Grantmakers in the Arts

Grantmakers in the Arts
SPECIAL REPORT
Grantmakers in the Arts

Arts Funding at Twenty-Five
What Data and Analysis Continue
to Tell Funders about the Field
Steven LawrenceThis document was published as part of GIA Reader, Volume 29, No. 1 (Winter 2018).
© 2018 Grantmakers in the Arts

Grantmakers in the Arts
Supporting a Creative America

2

GIA RESEARCH

Arts Funding at Twenty-Five
Introduction
The easy convenience of typing a few key words
into a search box and promptly being immersedin data can make one forget that this capability
has existed for a remarkably short period of time.
Just twenty-five years ago — a point in time wellwithin the recollection of most members of the artsand culture sector — Stanley N. Katz, then president of the American Council of Learned Societies,
observed, “the serious study of arts philanthropy isless than a generation old, and we are just beginning the sorts of data collection and analysis . . . weneed to make sound judgements about the field.”1
The “field” of arts and culture philanthropy itself
is a relatively recent conception, driven to fruitionin the late 1970s and early 1980s by a pioneering
set of funders who grasped the value of sharedlearning and coordination and ultimately helped toestablish Grantmakers in the Arts (GIA).2 These philanthropic leaders also believed that their collective
success in supporting the arts required knowledge

The “field” of arts and culture
philanthropy itself is a relatively
recent conception, driven to fruitionin the late 1970s and early 1980s
by a pioneering set of funders who
grasped the value of shared learningand coordination . . .
of funding patterns that reached well beyond theirindividual grantmaking portfolios and that thistype of research would help to define the field. In
1989, GIA was formally incorporated, and in thatsame year, it approached Foundation Center aboutdeveloping what became the groundbreaking 1993
report Arts Funding: A Report on Foundation andCorporate Grantmaking Trends — the first-everbenchmark study of institutional philanthropic
support for arts and culture.3
The vision of GIA’s leaders and the Foundation
Center research team resulted in a resource thatwent well beyond simply tallying up grant dollars and presenting static data tables and charts.
The contemporary ease in accessing reams of data

now regularly reminds users of these data that
numbers without thoughtful interpretation canbe at best meaningless and at worst intentionally
misleading. The creators of the first Arts Funding
study had the foresight to know that how thesenew data would be analyzed and explained would
be equally important in determining their ultimate value to arts and culture philanthropists
and the sector as a whole.
To mark the twenty-fifth anniversary of the publication of the first Arts Funding study, GIA has
commissioned this reflection on changes in artsand culture funding over the past several decades
to both revisit learnings and insights from priorarts funding research and to highlight what more
recent trends may suggest about priorities for thefield going forward. It draws upon an abundanceof studies and observational works commissioned
by GIA, including four subsequent Arts Funding reports,4 sixteen years of annual arts funding “Snapshot” analyses, and numerous articles published in
the GIA Reader, as well as selected data, analysis,
and commentary from other expert sources onchanges in public and private support for artsand culture in this country.
The following examination of changing sources of
support for arts and culture in the 1980s, 1990s,
and since 2000 illustrates how funding has evolved
during this time and the factors propelling thosechanges — from economic booms and busts topolitical controversies to unprecedented growth
in private support. It also features recent data on
nonprofit revenue and sources of funding thatsuggest the arts are not keeping pace with othersectors, especially in the aftermath of the GreatRecession. As with the many Arts Funding studies, “Snapshot” reports, and observational pieces
published by GIA since 1993, these findings canhelp all members of the public and private funding
community to better understand the current landscape, engage in informed reflection on present
distributions and future priorities, and convey theimportance of arts and culture to a new generation of potential supporters.

The 1980s: Building an Arts Funding
Community
Arts funding has always been primarily local infocus. With prominent exceptions, such as the Carnegie Corporation in the 1920s and 1930s, the Ford
Foundation beginning in the late 1950s, and theGrantmakers in the Arts

GIA RESEARCH

National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) beginningin the latter half of the 1960s, most individual andinstitutional arts supporters focused their givingon large, European-tradition cultural institutionsin their local communities. Prior to the 1980s, thisfunding also happened with very little formal
engagement among the various public and privatearts supporters. It was only in the mid-1970s “that a
critical mass of arts funding professionals in foundations, corporations, and government agencies
began to emerge . . . [in] New York City, and secondarily, in the Twin Cities, Chicago, Philadelphia,. . . by the end of the 1980s, thenumber of arts organizations in the
country had grown, foundation andgovernment support for the arts hadrisen at a double-digit pace, and GIA
had launched and begun to map out afuture for the sector.
Los Angeles, and the San Francisco Bay Area,” whowould ultimately form the nucleus of a coordinated arts funding community.5 Yet, by the end of
the 1980s, the number of arts organizations in the
country had grown, foundation and government
support for the arts had risen at a double-digit
pace, and GIA had launched and begun to map
out a future for the sector.
The extraordinary growth of the arts and culture funding community in the 1980s was not an
obvious outcome at the onset of the decade. A“double-dip” recession struck the country between
1980 and 1982, which followed a decade marked
by stagnant economic growth and hyperinflation.
The new Reagan administration entered office inJanuary 1981 with a plan to end funding for the
NEA, as well as to slash a range of social services.
And restrictive rules on foundation payout enacted
in 1969, combined with the challenging economic
environment, had slowed foundation establishment and led the number of active foundations to
decline twice in recent years. The following sections
examine how these factors and other economic andpolitical changes of the 1980s impacted public andprivate support for arts and culture.

Government
In 1980, the NEA ranked as the single largest funder of the arts in the United States — a
SPECIAL REPORT Reader 29.1 Winter 2018

distinction it has held for many years over thesubsequent decades. The establishment of the
NEA by Congress in 1965 had “encouraged andstimulated the growth of private foundations tobecome involved in the arts in many cities andregions throughout the United States where there
was little activity prior to 1965. Further, the matching requirement attached to NEA grants [was]clearly responsible for stimulating large increases
in private support.”6 Nonetheless, the Reagan
administration planned to eliminate the NEA when
it took power in January 1981. It was saved by aspecial task force on the arts and humanities thathighlighted “the needs involved and benefits ofpast assistance.”7This newfound appreciation for the value of the
NEA did not keep it from experiencing a roughly
10 percent reduction in federal appropriations in
1982, a markedly lower appropriation level that
continued into 1983. Moreover, while the nominal
value of appropriations to the NEA ultimately rosefrom $154.6 million in 1980 to $167.7 million in
1989, the inflation-adjusted value of these allocations declined 26 percent over these years. By decade’s end, the NEA was also the focus of increasing controversy as the era’s “culture wars” began
to be used to make a case against public funding
for the arts.
Despite the increasing challenges facing the NEA in
the 1980s, its influence on the arts sector remained
powerful. Beyond motivating a diverse array of
new donors, the NEA’s founding legislation ensured
that 40 percent of its funding flowed directly tostate and regional arts agencies (SAAs).8 This led toa rapid expansion in the number of SAAs from fivein 1965 to 56 by 1990,9 as state legislatures and US
jurisdictions set up SAAs to take advantage of thisnew source of revenue.10 Boosted by the taming of
1970s-era inflation and strong economic growth,state tax revenues also climbed, providing greater
resources for supporting the arts, among other priorities. Overall, legislative appropriations to SAAs
jumped from $100.5 million in 1980 to nearly $243
million in 1989. By 1986, appropriations to SAAs
exceeded the value of the NEA appropriation, andthe combined inflation-adjusted value of these appropriations rose 81 percent over the decade.
Local arts agencies (LAAs) also experienced tremendous growth in number and resources during
the 1980s, boosted in part by a matching grant
program launched by the NEA in the early 1980s.11
In the mid-1970s, fewer than half of major US metropolitan areas had local arts agencies; by 1989,
90 percent of these metropolitan areas had them.

3

4

GIA RESEARCH
FIGURE 1. Change in support for the arts: 1980s
35.0%
30.0%

33%

25.0%
20.0%

16%

15.0%
10.0%

9%
5.0%
0.0%
Foundations1

Total private
contributions2

Government3

1. Based on inflation-adjusted estimates of foundation giving for artsand culture for 1983 to 1989 from Arts Funding IV, Foundation
Center, 2003.
2. Based on inflation-adjusted estimates of total private contributions
for US arts and cultural organizations for 1980 to 1989 from Giving USA. Figure includes foundation giving.
3. Based on inflation-adjusted total federal appropriations to the
National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) for 1980 to 1989 from the
NEA; and inflation-adjusted total legislative appropriations to statearts agencies for 1980 to 1989 from the National Assembly ofState Arts Agencies. Figure does not include direct expenditures on
the arts by local governments.

LAAs numbered between 2,500 and 3,000 andwere considered by one observer to be “probably
the fastest growing sector of support for the arts
in the nation.”12

Private Contributions
Total private contributions for US nonprofit arts
organizations rose from an estimated $2.1 billion
to $3.4 billion between 1980 and 1989.13 Individuals
accounted for the vast majority of this giving, followed by corporations and foundations. After inflation, private contributions for the arts increased
almost 9 percent over the decade. Nonetheless,inflation-adjusted private contributions for all
purposes rose more than four times faster during
this period (up 36 percent). As a result, the shareof all private giving focused on arts and culture
decreased by nearly a percentage point to 3.5 percent of total private contributions.
Corporations
Corporate philanthropy for all purposes grew rapidly during the first half of the 1980s and reacheda record 2.0 percent of corporate pretax profits in
1986, or more than twice the current share. Despite declines in total corporate pretax profits inthe first three years of the 1980s, corporate giving— including direct corporate giving and corporate
foundation grantmaking — grew at a double-digit
pace. This growth continued as corporate earnings
began to climb, and corporate giving reached justover $5 billion in 1986. Corporate giving continued
to grow in nominal dollars between 1987 and 1989,
but the rate of increase did not keep pace withgrowth in pretax profits,14 and corporate giving
could “no longer be said to have a relationshipto corporate earnings.”15
Among factors contributing to a slowdown incorporate philanthropy were reductions in the tax
benefits of contributions, corporate mergers andacquisitions that disconnected companies from
communities, and a shift in funding focus to activities that supported workforce development, suchas literacy projects and precollegiate education.16
Also not accounted for in these estimates was thegrowing share of corporate support provided fornonprofits via corporate marketing budgets.
At the end of the 1980s, US corporations allocatedapproximately 11 to 12 percent of their annual
giving to arts and culture, with the majority of thisfunding representing direct contributions fromcompanies and the balance coming via foundation
grants.17 Business Committee for the Arts estimatedtotal 1988 cash and noncash corporate contributions for the arts at $634 million, with 35 percent
of businesses with at least $1 million in revenues

Among factors contributing to a
slowdown in corporate philanthropy
were reductions in the tax benefitsof contributions, corporate mergers
and acquisitions that disconnectedcompanies from communities . . .
“[claiming] to have contributed something to thearts.”18 An examination included in the first Arts
Funding study of giving by ten of the largest corporate giving programs for the arts in 1989 showedthat similar to their foundation peers, they provided by far the largest share of their funding for the
performing arts.

Foundations
The inaugural Arts Funding study documentedchanges in foundation support for the arts in the
1980s, a remarkable period of growth in the US

Grantmakers in the Arts

GIA RESEARCH

foundation community. Prior to that decade, the1950s and 1960s had set the record for foundation
creation as the postwar economic boom generated substantial new wealth and thousands ofindividuals and families established foundations as
vehicles for their philanthropy. With the exceptionof community foundations,19 this rapid expansionof the foundation community slowed markedly in

FIGURE 2. Change in foundation support for the arts:
1980s
50.0%
40.0%

44%
33%

30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%

All foundation
givingArts and culture
givingSource: Arts Funding IV, Foundation Center, 2003; and Foundation
Giving, Foundation Center, 1996. Percent change based on inflationadjusted giving between 1983 and 1989.

the 1970s as new payout requirements instituted
in the Tax Reform Act of 1969 coincided with poor
stock market returns and hyperinflation to deplete
foundation assets. Nonetheless, “throughout the
1970s, the arts had been claiming an increasing
percentage of total foundation giving.”20
The Tax Reform Acts of 1981 and 1986 reduced
the tax rate for the highest earners by close tohalf and, combined with robust economic growth,
helped to increase the number of Americans earning $1 million a year or more fourteen-fold overthe course of the decade.21 The 1981 reforms also
included a modification of the payout requirement
for private foundations that enabled their assets
to return to growth and once again made private
foundations an attractive option for donors. In all,the number of active, grantmaking foundations
jumped 45 percent to nearly 32,000 between 1980
and 1989. Even the stock market “crash” of late1987 did not hamper the growth in the numberof US foundations and their funding. Foundation
funding for the arts grew from an estimated $658
million in 1983 to $1.1 billion in 1989.22 After inflation, giving for the arts climbed 33 percent. This

SPECIAL REPORT Reader 29.1 Winter 2018

represented substantial growth but lagged behindthe 44 percent rise in overall foundation giving
during this period.
As remains true twenty-five years later, the first
Arts Funding benchmark study found that theroughly two-thirds of foundation grant dollars forthe arts awarded during the 1980s targeted theperforming arts and museums, with the balance
being distributed in varying proportions amongarts services, cultural awareness, folks arts, historical activities, humanities, multipurpose arts, public
arts, and visual arts and architecture.23 The report
also showed that four out of five foundations supported the arts during the decade, ranking witheducation and health as one of the fields with thehighest share of grantmaker engagement.
The original Arts Funding study enabled the foundation community to demonstrate the consistencyof its support for arts and culture throughout timesof economic and political uncertainty. One of thequestions posed by the original report was whether
foundations would abandon the arts in responseto the deep cuts in federal human services funding
instituted by the Reagan administration early in its
first term.24 In fact, the report found that arts funding as a share of overall foundation giving held
relatively steady, despite changes in giving priorities among individual funders. This is a pattern thatlargely held true through subsequent economic
downturns and policy changes, until the postGreat Recession years.

The End of the 1980s
The 1980s witnessed fluctuations in the relative
importance of various private and public sourcesof support for the US arts and cultural communitythat would be magnified in the following decade.
Yet, the overall outlook was positive as growing
resources helped to fuel the expansion of the artsand cultural sector. Sociologist and foundation
arts funding expert Paul DiMaggio had noted at
mid-decade that “in the aggregate, the pluralistic
system of American arts support remains relatively
stable and capable of maintaining the current volume of artistic activity.”25 Richard Mittenthal, oneof GIA’s founding members, observed at decade’s
end that “the American system of support for thearts is envied by many other nations.”26 The next
decade would realize even greater growth in overall support for the arts, but not without the field ofarts funders having to come together to make thecase for why arts and culture matter.

5

6

GIA RESEARCH

The 1990s: Making the Case in a
Growing Field
The 1990s kicked off with another recession,a “first Gulf War,” and the sense that the very
best times — at least in terms of rapid growth inprivate and public support for the arts — might
have passed, along with the conspicuous displaysof wealth that characterized the preceding decade. Yet, the 1990s ultimately proved to be thetruly record-setting decade. A robust stock market
rebound and technological revolution, combinedwith Reagan-era tax changes, led to seemingly
unprecedented growth in personal wealth that
resulted in dramatic gains in support for a widearray of priorities, including the arts. At the sametime, the culture wars of the late 1980s ultimately
resulted in the near halving of one major sourceof arts and culture support by mid-decade but also
ignited the funding community to “make the case”
for the value of public and private giving for artsand culture. The following analysis explores various
factors that affected support for the arts during“the Roaring Nineties.”27

Government
The fight over funding for the NEA in the 1990s
permeated all facets of the arts and culture community, and it activated concerns over a foundational dissonance between US public and private
funding priorities and supporting the arts. While
government support for the arts existed before
the NEA, it had been limited until after WorldWar II by “little sense of an artistic community inthis country” and “American fear of government
intervention in the private sphere combined withpersistent traditions of cultural localism.”28 Modern American foundations, which came into being
only in the early 1900s, “were created by donors
who displayed little interest in ‘high culture,’ but
great commitment to social improvement. The
result was that the paths of arts institutions andscientific philanthropy did not converge significantly for several generations.”29
Helping to increase institutional philanthropy’s
engagement with arts and culture had been thecommitment of government resources to the arts
through the NEA, along with the requirementthat these funds be matched by private contributions.30 By the start of 1990s, the NEA was seen as
having “been most effective at helping to create adiverse network for public support of the arts andincreasing the number and quality of arts institutions” over the preceding twenty-five years,31 and“this combination of government and prestigious

private foundation funding had legitimated thearts as an area for new investments by small andnewer foundations.”32 As a result, challenges to the
NEA’s very existence not only posed an immediate
threat to the thousands of arts and culture organizations it directly and indirectly supported but alsoengendered “a fear that private funding was being
affected by public controversies [which] was partof the impulse behind GIA’s desire to better understand private arts funding.”33
Ultimately, the censorship controversies that beganwith the NEA-supported Mapplethorp and Serrano
exhibitions in 1989 led to a radical reduction in
the NEA’s resources and role.34 While the value offederal appropriations to the NEA had declined
steadily in inflation-adjusted dollars since 1990,
the nominal value of appropriations had remained
relatively stable through 1995. A change in congressional leadership following the 1994 elections,however, ultimately led to a nearly two-fifths
reduction in the NEA appropriation in 1996. By

The next decade would realize evengreater growth in overall support for
the arts, but not without the field ofarts funders having to come together
to make the case for why arts andculture matter.
the end of the 1990s, the inflation-adjusted valueof federal appropriations to the NEA had declinedby more than half (54 percent) from the start ofthe decade, and the agency had moved from over adozen divisions focused on specific disciplines to “afew generic themes.” Community-based arts represented a particular casualty of these changes.35
States arts agency budgets also suffered during the
1990s due to the NEA cuts, as SAAs are the required
recipients of 40 percent of NEA funds. In addition,
the 1990–91 recession reduced state tax revenues
and resulted in a reduction in total legislative appropriations to SAAs early in the decade. As the US
economy boomed in the latter half of the decade,replenishing state budgets, the inflation-adjusted
value of legislative appropriations to SAAs in 1999
ended up about 3 percent higher than at the startof the decade. By comparison, direct expendituresby local arts agencies declined by close to 7 percent
after inflation during this period. Nonetheless,Grantmakers in the Arts

GIA RESEARCH

estimated expenditures by LAAs totaled $634.2 million in 1999, and together with the NEA and SAA
appropriations, their combined resources for artsand culture totaled $1.1 billion.

Private Contributions
The arts regained lost ground in the 1990s, withprivate contributions for arts and culture — including support primarily from individuals, as well asfrom foundations and corporations — growing at afaster rate than private contributions overall. Total
private contributions for the arts rose from $3.7 billion in 1990 to $8.8 billion in 1999.36 After inflation,
this represented a 93 percent increase in resources
FIGURE 3. Change in support for the arts: 1990s
120.0%
100.0%

115%
93%

80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%

-12%

-20.0%
Foundations1

Total private
contributions2

Government3

1. Based on inflation-adjusted estimates of foundation giving for artsand culture for 1990 to 1999 from Arts Funding IV, Foundation
Center, 2003.
2. Based on inflation-adjusted estimates of total private contributions
for US arts and cultural organizations for 1990 to 1999 from Giving USA. Figure includes foundation giving.
3. Based on inflation-adjusted total federal appropriations to the
National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) for 1990 to 1999 from the
NEA; inflation-adjusted total legislative appropriations to state arts
agencies for 1990 to 1999 from the National Assembly of State
Arts Agencies; and estimates of direct expenditures on the arts by
local governments for 1990 to 1999 from Americans for the Arts.

for the arts. By comparison, private contributions
overall rose a robust but lesser 67 percent during
this period. As a result, arts and culture as a shareof overall private contributions rose to 4.3 percent,nearly matching the share recorded in 1980.

Corporations
Growth in corporate support for the arts appeared
to keep pace with overall increases in corporate
giving during the 1990s. According to Giving USA,
corporate giving — including direct corporate

SPECIAL REPORT Reader 29.1 Winter 2018

contributions and corporate foundation support— rose an estimated 52 percent after inflation
between 1990 and 1999.37 While not a precise overlap in time, the Business Committee for the Arts
estimated that arts and culture funding by businesses with at least $1 million in annual revenues
grew by 59 percent after inflation between 1991
and 2000.38

Foundations
The controversies surrounding the NEA in the 1990s
led GIA and a number of individual foundations
to support efforts that could help to make a caseto government officials and private donors for thevalue of arts and culture to US society. Examples ofthese efforts include the first Arts Funding studies
and mappings of the social and economic benefits of the arts in specific communities.39 Whileattempting to draw a direct connection between
these activities and the priorities of foundations
would be specious, the rapidly expanding US foundation community resoundingly showed its support
for arts and culture over the course of the decade.
Propelled by robust economic growth and thedecisions of individual donors to establish foundations as a vehicle for their philanthropy, between
1990 and 1999 the number of active grantmaking
US foundations grew by 55 percent, surpassing the
45 percent growth rate of the 1980s. These foundations, numbering more than 50,000 by decade’s
end, provided an estimated $3.3 billion for arts andculture in 1999, up from $1.2 billion in 1990. Afterinflation, this represented a more than doublingin foundation support for the arts. Moreover, unlike in the 1980s when overall giving grew notably
faster than arts giving, the increase in foundation
funding for the arts basically matched the pace ofgrowth in foundation giving overall during thisperiod (115 percent versus 117 percent).
The remarkable gain in foundation resources
focused on the arts did not lead to any notablechanges in the overall distribution of funds. The
performing arts and museums continued to account for a majority of foundation grant dollars,as they do currently. Nonetheless, the third editionof Arts Funding, which focused primarily on 1996,
did highlight several funding trends, including
arts funders increasing use of intermediaries andregranting programs to broaden their support, aninterest in funding smaller arts organizations andthe “unincorporated arts,” and engagement inmapping the connections between the arts and thecommunity to “create greater recognition of thediverse ways in which members of the community

7

8

GIA RESEARCH
FIGURE 4. Change in foundation support for the arts:
1990s
120.0%
100.0%

117%

115%

80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%

All foundation
givingArts and culture
givingSource: Arts Funding IV, Foundation Center, 2003; and Foundation Yearbook, Foundation Center, 2010. Percent change based on
inflation-adjusted giving between 1990 and 1999.

experience culture,” nurture “closer ties” among
the formal and informal arts, and encourage “public policies that support a richly diverse cultural
ecology.”40 The report also incorporated its first
analyses of foundation support for “ethnic arts”
and arts education.

The End of the 1990s
An assessment of public and private support for
the arts at the end of the Roaring Nineties would
have to take a generally optimistic tone. Despite
the NEA controversy that raged throughout muchof the decade, federal appropriations for the NEA
had largely stabilized by decade’s end, and SAA
and LAA resources were rising again as the booming economy replenished government coffers.
Meanwhile, total inflation-adjusted private contributions for the arts had nearly doubled, while
foundation funding for arts and culture had morethan doubled after inflation. Nonetheless, the arts
community remained concerned about increasing“isolation and marginalization” of the arts “in thewake of the culture wars and a perceived anti-arts
backlash.”41 It would soon face a greater set ofchallenges as the “tech bust” caused a recession
early in the new century, followed just seven years
later by the most severe economic crisis the UnitedStates had faced since the Great Depression.

The 2000s: Holding Steady and Losing
GroundA “decade” provides a convenient frame forconsidering larger historical changes but rarely affords a precise fit with actual events. This has been

especially true since the start of the new millennium. The dot-com bubble that helped to propel
growth in wealth and philanthropy in the latter
half of the 1990s had deflated by 2001, leading theUnited States into its first recession in ten years.
Before the recession officially ended in November of that year, the country also experienced theunprecedented terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001. Yet, the pattern of the prior decade, with arecession followed by robust economic growth, appeared to repeat as inflated housing prices driven
upward by dubious lending practices and seemingly limitless consumer borrowing led to astonishing new levels of economic growth and wealthcreation. Arts and culture benefited at a pace withother sectors during this period.
The “new fundamentals” of this economy did notsurvive the decade. By December 2007, the country
was facing the worst financial crisis since the 1929
stock market crash and had entered a nineteenmonth economic downturn that came to be known
as the Great Recession. While the stock market
recovered more quickly than could have been anticipated during the frightening early days of the crisis, restoring wealth to investors, the full economic
recovery was slow and took far longer. For the arts,
a complete recovery has yet to take place.
The following analysis examines how support for
the arts has fluctuated during the tumultuous
period between 2000 and 2014. Unlike in prioreconomic downturns, where the arts showed consistency and resilience, an examination of recent
arts and culture revenue and public and private
funding suggests that the arts as they are traditionally perceived may represent a diminishing priority
for foundation and corporate donors. While thenominal value of support for arts and culture in
the United States remains impressive, relative tochanges in support for other priorities, the arts
have unquestionably lost ground.

Government
The NEA began the new millennium with thelowest appropriation since 1975 but managed toregain congressional support over the next decadethrough stronger national leadership in the arts.
From a low of $97.6 million in 2000, appropriations
to the NEA rebounded to $167.5 million in 2010.
While still making direct grants, the NEA had pivoted toward establishing “large initiatives designed
to incorporate local organizations into broader national partnerships.” This allowed for both economies of scale and the generation of greater attention for local organizations. These new initiatives

Grantmakers in the Arts

GIA RESEARCH“provided the public — including the media andgovernment officials — with tangible examples of
the Arts Endowment’s achievements.”42 Nonetheless, the 2010 appropriation still totaled less thanthe peak appropriation level recorded back in theearly 1990s. After 2010, annual federal appropriations to the NEA declined for three consecutive
years before increasing again to $146 million in
2014. Despite these fluctuations in support, federal
appropriations for the NEA were about 9 percent
higher after inflation in 2014 than at the start of
the new century.

In the first year of the new millennium, arts andculture benefited from 4.6 percent of total private
contributions, including giving by individuals, foundations, and corporations. In 2014, it accounted for
4.5 percent, suggesting just a minor fluctuation in
support during this period. Estimated private contributions for the arts reached $16 billion in 2014,
up from $10.6 billion in 2000. After inflation, thisrepresented a 10 percent gain. During the same period, total private contributions for all sectors roseclose to 14 percent after inflation.

Appropriations to SAAs, which had realized marginal positive growth after inflation in the 1990s,
declined by 43 percent after inflation between
2000 and 2014. While political factors and community interests unquestionably affect SAA appropriation levels to varying degrees across states, the primary factor influencing their appropriations is state
tax revenues. SAA appropriations peaked in 2001
at $449.5 million, reflecting the booming economy
that had filled state coffers in the late 1990s andinto 2000. This record high was followed by threeconsecutive years of declining appropriations. Afterthe onset of the Great Recession, combined SAA
appropriations declined for four consecutive years,
from 2009 to 2012. In 2014, appropriations for
SAAs totaled $306.5 million. Within this context,
some SAAs have begun to reassess how they canmost effectively serve the residents of their states.43

FIGURE 5. Change in support for the arts: 2000s

LAAs also showed a decline in the value of theirexpenditures since the start of the new century.
Although LAA expenditures rose modestly from$668.7 million in 2000 to $685.2 million in 2014,
the value of these expenditures dropped by almost

In the new millennium, funding for artsand culture remains a substantial but
seemingly shrinking priority for the US
foundation community.
26 percent after inflation. Reflecting the turbulent
economic times, expenditures by LAAs decreased in2003 and 2004 and for three consecutive years from2009 through 2011.

Private Contributions
Private contributions for the arts appear to be
more sensitive to the effects of economic downturns than is true for private contributions overall.

SPECIAL REPORT Reader 29.1 Winter 2018

20.0%
10.0%
0.0%

10%
-3%

-29%

-10.0%-20.0%-30.0%
Foundations1

Total private
contributions2

Government3

1. Based on inflation-adjusted estimates of foundation giving for artsand culture for 2000 to 2014 from Arts Funding IV, Foundation
Center, 2003, and additional estimates of arts giving prepared byauthor.
2. Based on inflation-adjusted estimates of total private contributions
for US arts and cultural organizations for 2000 to 2014 from Giving USA. Figure includes foundation giving.
3. Based on inflation-adjusted total federal appropriations to the
National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) for 2000 to 2014 from the
NEA; inflation-adjusted total legislative appropriations to state arts
agencies for 2000 to 2014 from the National Assembly of State
Arts Agencies; and estimates of direct expenditures on the arts by
local governments for 2000 to 2014 from Americans for the Arts.

In reality, however, the tech-bust recession led toan estimated 2 percent dip in inflation-adjusted private contributions overall in 2001 but a more than
10 percent decline in inflation-adjusted private contributions for the arts. Between 2007 and 2009, atthe height of the Great Recession, estimated total
private contributions declined less than 15 percent
after inflation, compared to a close to 19 percent
drop in inflation-adjusted private contributions forarts and culture. Moreover, the arts experienced
this decline as a more than 20 percent reduction
in support in 2008, followed by a slight rebound in
2009. For private giving overall, the reduction in
support took place at a fairly consistent rate overthis two-year period. While more study would beneeded to delineate all of the factors contributing to the immediate, steeper declines in private

910

GIA RESEARCH
FIGURE 6. Change in foundation support for the arts:
2000s
60.0%

59%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
-10.0%-3%
All foundation
givingArts and culture
givingSource: Arts Funding IV, Foundation Center, 2003; Foundation Stats(data.foundationcenter.org); and additional estimates of arts giving
prepared by author. Percent change based on inflation-adjusted giving between 2000 and 2014.

contributions for the arts, individual donors’ reluctance to make major capital commitments in periods of economic uncertainty undoubtedly accounts
for much of this effect.

Corporations
Corporate support for the arts has not fared wellsince the start of the new century. Data from The
Conference Board for 2000 to 2010 suggest that
corporate funding for the arts dropped by half after inflation over this period,44 in contrast to Giving
USA’s projected 16 percent rise in overall corporate
contributions after inflation during the same timeframe.45 Corporate giving for the arts declined in2003 and 2004 and for three consecutive years from2008 through 2010. Subsequent research suggests
an upturn in corporate support for the arts beginning in 2013.46
A recent analysis of corporate giving for the arts
found that 81 percent of surveyed companies provided philanthropic support, while a lesser 73 percent of these companies gave to arts organizations.
Smaller companies were more likely to fund the arts,
which “reflects the fact that small businesses tend
to focus their community engagements more locallythan larger business, which have already spreadtheir operations nationally or internationally.”
Among the potential factors affecting corporate
support for the arts may be the ability of the sector to demonstrate impact. The report’s authors

observed, “Most companies are not focused on
measuring the impact of arts support, but rather
see it simply as a necessary practice that does not
require much further investment.”47 This conclusion was echoed in another recent study, whose
author concluded, “As corporations integrate theirphilanthropic giving into the ‘double bottom line’
with an eye toward quantifiable return on their‘investments,’ arts and culture are often at a disadvantage in relation to other programmatic focus
areas (e.g., education, health, and the environment), which may benefit from a greater array of‘countable’ outcomes.”48

Foundations
In the new millennium, funding for arts and culture
remains a substantial but seemingly shrinking priority for the US foundation community. Estimated US
foundation giving for the arts totaled $4.9 billion
in 2014, up from $3.7 billion in 2000. Yet after
accounting for inflation, the value of foundation
support for the arts declined by 3 percent during
this period. In contrast, foundation funding overallclimbed 59 percent after inflation between 2000
and 2014. As a result, arts and culture accounted
for an estimated 8 percent of total US foundation
giving in 2014, down from well over 13 percent in
the early years of the 2000s.49
In the wake of the 2001 tech-bust recession,changes in funding for the arts remained generally consistent with trends in overall foundation giving. Both registered declines in support
in 2002 and a rebound in 2003, consistent withprior observations that funders in general maintain consistent giving priorities during economic
downturns.50 A 2010 study of the response of

Estimated US foundation giving for thearts totaled $4.9 billion in 2014, up from
$3.7 billion in 2000. Yet after accounting
for inflation, the value of foundation
support for the arts declined by 3
percent during this period.
leading arts funders to the Great Recession also
found that “the vast majority of funders have notchanged their strategic focus as a result of therecession.” Although, the authors added, “Manyfunders, especially corporate and community
foundation officers, report that making the caseGrantmakers in the Arts

GIA RESEARCH
FIGURE 7. Arts funding as a share of total foundation funding: 2000s
16.0%
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%

13.4%

8.2%

8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010*

2011

2012

2013

2014

Source: Arts Funding IV, Foundation Center, 2003; Foundation Stats (data.foundationcenter.org); and additional estimates of arts giving prepared by author.
* In 2010, the Walton Family Foundation made grants totaling $1.2 billion to the Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art.

for arts support is getting harder in the face ofpressure to address mounting human service andsocial service needs.”51
In fact, before the onset of the Great Recession at
the end of 2007, estimated arts and culture grantmaking had already slipped to less than 12 percent
of overall foundation funding. Without a comprehensive survey of arts funders, there is no precise
way to determine the extent to which the GreatRecession has affected funding priorities versus
other factors. However, an analysis of the 2014 arts
funding of foundations that ranked among the
top one hundred arts funders tracked in Foundation Center’s grants sample in 2000 does raise someinteresting questions. Among these one hundred
funders, the vast majority (eighty-eight) continued to provide support for the arts in 2014. Of theremainder, eight were inactive or terminated, andjust four remain active but no longer fund the arts.
Nonetheless, while most of these funders remain
active in supporting the arts, the level of theirfinancial commitment has in many cases undergone
a relative or actual reduction. Specifically, of theeighty-eight still-active arts funders, almost half
(forty-three) no longer ranked among the top one
hundred arts funders included in the 2014 Foundation Center sample.52
Another factor that appears to be contributing to
the reduction in the share of foundation funding
supporting arts and culture is differing priorities
among millennial foundations. An examinationof foundation support for arts and culture in 2014
reveals a marked difference between foundations
established before and after 2000. Among funders
included in Foundation Center’s 2014 data set,
91 percent of those established before 1950 fundthe arts. For foundations established in the 1990s,
this share stands at 80 percent. In contrast, among

SPECIAL REPORT Reader 29.1 Winter 2018

foundations included in Foundation Center’s data
set that were established from 2000 forward, a substantially lower 63 percent made at least one grant
for arts and culture in 2014.
Further research would be needed to understandthe factors that are influencing these relatively
newer institutional donors to either fund or notfund arts and culture. But it appears that the casefor arts funding that attracted so many foundations in recent decades may not be resonating asstrongly with newer donors. This finding may also
not come as a surprise to funders active in the field
FIGURE 8. Status of year 2000’s top 100 foundation
arts funders in year 2014
No Longer
Funding Arts
4%
Unranked
Arts Funder1
19%

Inactive/Terminated8%
Top 100
Arts Funder
45%

Below Top 100
Arts Funder24%
Source: Foundation Center, 2017. Percent change based on inflation-adjusted giving between 2000 and 2014.
1. Includes foundations that either no longer qualify for inclusion in the
FC 1000 set based on the amount of their overall giving or whose
2014 data were unavailable at the time Foundation Center prepared
its data set.

in recent decades. In the 1999 Arts Funding interview study, grantmakers expressed concern that“the arts may be overlooked by new donors” andthat “educating donors about the importance of
supporting the arts [represents] an important challenge for arts funders.”53

11

12

GIA RESEARCH

share of revenue for US arts organizations — andthe overwhelming source of revenue for mostother types of nonprofit organizations — comesfrom earned income, including fees for services
from private and government sources, investment
income, and other revenue. Between 2000 and2013, the latest year for which comparable data
are available, earned income as a share of total
nonprofit revenue for arts organizations slippedfrom 49 percent to 46 percent.54

FIGURE 9. Share of foundations funding the arts byperiod of establishment: 2014
Period ofEstablishment91%Pre-1950
1950s and
1960s

83%

1970s and
1980s

87%

1990s

Over this same period, individual giving has become an even more important source of support
for nonprofit arts organizations. While foundation funding and government grants represented
slightly smaller shares of overall arts nonprofit
revenue in 2013 (14 percent and 10 percent, respectively), other sources of public support, including
individual giving and corporate direct and indirectcontributions (but excluding corporate foundation giving), increased as a share of revenue from
25 percent to 30 percent. Given the overall reduction in corporate support for the arts since 2000,
this growth in nonprofit arts organization revenue
reflects increased giving by individuals for the arts.

80%

2000s

63%
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Source: Based on the Foundation Center's 2014 FC 1000 data set, which
includes all grants of $10,000 or more awarded by 1,000 of the largest US
foundations by giving. Forty-three foundations in the set lacked establishment information, and 20 of these funders (47 percent) made at least one
grant with a primary focus on the arts.

Finally, despite the extreme economic fluctuations
that took place in the early 2000s, the distributionof arts and culture funding in 2014 continued tolook remarkably similar to the early 1980s: museums and the performing arts accounted for amajority of grant dollars, and a substantial share offunding was concentrated among a small numberof major arts and cultural institutions.

Total revenue for nonprofit arts organizations has
risen just ahead of inflation since 2000. However,this growth has not kept pace with increases in thenumber of arts organizations or total US nonprofit
revenue. In 2013, overall revenue for the country’s
arts and culture organizations totaled $33.6 billion,
up from $24.3 billion. After inflation, this represented a just over 2 percent increase. By comparison, total US nonprofit revenue jumped 58 percent
during this period. Consequently, nonprofit arts
organizations slipped from representing 3 percent
of total nonprofit revenue in 2000 to 1.9 percent

Revenue of Nonprofit Arts
Organizations
The preceding analyses have examined changes inpublic and private funding for arts and culture in
the United States since 2000, which account for amajority of support for nonprofit arts organizations in this country. However, the single largest

FIGURE 10. Sources of revenue for nonprofit arts organizations: 2000s
2000
Foundations4
15%

Other
PublicSupport3
25%

Gov’t Grants2
11%

2005
EarnedIncome149%Foundations4
16%

Other
PublicSupport3
24%

Gov’t Grants2
12%

2013
EarnedIncome147%Foundations4
14%

Other
PublicSupport3
30%

EarnedIncome146%

Gov’t Grants2
10%

Source: The Nonprofit Almanac, Urban Institute, 2008 and 2016 editions for charities that report to the IRS on Form 990. This includes all charities with $50,000 or
more in annual gross receipts, excluding religious organizations and congregations.. Due to rounding, percentages many not total 100 percent.
1. Includes fee for service from government and private sources and net income from sale of inventory, investment income, and net income from special
events and other revenue.
2. Excludes fees paid by government sources.
3. Includes individual and corporate direct and indirect contributions, excluding corporate foundation giving.
4. Estimates of foundation arts and culture giving prepared by author and include corporate foundation giving but exclude giving to non-US recipients.

Grantmakers in the Arts

GIA RESEARCH
FIGURE 11. Change in nonprofit arts organizations’revenue: 2000s
60.0%

58%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%

2%
All nonprofit
revenue

Arts nonprofit
revenue

Source: The Nonprofit Almanac, Urban Institute, 2008 and 2016
editions for charities that report to the IRS on Form 990. This includes
all charities with $50,000 or more in annual gross receipts, excluding
religious organizations and congregations. Percent change based on
inflation-adjusted revenue between 2000 and 2013.

in 2013. Concurrently, the number of arts organizations reporting to the IRS grew 21 percent during
this time,55 meaning that the average value of revenue available for each of these arts organizations
declined from $1 million to approximately $850,000
after inflation.

The Future: Data Always Leadto More Questions
The same data often tell more than one story, andthat holds especially true for this reflection onchanges in support for the arts over recent decades.
While sources of revenue fluctuated to varying
degrees in the 1980s and 1990s, overall support for
the rapidly expanding US arts and cultural community generally increased at a rate well ahead ofinflation. The 2000s so far present a more mixed
picture, as support for arts and culture appears to
represent a diminishing priority among foundations and an uncertain priority among corporations. At the same time, individual, foundation,
corporate, and government contributions for artsand culture together totaled a staggering $16 billion in 2014.56
In the first Arts Funding study published in 1993,
Stanley N. Katz commented that “the truly
encouraging development is the emergence ofa self-consciousness among arts funders (exemplified by the creation of GIA), which may pave
the way to more thoughtful private and publicfunding strategies for the field.”57 The findingspresented in this reflection highlight the critical

SPECIAL REPORT Reader 29.1 Winter 2018

importance of continually asking questions about
the well-being of the field and each institution’s
potential role in ensuring a robust and diverse artsand cultural sector.
One essential question all public and private
funders may want to consider is how their grantmaking helps to engage the interests and perspectives of younger and diverse arts creators, participants, and prospective donors. Recent data on
declines in arts participation in “benchmark” arts
activities suggest a generational shift away fromsupporting the types of institutions traditionally
thought of as embodying the arts in the UnitedStates.58 As former GIA president Janet Brown
observed in a recent look back on her tenure withthe organization, “I refuse to believe participationin the arts is down. . . . I think people make moreart today and we have more young artists and arts
appreciators than ever before.”59 However, waysof engaging with the arts and expectations for theways that the arts need to speak to the challengesof poverty, educational disparities, and other factors may have changed. Twenty-five years ago, Katz
perceived a waning of interest in supporting the

The 2000s so far present a more mixed
picture, as support for arts and culture
appears to represent a diminishingpriority among foundations and an
uncertain priority among corporations.
arts among foundations, corporations, and governments and posed a challenge to the arts community
to either “revitalize its existing appeal to funders,or . . . reconsider the grounds upon which it has
based its appeal for the last 30 years.”60
Arguably, this questioning of the rationale for supporting arts and culture throughout the politicalcontroversies of the 1980s and 1990s and economic
tumult of the 2000s has played an essential rolein creating the robust and organized arts funding
community that exists today. It has also promoted
a rigorous research agenda to understand andconvey the value of arts and culture to all facetsof society. The authors of the first Arts Funding
study, Nathan Weber and Loren Renz, identified its
purpose as seeking “to determine whether funding in the 1980s ‘opened up’ access to foundation
grants, or continued to perpetuate fairly narrow
distribution patterns” for large legacy cultural

13

14

GIA RESEARCH
FIGURE 12. Arts organization revenue as a share of total nonprofit revenue: 2000s
4.0%
3.0%
3.0%

1.9%

2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Source: The Nonprofit Almanac, Urban Institute, 2008 and 2016 editions for charities that report to the IRS on Form 990. This includes all charities with $50,000 or
more in annual gross receipts, excluding religious organizations and congregations.

institutions.61 This article continues the now wellestablished tradition of arts funders supporting andembracing research on the arts and culture sector.
As with any research inquiry, this retrospective
look at public and private support for arts andculture over the past few decades has highlighted
and contextualized a number of trends, while alsosuggesting questions meriting further inquiry.
Among those that may be most essential for artsand culture funders to consider in coming years
are the following:• Why have more recently established foundations chosen to fund the arts, and canthese learnings be used to engage more new
foundation funders in supporting arts andculture? Among newer foundations that do
not support the arts, how did they determine
their funding priorities, and were the arts andculture even considered?
• In what ways has arts and culture become embedded in health, education, the environment,or other sectors that may not be apparent inaggregate funding data? To what extent havefunders adopted a more intersectional approach to their grantmaking?
• What are arts funders overall thinking about
the well-being of the sector at this juncture?
What do they perceive to be key priorities andopportunities over the next several years?
• How does my funding explicitly support thedevelopment of a viable and inclusive arts
community for the future?
The first Arts Funding study was published at atime when the Internet was still largely used byacademics and cell phones were luxury items thesize of walkie-talkies. Yet the arts sector in 2018
shares some notable similarities with 1993. The
NEA ranks as the single largest funder of the arts

in most years and is at possible risk for defunding
by a new administration.62 The country has grown
more ethnically diverse, and the bulk of foundation
arts grantmaking supports large cultural institutions reflecting a European cultural tradition. Arts
funders of all types worry about and at times growweary from the continual need to “make the case”
for the value of arts and culture within the broader
society and their own institutions.
What has changed radically over the past quarter
century is the shared awareness among public andprivate arts and culture funders of the need tocome together regularly, learn from one another,

The country has grown more ethnicallydiverse, and the bulk of foundation arts
grantmaking supports large cultural
institutions reflecting a European
cultural tradition.
reach decisions informed by research, and takecoordinated action to ensure that the US arts andculture sector continues to thrive in ways that will
engage, inspire, and challenge individuals andcommunities. GIA has been at the forefront of thisevolution and will ensure that the sector continues
asking the necessary questions and learning fromreasoned answers over the next twenty-five years.
Steven Lawrence is an independent consultant and seniorresearch affiliate at TCC Group.

Grantmakers in the Arts

GIA RESEARCHACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The decades’ worth of knowledge reflected in this article exists becauseof the many organizations and individuals who have believed in thefundamental value of the arts and the importance of being able to measureand explain its contributions. The endnotes offer an introductory listingof many of the pioneers in tracking public and private funding for thearts. Among these innovators is Loren Renz, who established Foundation Center’s research department, led the development of the first Arts
Funding benchmark study for the Center, served as lead author on all of
the subsequent reports in the series, and introduced me to the world of
research on philanthropy. Among contemporary researchers who provided
me with support in preparing this article are Randy Cohen at Americans
for the Arts, Sunil Iyengar at the National Endowment for the Arts, Reina
Mukai at Foundation Center, and Ryan Stubbs at the National Assemblyof States Arts Agencies. Finally, the inspiration for this article came from
Janet Brown, former president and CEO of GIA, and Jim McDonald, former
GIA deputy director and director of programs. They have been exemplarsof the GIA research tradition, bringing curiosity, insight, and a clear senseof mission to the creation of new knowledge for the field. It has been mypleasure to partner with them in creating this reflection.

NOTES
1.

Stanley N. Katz, “Can the Arts Enter the Philanthropic Mainstream?,” inArts Funding: A Report on Foundation and Corporate Grantmaking Trends,
by Nathan Weber and Loren Renz (New York: Foundation Center, 1993).

2.

John Kreidler, “From Neolithic Prehistory to the Classical Era: Grantmakers
in the Arts 1983–1998,” GIA Reader 17, No. 3 (Winter 2006).

3.

Nathan Weber and Loren Renz, Arts Funding: A Report on Foundation andCorporate Grantmaking Trends (New York: Foundation Center, 1993).

4.

Loren Renz, Steven Lawrence, and Rikard R. Treiber, Arts Funding Revisited:
An Update on Foundation Trends in the 1990s (New York: Foundation
Center, 1995); Loren Renz and Steven Lawrence, Arts Funding: An Update
on Foundation Trends (New York: Foundation Center, 1998); Loren Renz
and Caron Atlas, Arts Funding 2000: Funder Perspectives on Current andFuture Trends (New York: Foundation Center, 1999); and Loren Renz,
Steven Lawrence, and L. Marino, Arts Funding IV: An Update on Foundation Trends (New York: Foundation Center, 2003).

Business Support for the Arts in the US (New York: Research and Forecasts, 1988).
18. Research and Forecasts, The BCA Report.
19. Community foundations are not subject to the same payout requirements
as private foundations and, therefore, could be seen as a preferable option
for preserving philanthropic resources.
20. Kreidler, “From Neolithic Prehistory to the Classical Era.”
21. Paul Farhi, “Number of US Millionaires Soars,” Washington Post, July 11, 1992.
22. The analysis presented in the 1993 Arts Funding report began with datafor 1983. Comparable estimates of foundation giving for the arts in earlier
years are not available.
23. These findings were based on an analysis of giving by a subset of thelargest US foundations included in Foundation Center’s grants samples for
1983, 1986, and 1989. For a detailed breakdown of current categories ofarts and culture funding included in Foundation Center’s Philanthropy Classification System, visit http://taxonomy.foundationcenter.org/subjects.
24. Nathan Weber and Loren Renz, “Foundation Funding for the Arts before
the 1980s,” in Arts Funding: A Report on Foundation and Corporate Grantmaking Trends (New York: Foundation Center, 1993).
25. Paul DiMaggio, The Role of Independent Foundations in Support of theArts, Ford Foundation study, 1985.
26. Mittenthal et al., The Arts in Chicago.
27. Joseph E. Stiglitz, The Roaring Nineties: A New History of the World’s Most
Prosperous Decade (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2003).
28. Katz, “Can the Arts Enter the Philanthropic Mainstream?”
29. Ibid.
30. Mittenthal, “Testimony Submitted to the Independent Commission.”
31. The Arts in America, 1990: The Bridge Between Creativity and Community,
National Endowment for the Arts, 1989.
32. Katz, “Can the Arts Enter the Philanthropic Mainstream?”
33. Kreidler, “From Neolithic Prehistory to the Classical Era.”
34. Bauerlein, National Endowment for the Arts.

5.

Kreidler, “From Neolithic Prehistory to the Classical Era.”

35. Dudley Cocke, “The Unreported Arts Recession of 1997,” GIA Reader 22,
No. 2 (Summer 2011).

6.

Richard Mittenthal, “Testimony Submitted to the Independent Commission
Reviewing the National Endowment for the Arts,” July 23, 1990.

36. Giving USA 2016.

7.

William H. Honan, “Book Discloses That Reagan Planned to Kill National
Endowment for the Arts,” New York Times, May 15, 1988.

8.

National Endowment for the Arts, How the United States Funds the Arts
(Washington, D.C.: National Endowment for the Arts, 2012).

9.

Mark Bauerlein with Ellen Grantham, National Endowment for the Arts:
A History 1965–2008 (Washington, D.C.: National Endowment for theArts, 2009).

10. Richard Mittenthal et al., The Arts in Chicago: A Report to the Community,
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation study (New York: Conservation Company, 1989).
11. National Endowment for the Arts, Local Arts Agencies Fact Sheet, September 2015.
12. R. Huff, “Local Arts Agencies Impact Community Life,” Cambridge Arts
Council Newsletter, December 1989. Major metropolitan areas include
those with populations over 250,000. In 1989, this represented 114 metropolitan areas.
13. Giving USA 2016: The Annual Report on Philanthropy for the Year 2015
(Chicago: Giving USA Foundation, 2016). Giving USA includes corporate
foundation giving in its estimates of overall corporate philanthropy.
14. Ibid.
15. Mittenthal et al., The Arts in Chicago.
16. Ibid.
17. Anne Klepper, Corporate Contributions, 1990 (New York: Conference
Board, 1992); Research and Forecasts, The BCA Report: A New Look at

SPECIAL REPORT Reader 29.1 Winter 201837. Ibid.
38. Business Committee for the Arts, The BCA Report: 2001 National Survey ofBusiness Support for the Arts (New York: Americans for the Arts, 2001).
39. Nina K. Cobb, “The New Philanthropy: Its Impact on Funding Arts andCulture,” Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 32, No. 2 (Summer 2002).
40. Renz and Lawrence, Arts Funding.
41. Renz and Atlas, Arts Funding 2000.
42. Bauerlein, National Endowment for the Arts.
43. For examples of how state arts agencies are reconsidering their roles andfunding strategies, see Steven Lawrence, “Recalculating the Formula for
Success: Public Arts Funders and United Arts Funds Reshape Strategies for
the Twenty-First Century,” GIA Reader 28, No. 2 (Summer 2017); and Julia
F. Lowell, State Arts Agencies 1965–2003: Whose Interests to Serve? (Wallace Foundation, 2004).
44. Randy Cohen, National Arts Index 2016: An Annual Measure of the Vitalityof Arts and Culture in the United States (Washington, D.C.: Americans for
the Arts, 2016).
45. Giving USA 2016.
46. Alex Parkinson, Graciela Kahn, Emily Peck, and Randy Cohen, BusinessContributions to the Arts: 2017 Edition (Washington, D.C.: Americans for
the Arts, 2017); CECP, Giving in Numbers (CECP in association with theConference Board, 2017).
47. Ibid.

15

16

GIA RESEARCH
48. Lynn E. Stern, Corporate Social Responsibility and the Arts (Washington,
D.C.: Americans for the Arts, 2015).

55. Public charities with $50,000 or more in annual gross receipts are required
to file Form 990 with the IRS.

49. See Foundation Stats at data.foundationcenter.org. If figures for overallfoundation giving excluded contributions of medicines made by pharmaceutical companies through their operating foundations, the share offunding accounted for by the arts would increase to an estimated 9 percent
in 2014.

56. Giving USA 2016.

50. Steven Lawrence, “Do Foundation Giving Priorities Change in Times of
Economic Distress?” (New York: Foundation Center, 2008).
51. Marcy Hinand Cady and Holly Sidford,, “Arts Funders and the Recession: A
Year Later,” GIA Reader 21, No. 3 (Fall 2010).
52. Of these forty-three funders, twenty-four were included in Foundation
Center’s 2014 “FC 1000” data set. A review of the current funding priorities of the remaining nineteen funders indicated that they continue to fundthe arts but may either no longer qualify for inclusion in the Foundation
Center’s grants sample based on the amount of their overall giving or may
not have made their 2014 data available at the time Foundation Center
prepared its data set.
53. Renz and Atlas, Arts Funding 2000.

57. Katz, “Can the Arts Enter the Philanthropic Mainstream?”
58. National Endowment for the Arts, A Decade of Arts Engagement: Findings
from the Survey of Public Participation in the Arts, 2002–2012 (Washington, D.C.: National Endowment for the Arts, 2015). “Benchmark” arts
activities tracked consistently by the NEA include jazz, classical music,
opera, musical and nonmusical plays, ballet, and visits to art museums orgalleries. The NEA reports that adult attendance rates have declined forthese activities since 2002.
59. Janet Brown and Douglas McLennan, “Janet Brown in Conversation with
Douglas McLennan,” GIA Reader 28, No. 3 (Fall 2017).
60. Katz, “Can the Arts Enter the Philanthropic Mainstream?”
61. Weber and Renz, Arts Funding.
62. Philip Bump, “Trump Reportedly Wants to Cut Cultural Programs That
Make Up 0.02 Percent of Federal Spending,” Washington Post, January
19, 2017.

54. Bruce S. McKeever, Nathan E. Dietz, and Saunji D. Fyffe, The Nonprofit
Almanac: The Essential Facts and Figures for Managers, Researchers, andVolunteers (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 2016); Kennard Wing,
Thomas H. Pollack, and Amy Blackwood, The Nonprofit Almanac: 2008
(Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 2008).

Grantmakers in the Arts
Supporting a Creative America

522 Courtlandt Avenue
First Floor
Bronx, NY 10451(929) 452-3740 www.giarts.org

Grantmakers in the Arts