Arney, Rex

English

DigitalCommons@URI

University of Rhode IslandDigitalCommons@URIReauthorization: State Grant Formula (1990) Education: National Endowment for the Arts andHumanities, Subject Files I (1973-1996)1990Reauthorization: State Grant Formula (1990):Memorandum 02Rex ArneyFollow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/pell_neh_I_78This Memorandum 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: State Grant Formula (1990) by an authorizedadministrator of DigitalCommons@URI. For more information, please contact digitalcommons@etal.uri.edu.Recommended CitationArney, Rex, "Reauthorization: State Grant Formula (1990): Memorandum 02" (1990). Reauthorization: State Grant Formula (1990).Paper 9.http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/pell_neh_I_78/9-NATIQf'o.IAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES Office of th_e G13nen1l c;:ounsel July 12, 1990 MEMORANDUM TO: Sandy Crary FROM: Rex Arney~ SUBJECT: NEH State Programs I <?.m enclosing the informqtion you requested pertaining to the alloq.;i_tion of appropriated funds to State Programs for FY 1987 and 1988. On .June 29th I sent you similar materials for FY 1989. The information is provided in the ~ame format as pte~iously submitted. Sheet #1 shows all funds made av~ilable to the state hum~fiities councils and cofumittees in two cat~gories - 44% and 22%. Al§o, a portion of the 34% disc~etionary cateaory is shown on sheet :j::l:l. Ih addition, sheet #2 shows in the "Definite'' column the remainder of the funds tn the 34% categotY. Ftnally, she~t #3 sh6w~ the balance of funds awarded in the a4% discretionary, but which do not go directly to state counci1s. However, the aw,El.rqs shown on sheet #3 do bepef~t the various state councils. You also requested an explanation of the "Exemplaries," ''Merit Award" and "Other" in the 34% discretionary category. I am en~losipg the explanation prepared by the bi~ision of State Programs. I believe it will answer your questions. Finally, you asked for copies of any guidelines which are used by the Endowment to determine who get~ the money in the categories YQU asked about. I ail) enclosing two sets of guidelines -GuiQ.elines for the State and REgional Exemplary Awards and Planning Giants and Guidelines ±or the preparation 6f Siennial Proposals· with detains on Merit Award funding on page 5. Call me it you need anything further. Washington. D.C. 20540 TO FROM SUBJECT Congressional Research Service The Library of Congress Ju.ne 21, 1990 Senate Subcommittee on Education, Arts and Humanities Attention: Sandy Crary Susa.11 ~oren Specialist in Sod.al Legisiation EdticSl.tion aJid PlJ.l:>lic Welf a,te. Di:visic>n Alternative Di.stributions of National Endowment for the HumMiities State Grant FuildS You have asked for a_11alysis of ~ev~r~l alt~rn~tiv~!'l to tJ:rn curre.nt distribution of funds for the National Endowment for the Humanities' (NEH) State grants program. These alternatives are the specific ones you requested. A.,.,, cq.rrent statµte 34/44/22""'34 percent chair's discretion, 44 percent distribut~d jp, e.qua.l a.rootmt~ tc:> S~tes, 22 percent based on States population; B -- 30/48/22--30 percent chair's discretion, 48 percent equal amounts to States, 22 percent based on States :population; C -~ 25/50/25.,,.,.25 percent chair's discretion, 50 percent equal amounts to States, 25 percent ba~ed cm Sta.te poplJlat!c:>m a..nd D-- 25/53/22--25 percent chair's discretion, 53 percent equal amounts to States, 22 percent based on State population.· The fallowing G.h.l:lrts and a.ccompa.nying table show the dollar differences i_n a. hypothgtic&l ca.se where the total program funds appropriation is a:t $130 million for NEH. The calculations would be as follows and the individual $tate results appear i:IJ.. th~ ta.ble 9n p~ge 6 of tbi~ me.mora.ndum. CRS-2 Cm~1j9:g, A: G\lrr~nt Statute applied to a hypothetical amount for State grants of $130,0001000 with $26,000,000 being reserved for State programs. NEH 20 percent of program funds for State grants $26,000,000 $200,000 to each State and t1:irrit;ory $11,200,QOO 34 percent of excess (.34 x $14,800,000 )=$5,032,000 for chairperson's discreti6n 44 percent of excess (.44 x $14,8()(),()()()) = $6,512,000 distributed .in equal amounts to States $6,512,000 22 percent to States Oil. basis of population $3,256,000 See the table on page 5 to see how States fa:te under curtent statute. Alternative B: In this alternative 30 percent of the excess of p:rogram. funds would go toward the NEH's Chairman's discretion, 48 percent of the excess would go to the States in equal amounts, and 22 percent would go to States based on population. -NEII 2() percent of program fundi:J for State grants $26,000,000 - ~ $200,000 to each State and territory $11,200,000 ~o p~:rc,:ent of e~Ge~~ (3() percent x l4,SQ(),Q00) :::: $4,44Q,OQO for chairperson's discretion 48 percent of excess (48 x $14,800,000)= $7;104,000 distrib\lted in equal amounts to StateliJ $7,104,000 Allotment for States Under the National 1Endowment for the Htunailities: Current Statute and Mte:rnatives (in thousands)' A B C' n State Populatio11, Percentage Current statute Alternative .Alternative Altetnativ.e of the amounts with with formula with forim.ila, With formula popl:ilation formula 30/48/22: '.25/50/25 25/53/22 34/44/22 Al'abama 4,083 1.68 371 381 394 395 Alaska 525 0.22 323 333 340 34~ Arizona· 3,386 1.39 361 37,1 383 385 Arkansas' 2,388· 0.98 '348 358 370 .$72 California 27,633 11.37 686 696 758 71]0 ~ Colorado 3,296 1.35 360 370 381 .384 CJ) Connecticut 3,2U 1.32 359 369 380 383 I Vl Delaware 644 0.26 '325 334 342 348 District of Columbia 622: 0.26 325 334 '342 348 Florida 12,023 4.94 477 48rl ,515 50ill Ge0rgia 6,222, 2.56 399 409 427· 423. Hawaii 1,083 0.44 330 340, 348 354 1Idaho 998 0.41 329 3391 ,347, 353 i]llinois· 11,582 4.76 471 4801 508 494 1Jndiana 5,53]! 2~2rz 390 400' 41!6 4·14 !Iowa 2,834 1.16 354 364 3!75 378· Kansas 2,47:6 1.02 349 359: 3W 373' 1Kentucky 3,,72'1 1.53 366 3175, 389 390 Louisiana 4,46!1! ].83 376 385 400 400 Maine 1,18'J 0.49· ,332 342 350 356 Maryland 4,535 1.86, .376 386 40ill 401 State Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missoud Nebraska Nevad'a· New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico· New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island! South Carolina South Oakota Allotment for States "Under the NatiOnall Endowment for the Humanities:: Population 5;855 9;200 4,246 2;625 5,103 1,594 1*007 lj()5'i 7~672 1,500 !l.7,825 6,413 1672 lQ,;784 3;272 2;724 !l.1;936 986 3,425 '709 C::urrent Statute and Alternatives~-Continuedl (in thousands) A B Percentage: Current statute, Alternative of the amounts with with formula population formula 30/48/22 . . . 34/4'.f/22 2.41 394' 406 3.78 439 449 l.7'41 :373 383 1;08 .351 361! 2.10 384! 394 0~65 .337 347 0.41 329 339· 0.43 ,330 340 3.15 419 428 0~62 336 346 7.32 :5541 564 2;63 402 412. 0.28 324 33·5 4.43 460 470 1.34 359 369 l.!l2 352 362 4.90 475 485 0.411 329 339 1.411 '362 372 0.29 325 335 c~ Alte:matiV:e with formula 25/50/25· 421 472 396 37·2 410 .356 .347 348 448 ,355 1602 429 342 :496 ;382 373 1513 .347 .3841 343 Ii) Alternative· with formula 25/53/22 4!18 463 397 :3!75 .408 361 n 353 ~ U'I I 354 0\ 442. 360 '578 426 349 484 384 376 499 353 386 349 State Tennessee Texas· Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming U.S. 'Ilotal Allotment for .States Under the National Endowment for the Humanities: Population 41~855 16,789 1,680 '548' 5,904 41,'538 1,89rl 4,'80rl 490 243,400 Current Statute and Al'ternatives--Continued .(in thousands) A B irercentage Current statute Alternative of ithe amounts 1 with with formula population formula 30/48/22 34'/4'4!/22 L99 380 390 6;90 541 551 0.69 338 348 0.231 323 333 2.43' 395 405 1:86· 3r77 387 0.78 341 35il L97 380· 390 0.201 323 '334 100;001 c: Alternative with formula 25/50/25 406 '58r7 358 341 422 4011 36il 405 339 D Alternative with fo:r,mula· 25/53/22 40fr 1564 .362: .347 .(") 419 !~ 'cr.i 401 ii -....J 365 404 347 NOTE: This1 table does not show ,the grant amounts. for Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, Northem Marianas, and Virgin Islands, each of :which woufd receive ai $200,0001 minimum grant 1plus. portions, from state 1allotments in equal amounts. They are also· not. factored in as part of ,the distribution of population portion. NO~E: Population figures are <in thousands .and were derived from the Statistical Abstract, 1989. CRS~8 .Ailalysi,s: Effects on the Chairpetson.-~The chairperson would lose most under tlie 29/50/25 @}lQtmE.lnt fQI'IDt!l~ (~t~m~tivE.l C) or tbe 2Q/53/22 formula (alternative D). Both represent a 9 percent drop for the chair's discretion. In the bypotbetica} case discussed where the progra111 funds totalled $130,000,000, in this instance it would be a decrease of $1,332,00()~ Alternative B would be a 4 percent drop for the chair's discretion, a decrease of $592,000. Effects on the State_s"'--Larger States would benefit most from alternative C wbgreby 5Q pe:rcE.int of tbE.l E.l~CE.lss wq11JcJ gQ tQ $t~tE.l$ E.lql1filly aJ_lq 25 pe_rCE.lIJt of the excess would go to States based on population. Medium size and smaller States would benefit most from alternative D whereby 53 percent -of the excess would go to States in equal amounts and .22 percent would be distributed by State population. Rhooe Islahd: lJnder c_qrrent statu,te, Rhode Island would receive $3291000 under current statute (A), $339,000 uncier altE.l1'11~tive B, $347,000 u11der Alternative C, and $353,000 under alternative f>. Alternative D whereby 53 percent of the excess goes to States in equal amounts helps the smaller populated States-the most. -Masaa~husetts: Under current statute, Massachusetts would receive $394,000 uudE.lr current statute (a), $406,000 under alternative B, $421,000 under alternative C, and $4i8,()0() under alternative D. Massachusetts would benefit most from alternative C whereby 50 percent of the excess is distrih:uted in equal amounts With 25 percent disttibµted on the basis of population. See the table op p. 5 a_nd 7. lJJ. ~my ~asE.l in which~ St~te'$ pe:rcent~ge of population is greater than l_.8 percent altern_atjve C will hE.l11e_tit those States more than alternative D. In any case in which a State's percentage of population is below approximately i.8 percent then alternative "f> will benefit those States mote than alternative C. We hope thi_$ proves 11sefu,L 

Reauthorization: State Grant Formula (1990): Memorandum 02

University of Rhode IslandDigitalCommons@URIReauthorization: State Grant Formula (1990) Education: National Endowment for the Arts andHumanities, Subject Files I (1973-1996)1990Reauthorization: State Grant Formula (1990):Memorandum 03Rex ArneyFollow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/pell_neh_I_78This Memorandum 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: State Grant Formula (1990) by an authorizedadministrator of DigitalCommons@URI. For more information, please contact digitalcommons@etal.uri.edu.Recommended CitationArney, Rex, "Reauthorization: State Grant Formula (1990): Memorandum 03" (1990). Reauthorization: State Grant Formula (1990).Paper 8.http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/pell_neh_I_78/8!:. lri It; !li ~ ,J. 1111 I I SENT .EY:NEH t;·-'~9-90 3: 45PM 2027860242~ ··-''·"' NATIONAL !!!:NDOWMW:NT FOR THE HUMANITIES WAlltllNe?DN, D,g;. Ml80I Offl_c.:a Qf tl'te General CounHI MEMQ~ANDUM TO; FROM: SUBJECT: Sandy era/?. Rex Arney{,)"'M, NE.ff State P;r9gram Ju~~ 29, 1990 202. 224 5375; l=I 2 \ ~lease find encloeed that informat:t.on you request.t!d f~r the distri bu ti on of :eunds for .I!'Y 1988 for St~te Programs. She~t. #1 showa all funds made available to the state humanities councils and commi.tte~!5 in two categories .- 44% and.22%. Also, a portion of the 34% discretionary c~tegory is ~h9wn on she&t. #1. In additton. sheet #2 shows in the "Definite" column the remainder of the funds in the 34% Q~teaory. B'1fially; :sheet .#3 shows the b~l,~IJ,ce of funds awarded in the 34% diSC:fetionary, but which dQ not go directly to ~tate councils. However,. the a.wards shown on ~h~et #3 do benefit the various !!!tat~ councils. By way of example, ~beets #1 & 2 show that Rhode lsland received the sam~ $?00,000 gra~t that every othe~ state re6~ived, plus: "'" - $114,570 22% - 12,130 34~ - 20,000 (Pop, Di~t.) O (Ex~mplaries) 10,000 (P~~- Mtg.) o (Me~it Award) 27,.9QO (Definite lunds) Sheet #1 showa that ~he total awards in FY 1989 was $25.000,00Q which in.eludes the total shown in the "Definite" column on sheet #2. In addition, to the foregoing amount. in FY 1989, $4,000,000 in TreaswrY funds were awarded to the s"t;~tes 01: which Rhode !eland received $17,400. l knov that this is somewhat confusing. but I believe that the infortnaticn you requested l'\~J3 been provided. Please call if Y'Q~ have any queation:i. SE~ff BY: NEH ; E:!-~'?-';l0 3:47PM ; ::n !.... 2©?7860242-1 202 224 5375;** 4 NAftONA~ ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITI~S St•te Programs ~ Matchin9 FY 1'89 Council Alabama Ala!tka Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware __ _ p.c. Florida ~=~~!Ia Ida no Illinois Indfana :tow~ Kansas Kentucky bou:tsiana Maine Maryland Massachu$etts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Mont,na Nebraska Neva ca New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina Nortl"I Dakota (lhiO -Oklahoma Ore_goh Pennsy.l vania Rhode Xsland SOutn Carolina South Dakota Tennessee fexas - ·· Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin WyomJ,ng i;>uerto Rico Virgin Islands Total Humanities Definite• - $45> t 71, 7,1.47 JJ,ll7 62,78, 132,854 .. ~---84 23,000 11,460 --49,436 -·-24,643 i1,e62 84,~00 46,943 24,621 .... A5,7'6 lS,684 45,039 27,5100 JB,800 tSl, ~ OQ 7'j,700 ....... 1,,40 s,e:J4 43,1S9 --16,l.QQ 5,589 23,650 3,_A_80 $l,2ll.,028 Treasury $34,S6S 112,3~2 )2~0!'~ 11,:ns 14,,346 ~,,700 110 ,.600 31,~()() 38,5100 l:?0,100 9(),716 71,lQO 233 l. 79 ,.302 52,:30~ 4A,ll5 70,200 100,000 43 400 ~ . . 136,640 81,300 - 60,364 118,100 10;3'7 4a,13e 3;5,4()0 69;.309 .53,800 42,400 20;900 :21:,557 250,0751 $6,400 52,844 184 ,.517 63,2~1. 56,SOO 236,000 ~7,400 30,000 ...... 25.5 400 ' - . 5'6.,860 651,866 202,800 l&l, 641 73,SOO ~,.400 11,732 29,066 - - 16,_~30 $4,000,000 Total $84,&ou l~?,500 65,200 l.34,!00 21e,200 6.5,700 110,60Q ~l,300 38,~0Q 120,100 90,SQQ 2-3,000 71,100 ~97,300 184,700 63,0QQ 62,500 - 70,200 l.()0,000 4J.4QQ 14~.,100 Bl ,300 109~800 118,100 35,00Q 60,QOO ~5,400 69', 300 5;3,899 42,400. 105,400 62,SOQ 274 700 - . 86,400 98,600 ~00,200 108,300 ~6,500 236,000 4,,,00 68,800 ~~.ooo 79;700 255,400 S6,40Q _ 7S, 700 io2.eoo 20~.~oo 73,SQO 49,!iOQ 17,312 52,7lS _2_0, 000 $5,211,028 • The$e definite fund$ are part of th~ National F~nds •• ------~ ~,,~~G•~nn ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-'-'~-=-.;;;...~~~~~~0~6L·~zg[.}9fo:=]o:-I3:]4!9Jr~.M:··-"]~?'.IoI4-:-=-:::.~_~_- __ : SE:_NT BY: NE;H 6-29-'90 3:47PM ; 2027860242""4 Jf 3 Grants to Federation Qf State tuftanities Co.n;!ls $35 1oOO To support- a planning conference on the tQt:>~c 9f "Public Praarams in the ttlllanit1es Seeds of Change.n · $Xl 1000 To suppor-t the preparation of thr.~e research reperts to assist st~te hllnanities ccn.sncils in their achlniatration and program develo~t a_ctivities a.nd to explore the feasibility or •n ,rnployee benefit plan. Ineurance C IHA) . To cover the ccst of ins"'!t~nce policies held by t€H rar state 11.rnanitie' cOt.llcils. Orientation Conf•rcnc~ and Meetings (The Circle, Inc.) To p:rovide planning, travel and logistical suggo~ f'or three regional orientation conft!Jtehce,s each for new 111e!ri1bers _of state counc::_1l~ ~nd executive directors, and one conference for all state ¢oyneil chairmen in 1989. Program Development (Gary H. Helthaue) To support program development activities and regrant pfC>Jects ln tne western region of tt'le country. ihectiarlesFrankelPrize Awards of $S,OOO each to five individUals whO h•ve made outstanding eontriblJtions to the public's undarstat1d4.ng Of ~$xts, themes, and id'a~ of the l"llnanitles. The reciP1ent~ are P~tricia_Sates, Daniel J. Boorst1n, Wilard L. Boyd, Clay s. Jenkinson, and Amer~co Paredes TOTAL 202 224 5375;~ 5 s e,ooo $ 75,23) $ 2',000 -----------------------~-_:__=-=-:c·o~6:_'. ;:~, 9L.],. g0 - 8_3_;__49 _P_1'] __ P_Oc5 __ _ •I .'~ .,,MAY-15-90 TUE 9:20 EPW-ECON p - :I. 4 'I Di~siOn of Possible Polley N.te~atives and the impact of these a.Jtern~:tivee on the s~tes ·· We have inch.~ded a table to help diecuse the impact of policy changes. The table looks at the following: • A- the cunent statute with 20% reserved from program funds for the States; • B • an alternative to the statute with 25% reserved from program funds for the States; • C D a.ta alternative that 40% of program funds would be reserved for the states but allotted by the state's share or total populE1tion • D • an alternative that 40% of program funds wo~ld be re~~_rved fQr the states but allqt~q equ19.Uy. These alternative are explained in greater detail on the following page. Please note that the figures in the table will not necessarily coincide with the figures used by the National Endowment for the Arts. The numbers are used simply to illustrate how the formula works. We used the Statistical Abstract, 1989 for population figuree1 and used a h;Ypothetical amount of program funds of $12514501000 providing $25,090,000 to .the States if 20% were reserved for them. In most instances an increase in the percentage ot appropriations for program funds reserved for the States will increase the S~te@ sh!lrea equally according to statute. Currently the statute requires the $200,000 11).inilllu~ grant and the additional amount to go equally to the states, District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Other Special jurisdictions ( American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas, Virgin Islands) are also given minimum grants of $2001000 each with a small amount from the Chairman's discretionary funds depending upon their population. It is a matter of the NEA's policy that they have chosen to restrict the Chairman•s discretionary ~Qnts by requiring tba.t half (12.5%) of his/her funds go to states on the basis of population. We have made the assumption that such a policy will continue or that such a restriction may be placed in statu:te. If there was no Chairman's policy to distribute runds on the basis of population, then after the minimum $200,000 grant was met for each state, every state would receive equal allotments up to the percentage limitation on fut1dip,g. l:{owever, b~atitution of the Chairman's policy to distribute a percentage of funds by population mP:es the grants slightly different for each state. A--;. A represe~ts the ~tatut9ry a.UotlJ.1~1'.lt tQ ~ta~s whereby 20% ($25,090,000) or program funds ($125,450,000) s.re reserved for sf:atea and 75% of this amount is distributed in equal amounts after the $200,000 tninimur.Q gran.t i_§ in.et; and (12.5%) half ot the Chairman's discretionary 0 5. 1 5. 9 0 1 0 : 1 6 AM P 1 4 "' 'MAY-15-90 TUE 9: 21 EO:PW-E;C:::ON CRS-6 amount distributed by population. The state grants range from $358,000 for Wyorning, $359,000 for Ve~<;mt, $360,000 for Del~ware, $362,000 for Montana, to $7Q9,000 for Cali(omia, with states such~ Pennsylvania in the middle range at $505,000. B~--B represents an alternative that is basically ti],e same as A except for the percentage of program funds. AlterDative B provit.fos _25% of the program funds ($125,450,000) to be reserved for the States ($31,362,500) and 75% of this a.mount ~ distributed equally after the $200,000 minimum grap.t is met and half of the Chai~an's discretionaey amount (12.5%) is distributed by population. The state grants range from $~30,000 for Wyoming,$4~1,000 for Vermont, $432,000 for Delaware, $435,000 for Montana, up to $870,000 for California, with states like Ohio at $595,000 and Pennsylvania at $614,000 in the ~jddle range. Some of the smaller states actually gained 11u'bstantial amounts because of the increase in the basic allotment provided equally to each state. On the ()ther hand, because the overall amount from program funds increased, thE! Chairman's discretioQary amount to be distributed -on the basis or pop'l)_l~tion $ISO increased. Therefore, population was still an important factor. Fro~ the figures in E1.lterne.tive A to alternative B, Wyom~ng gained the smallest amount ($72,000), Wisconsin gained $85,0QO, ~issouri gained $86,000, whereas New York gained $124:,000 and California gained $161,000. C---C represents an altemativ4:1 that would allocate 40% ($50,lSO,OOO)oC the program funds to states b8$e4 solely on population after the $200,000 minimum grant is met. This alternative would skew the current law dr~lIJ.atically in favor or those states with high resident population. For example, Vermont'a current grant would be re<l~ced to $286,000, Montana's current grant would b~ Nduced to $325,000, whereas C~l_if9rnia's grant would increase substmltially to $4,495,000. A state that WQqld appear in the middle r~rige of grants would be Pennsylvania with $21051,000. -D--•D represents an alternative that is basically the same as A except rot the percentage of program fun~ uaed. In alternative D, 40% ($()01180,000) of the progr~~ funds ($12514501000) . would be allotted to states and 75% of thi!l amoupt is distributed equally after the $200,000 minimumn grant is met; &Jld half of the Chairman's discretionary aJ:Qount (12.5%) is distributed by pop'!lation. The state grants would ra,p.ge from $517,000 for Wyoming, $526,000 for Monwna, up to $964 for New Yor~, and $1,219,000 for California. Illinois is flt ~n apprcn:itnate middle range wit_b $8Q3,000. Some or the Sl'.rla.ller ~tates actually gain substantitd ~~ounts because of the increase in the ba.$ic $.llotment provided equally to eacb state. On the other hand, because the overall amount from program run~ increased, the Chairman's discretionQry amount to be diE1tributed on the basis of population also increased. Tbtir~fore, population was still an import~t factor. -In conclusion, Any increase in the percentage of program funds provided to states (25% or 40%) will increase each state's allotment. The factor that P. 15 0 5. _1_5._9_0 __ 1_0_: 1 6 AM _P_l 5 .. ··MAY-·15-90 TUE 9::2:2 EPW-EGON CM-7 causes the diff~r~nf;e~ in amounts is the Cb~il'lllan's discretion!P'Y amount (the 12.5%) set Mide for states to be distrlbu~ed by population. This is not p~rt of the statute but i~ tbe NEA's policy. The committee may choose to alter the statute by pl~ci.ng this provision in ~ a permanent clau~e. On the other hand the committee may choose to eliminate th~ Chairman's discretioJlary amount t9ta.lly, or to eliminate tb~ use of the discretionary amount to be distributed by population, tr the statute elimi~ates the uae of the Cba~an's discret_i9g.ary funds to_ be distril;iuted by population, then each grant to the states will be equal. Ther~fc:ire, if the percentage of program funds provided to the states increases, then each state's allotment will i_ncrease equal.ly. ---===========-======---=-==--------_ _ll~l5~. 15. 9 0 18: 1 6 AM P ! 6 -· 3 Allotment for States U:nder the National Endowment for the Arts: D ~ Current Statute and Alternatives I (in thousands) .,.. : (JI State Population Percentage Current statute Reserve 25{15 I Reserve 40/60 Reserve 40/60 IJ) oftbe amounts with for Sta:t.ea for States for States ~ ·population 12.5 percent remove chair; J) -.! dist.rib. by pop. discretion c reserve 20/80 .~ 1base all pop. m c_. IJ) Alabama 4,083 L68 405 488' 835 610 " Alaska '525 0.22 359 431 283 519 :t0 Arizona 3,386 1.39 399 478 725 592 10 I i Arkansas 2;388 0.98 383 460 670 566 1 I rn California 27,633 11.37 709 870 4,495 J..218 ! !"lJ 'Colorado 3j296 1.35 394 475 710 590 1t 'I Connecticut 3.21l 1.32 398 474 699 587 I rn Delaware 644 0~26 360 432 298 521 : (1 District :of Columbia 622 0~26 360 432 298 521 lo Florida 12;023 4.94 507 615 2066 814 i 1Z .. Ii Georgia, 6~2 2.56 432 522 1,167 665 , I Hawaii 1~083 ·a . ..u 366 439 366 532 ! Idaho 998 ·0.41 .365 438 355 1531 Illinois ll,582 4.76 501 ,608 1,998 803 Indiana 15,531 2.27 423 511 1,057 647 !Cow a '2;834 1.£6 388 455 638 579 1· I :J Kansas 2,476 1.02 384 462 585 569 J1 Kentucky 3~72'1 1.53 400 482 778 1601 J1 Louisiana 4,461 1.83' 409 494- 891 620 D Maine 41!87 0.49 ;361 441 385 536 :J Maryland 4,535 ll.86 410 495 903 622 :J :Massachusetts' 15.855 2.41 42'l 516 1,110 656 J) lM.ichipn '9J200 3~78 471 570 1,628 742 I> Minnesota 4,246 1.74 406 490 857 614 ;;: Mississippi 2~625 1.08 386 464 1608 573 "1J rj Miesouri 5,103 2.10 418 1504 993 636 -.. .J ..... -J .. . 3'. D Allotment for States Under the National Endowment for the Arts: -c I ' Current Statute and .A:lternatives , ... (in thousands) .(Jl I IJ) State Population Percentage Current statute Reserve 25n5 Reserve 40/60 ill) Reaet"Ve 40/60 of the amounts with for States for Stat.es for St.ates -I population 12.5 percent remove chair c dietrib. by pop. discretion 111 reserve 20/80 ibese an pop. IJ) ... t0 Nebraska 1,594 0.65 372 467 446 546 ,(.I.I Nevada 1;007 0.41 365 438 446 531 111 New Hampshire 1,057 0.43 365 439' 362 532 11. New Jersey •7,672 3.15 451 545 1,390 703 :E New Mexico 1,500 0.62 371 446 434 544 I New York 17,825 7.32 582 708 21965 964 111 fl North Carolina 6t413 2.63 434 525 1,193 670' 0 North Dakota 672 0.28 361 433 306 523 z Ohio ILOt784 4.43 491 595 1,874- 783 Oklahoma 3,272 1.34 394 475 ws 589 Oregon 2,724 1.12 387 466 623 675 Pennsylvania 11,936 4.90 505 614 2,051. 81!2 Rhode, Island 986 0.41 365 438 355 531 Smith Carolina 3,425 1.41 396 477 733 593 South Dakota 'l09 0.29 361 433 3!10 523 'rennessee 4~855 1.99 414 '500 951 629' 0 Texas 16/189 6.90 568 692 2;807 937 "' ~ Ut.ah 1,680 0.69 374 @9 461 549 1 "' Vermont 548 0.23 359 431 287 519 (0 0 Virginia 5i904 2.43 428 i5l'l 1,118 520 ~ Washington 4,538 1.86 410 495 902 622 0 West Virginia 495 553 .. I.897 0~78 376 453 ~ m Wisoonsin 4t807 1!~9.7 4Jlt· 499 1 944 628 )> Wyoming 490 0~20 358 430, 276 ~~,., 1J ;;;: >tj ... ..,.. U$. Tot.al ·243;400 100~00 00 co I 0 01 Ul <D· D' 0 CTI :» r "tj ~ •D NOTE: This table does not give the grant amount.a for Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, Northern Marianas, and Virgin Islands, each of which would receive a $200,00() minimum grant plus a portion of the Chairman's discretionary amount. II 10 Ol rn 11 !: I rn (1 0 z 11 ... '° .M.AYc-15-90 TUE 9.: 25 EPW-ECON P.01 Allutmt1nt for Sta.t.i111 Uudet' the Nation& En.tlnwment fol" the .ArUr. - Current Statute and Alterno.tives · --- . -(iu. U1ouMiids> ;tte Population Pi'Jt'centago Cw~ent p.ts.tute R~et·Y"e ?.fi/'lo 8.oa'1rve 40/60 1~3en1c 101&0 of the amounto with for Stat06 for St.11tea fot Stab''.& populeition 12.5 p~ccent removo chair. b distrib. by pop. dj11c.rt:!tio~ . ror.erVli 20180 & b&;e 0.11 pop. L l!lu~ma 4,063 1.68 405 488 835 610 . uka 525 o.22 359 431 283 ,519 rizona. a,386 1.39 399 478 72G 592 rkaDM11 2,388 o.~s 383 4fi0 570 566 alifcirnia 27,633 ll.S7 709 870 4,495 11~18 oior~do 3,296 1.35 394 475 710 590 onncctlcut 3,Zll 1.32 393 474 699 587 iewware 644 o.~f; 360 432 298 521 liatrict of Columbi1t 622 o.~ 36() 432 298 521 'lmida 12,023 4.94 5o7 615 2,666 SU roorgta G,2?.?, 2.56 132 522 q67 665 Iawaii 1,083 0.44 366 439 366 532 da}to 998 0.41 365 438 350 531 llinois 11,582 4.76 501 60$ l,99& sos t1rJi~M 5,~l 2:'1.'i' 423 Gll t'r! i,057 647 OWQ 2,83..t. l.16 38$ 455 ' ;~L f; 638 579 '~t- ~': :t&mia.s 2476 1.02 SS4 '162 ;i • 585 569 ' . - .... :{entueky 3,727 1.63 400 4fl2 nB 601 ~oui~ian:a 4,461 us 409 491 891 620 ~aine 1,187 0.49 367 44i 385 536 ~uyland 4,fi35 1.86 410 495 903 622 Maso(lOhusett~ 5,B55 2.4l 427 516 1,110 GSG ~ehig~!! 9,2fl0 3.78 1.71 570 1,628 742 Min'neliota 4,246 l.74 406 490 ~;i~, 614 Miosilltppi 2,625 1.08 386 464 5'13 M~IJ..t?_Uri 5,103 2.io 4.lS Ci04 636 'ii~~ . ·-=-=--- --~.:~==· ';!;=-_ ·~. -------·F·. 1" ~-Cl l .O: ::: .9 Alv! PO! 'MAY-1~-90 TUE I late ~ebra&ka ~evada :.f aw Hampahire ~~w J~raey ~ew Mvxii.:o ~~·York ~orth Carolin1i1 ~"forth Dakota )blo JklAhoma o~gori 1 •enneylvarua Rhode Isis.ml South Carolin.11 South Dakota Tennesse11 'l\•~XM Ut.ah Ve1·mont Virsinio. Wuhing+.t1n Wo&t Virginia Wiscon~in Wyon!i_ng . U.S. ~otnl .AJJ.utro~ut toi· HtAtee Under the National E~wlne:ut. frrr the Arts; Curreut Ste.tni:El and Altematives (in th0'19®4s) Pop1.1l111tioI~ PerMntags Current stat\!. te ReSE'rve 26(75 Reserve 40/60 of the j.UlOUl'lts -;,.,.th for Stotcs f'or St"'L~$ population 12.6 percent T't':ri'love chair distz-i'l.i. by pop. dleeretion r"'MlNEI 20/80 base. ~H P.:lP• 1,594 0.65 372 46'7 44e 1,007 0.4i 365 4,.38 446 1,057 0.4!J 360 439 362 7,G72 3.15 451 545 1,390 1,600 0.62 371 416 4:-14 17,825 7.82 682 701.l 2,965 6,413 2.63 4a4 525 1,193 672 Mm 361 433 306 10,784 1.13 491 595 1,874 3,272 l-:'l4 394 47G 706 g,7:!)4 1.12 387 466 623 ll,936 .4.90 5~ 614 2,051 986 0.11 365 438 aM 3,425 l.41 i:\96 177 738 709 0.29 361 433 310 4,855 1.99 414 fiOO 9Gl 16,789 G.90 568 692 2,807 1,6fi(l 0.69 374 '44tj 461 54a 0.23 :1!:)9 43l 287 G,904 2.43 125 517 l,118 4,535 1.86 410 495 909. 1,897 0.78 376 4f·.'J 49a 4,607 1.97 411t 4.99 944 490 0.20 35$ 430 276 243,400 1._0lUJll ---l=''.:1. c ~:Cl l 0: 2 9 l ··., Reserve 40/60 for States 546 531 58, 703 544 964 670 52S 783 589 676 $i2 681 593 Ci23 629 937 549 519 t20 62:2 u5s 62$ .-i; '!iii AM F02 9::26 EPW-E:cot-.i NOTE; '!'hie tublo d_Oli!fl not give t,ho grsnt t1,IJ:191.mtil for Pucitto Rh:u, 01111.m, :\mcriO'an SM11:1oa, Nnrthern Mtlrlsnas, "11d Virgi_~ Jollltlds, 1eh of which wuuld rP.ceive o. $200,000 minimum grant plus a portion of' the Cl1~_irn1an'a diacrotionary ti.mount. 

Reauthorization: State Grant Formula (1990): Memorandum 03

https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&amp;context=pell_neh_I_78

Reauthorization: State Grant Formula (1990): Memorandum 03

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@URI

DigitalCommons@URI