;context=pell_neh_I_73

Reauthorization: Hearings and Reports (1990): Speech 02

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@URI