INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES

1800 M Street NW, 9th Floor

Washington, DC 20036

202-653-IMLS (4657)

www.imls.gov

IMLS will provide visually impaired or learning-disabled individuals 

with an audio recording of this publication upon request.

Printed December 2008 in the United States of America

Credits

Produced by the IMLS Office of Policy, Planning, Research, and Communications,

under the direction of Mamie Bittner, Deputy Director, and with consultation 

from Marsha Semmel, Deputy Director for Museum Services and Director 

for Strategic Partnerships

Project Team:

Celeste Colgan, Ph.D., Expert Consultant

Carole Rosenstein, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, University at Buffalo, 

Associated Scholar, Urban Institute, Co-Principal Investigator

Carlos Manjarrez, Associate Deputy Director of Research and Statistics, IMLS 

(formerly with Urban Institute), Co-Principal Investigator

Erica Pastore, Program Analyst, IMLS 

Kevin O’Connell, Congressional Affairs Officer, IMLS

Ellen Arnold, Visual Information Specialist, IMLS

Justin Reskin, Research Assistant, Urban Institute

Mark Wolley, Research Assistant, Urban Institute

Cover Photos:

Left: Students discuss artwork on a tour of the Norton Museum of Art in West 

Palm Beach, Florida. Courtesy of the Norton Museum of Art. 

Right: An underwater viewing gallery at the John G. Shedd Aquarium in Chicago, 

Illinois. Photo by Brenna Hernandez. Courtesy of the John G. Shedd Aquarium. 

Citation

Manjarrez, C., C. Rosenstein, C. Colgan, E. Pastore. (2008). Exhibiting Public Value: 

Museum Public Finance In the United States (IMLS-2008-RES-02). Institute of 

Museum and Library Services. Washington, DC

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Exhibiting public value : museum public finance in the United States.

 p. cm.

 Written by Carlos Manjarrez, Carole Rosenstein, Celeste Colgan, and Erica Pastore.

 1. Museum finance--United States. 2. Federal aid to museums--United States. 3. 

Museums--United States--Management. I. Manjarrez, Carlos. II. Institute of Museum 

and Library Services (U.S.) 

 AM122.E97 2008

 069’.068--dc22

 2008055123
Institute of Museum and Library Services

Exhibiting Public Value: 

Government Funding for Museums in the United States

December 2008
Table of Contents

	 Dear Colleague . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

	 Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

	 	Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

I.	 Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

II. 	 Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

III. 	 Research Method and Process: A Brief Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

IV. 	 Overview of the Museum Sector in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

V. 	 Public Hearings: Perspectives from the Museum Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

VI. 	 Public Funding Sources and the Flow of Public Dollars to Museums in the U.S. . . . . . . . 42

VII. 	Public Funding for Museums at the Federal Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

VIII. 	Federal-State Partnerships in the Cultural Sector: IMLS, NEA, and NEH

and the Role of State-Level Intermediaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

IX. 	 Public Funding for Museums at the State Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

X. 	 Public Funding for Museums at the Local Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

XI. 	 Need for More Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90


Appendixes

A. 	 Research Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

B. 	 AAM Museum Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

C. 	 Federal Funding to Museums by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

1. Institute of Museum and Library Services Grants to Museums, by State, 2000–2006. . . . . . . 98

2. Institute of Museum and Library Services Grants to Museums, Per Capita, 2000–2006. . . . . 99

3. National Science Foundation Grants to Museums, by State, 2000–2006. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

4. National Science Foundation Grants to Museums, Per Capita, 2000–2006. . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

5. National Endowment for the Arts Grants to Museums, by State, 2000–2006. . . . . . . . . . . . 102

6. National Endowment for the Arts Grants to Museums, Per Capita, 2000–2006. . . . . . . . . . 103

7. National Endowment for the Humanities Grants to Museums, by State, 2000–2006. . . . . . . 104

8. National Endowment for the Humanities Grants to Museums, Per Capita, 2000–2006. . . . . 105

9. Number of Grants to Museums from IMLS, NSF, NEA, and NEH, by State, 2000–2006. . . . 106

10. Number of Earmarks to States by Fiscal Year, 2001–2006. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

11. Total Federal Dollars to Museums, Per Capita, 2006. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

D. 	 State Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

a. Large States—Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 0

b. Medium-Size States—Virginia, Massachusetts, Washington. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9

c. Small States—Maine, New Mexico. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

E. 	 Interview Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

F. 	 Participants at the Public Hearings Convened in March 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

G. 	 Additional Tables: IMLS and NSF Grants by Program Area,

Earmark Appropriation by Subcommittee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

H. 	 Museum Public Finance Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

Table of Contents
dear colleague

I am proud to present Exhibiting Public Value: Government 

Funding for Museums in the United States, the first-ever comprehensive examination of the ways in which government at all levels 

support the museum sector.

Since I was appointed Director of the Institute of Museum and 

Library Services in 2006, I have been encouraged to see the 

museum community’s energetic efforts to examine what public 

funding strategies could most effectively increase the capacity of 

museums to serve society. Public funding helps museums deliver 

quality services that strengthen communities, families, individuals and the nation. This study documents the variety of methods 

by which the museum sector receives government support at the 

local, state and national levels. 

The study also exposes gaps in the network of public support for 

the nation’s rich and diverse museum sector. Government funding 

must be equitable and call museums to the highest standard of 

public service. I hope that this report sparks continued dialogue 

about how best to structure public funding to achieve such broad 

public policy goals as sustaining and preserving cultural heritage 

and advancing our nation’s goals for education, life-long learning 

and civic engagement.

Dr. Anne-Imelda Radice

Director, Institute of Museum and Library Services
PREFACE

Museums provide the public with opportunities for lifelong learning and are vital stewards of our 

cultural heritage. This report proceeds from the premise that museums provide value to the American public. Museums are widely acknowledged as educational institutions that engage with schools, 

families, and communities; they connect the whole of society to the cultural, artistic, historical, 

natural, and scientific understandings that constitute our heritage; and they collect and conserve 

tangible objects—animate and inanimate—for the benefit of future generations. 

The Museum Services Act provides the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) with 

a broad framework to achieve specific outcomes. As cited in the statute (20 U.S.C. §9171), federal 

funds allocated to IMLS are directed to museums for the following purposes:

to encourage and support museums in carrying out their public service role of connecting 

the whole of society to the cultural, artistic, historical, natural, and scientific understandings that constitute our heritage;

to encourage and support museums in carrying out their educational role as core providers 

of learning and in conjunction with schools, families, and communities;

to encourage leadership, innovation, and application of the most current technologies and 

practices to enhance museum services;

to assist, encourage, and support museums in carrying out their stewardship responsibilities 

to achieve the highest standards in conservation and care of the cultural, historic, natural, 

and scientific heritage of the United States to benefit future generations;

to assist, encourage, and support museums in achieving the highest standards of management and service to the public, and to ease the financial burden borne by museums as a 

result of their increasing use by the public; and

to support resource sharing and partnerships among libraries, schools, and other community organizations.

Sec. 9172 of the statute defines a museum as “a public or private nonprofit agency or institution organized on a permanent basis for essentially educational or aesthetic purposes, that utilizes 

a professional staff, owns or utilizes tangible objects, cares for the tangible objects, and exhibits 

the tangible objects to the public on a regular basis. Such term includes aquariums, arboretums, 

botanical gardens, art museums, children’s museums, general museums, historic houses and sites, 

history museums, nature centers, natural history and anthropology museums, planetariums, science and technology centers, specialized museums, and zoological parks.”

.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.
The authors would like to extend their gratitude to the many individuals and institutions who 

contributed to the study. More than 1,000 institutions from all six museum regions in the country 

responded to the Museum Public Finance Survey. This study would not have been possible without 

the significant time and effort of the museum professionals who represented their institutions in 

completing the survey and provided detailed financial accounts of their organizations. 

Hundreds of individuals and a whole spectrum of federal, state, and local agencies as well as 

other organizations contributed to the analysis of this report. The National Endowment for the Arts 

(NEA), the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), 

the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, and Citizens Against Government Waste provided 

the data necessary for the account of federal museum funding. In addition, NEA, NEH, and NSF 

staff greatly informed the research process through interviews conducted with the research team. 

Several national museum associations also made key contributions to the analysis during research 

and data collection in the field. These associations include the American Association of Museums, 

the American Association for State and Local History, the Association of Art Museum Directors, the 

Association of Children’s Museums, and the Association of Science-Technology Centers. 

At the state and local levels, numerous agencies provided the administrative data for analysis, 

and more than 80 professionals from museums, state and local agencies, museum associations, 

foundations, and other organizations with key roles in the state and/or local museum sector provided hours of astute and informed commentary in field interviews and data collection for the eight 

case studies in Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and 

Washington. The input from these resources in the field provided a depth of insight crucial to the 

analysis of state-level cultural infrastructure and the museum sector. 

The public hearings in California, Missouri, and Ohio owe their success to the panel members, 

IMLS Director Anne-Imelda Radice, and members of the National Museum and Library Services 

Board for their vital service and input in the conduct of the hearings. We are grateful to all those 

who participated in person and in writing for providing many perspectives from the museum sector 

and giving context to the data collected in this report. A complete list of interview subjects and 

public hearing participants is contained in appendixes E and F. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was developed in response to requests from several 

members of Congress and IMLS’s interest in developing a stronger body of knowledge regarding the state of public support for 

the museum sector nationally. The intent of this study was to 

collect and provide as much detailed information as possible for 

the development of sound, evidence-based policy. The material 

presented herein does not endorse any particular public funding 

mechanism. Rather, this report is designed to enrich the policy 

discussion by providing new information about the state of government support for American museums.

Previous research on museum finance has emphasized the 

role of private and foundation philanthropy and, more recently, 

merchandising as critical to the financial survival of museums.

Though some studies have looked at the role public funds play 

in museum operations or private sector giving, they tend to 

focus narrowly on particular disciplines and their corresponding 

 DiMaggio, Paul (ed.). 1986. Nonprofit Enterprise in the Arts: Studies in 

Mission and Constraint. New York: Oxford University Press; Feldstein, Martin 

(ed.). 1991. The Economics of Art Museums. Chicago: University of Chicago 

Press.

Pictured: The Pratt Museum in Homer, Alaska.

Purpose of the Study
museum types, such as the arts and art museums.2 For more than a decade, the American Association of Museums (AAM) has examined the financial condition of museums of various types 

through surveys with museum administrators.

3 AAM collects data that are vital for understanding 

the overall financial health and operations of American museums, and it does collect information about the receipt of public dollars. However, AAM’s study is not designed to provide a broad 

account of public investments at the federal, state, or local levels.

This study set out with the following goals in mind: to understand the range of public support 

for the museum sector in the United States and to examine the scale of federal support for the 

sector, the relative contribution of public dollars to museums, and how museum stakeholders view 

the role and importance of public support. 

2 See Hughes, Patricia, and William Luksetich. 2004. “Nonprofit Arts Organizations: Do Funding Sources Influence Spending Patterns?” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 33(2): 203–220; Alexander, Victoria D. 1999. “A 

Delicate Balance: Museums and the Market-place.” Museum International 51(2): 29–34.

3 Merritt, Elizabeth (ed). 2006. Museum Financial Information. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.

Purpose of the Study
This study provides the first major review of museum public 

finance in the United States. It explores public support from 

federal, state, and local government sources, focusing particular 

attention on levels of financial support and types of delivery 

mechanisms for public funding. The decentralized nature of 

public funding for museums in the United States required 

data collection from many different sources, using a variety of 

research methods. Data were collected from the administrative records of federal, state, and local government agencies; 

from national nongovernmental entities; from more than 1,000 

museum survey respondents; and from more than 100 individuals through hearings and in-depth interviews across the country. 

For the purposes of this study, museums are defined in 

accordance with the Museum Services Act, which defines a 

museum as “a public or private nonprofit agency or institution 

organized on a permanent basis for essentially educational or 

aesthetic purposes, that utilizes a professional staff, owns or utilizes tangible objects, cares for the tangible objects, and exhibits 

the tangible objects to the public on a regular basis. Such term 

includes aquariums, arboretums, botanical gardens, art museExecutive Summary

Pictured: A family at “please touch” exhibit, Draper Museum of 

Natural History, Buffalo Bill Historical Center, Cody, 

Wyoming. Photo by Josh Boudreau.
ums, children’s museums, general museums, historic houses and sites, history museums, nature 

centers, natural history and anthropology museums, planetariums, science and technology centers, 

specialized museums, and zoological parks.” Below, we summarize themes that emerged from this 

analysis and discuss the relevance of this research to the conduct of potential federal-state museum 

funding partnerships.

Overview of Museum Public Funding

The remarkable diversity of the U.S. museum sector is well known. Budgets, staffing, and other 

resource needs range dramatically across the sector, as do visitorship and the geographic reach 

of museum services. These differences exist within museum disciplines as well. Like the private 

sector, where businesses in the same service area can operate at dramatically different scales, 

museums within the same discipline may operate as small volunteer organizations in one community and multimillion dollar operations in the next. 

This diversity in the museum sector is also reflected in the variability of museum revenue 

streams. Museum Public Finance Survey respondents reported a patchwork of financial support, 

with institutions of all types reporting different combinations of revenue from earned income, private donations, government contributions, and institutional investments. While the majority of museums in the sample reported receipt of public funds from at least one level of government —federal, 

state, or local—there was no consistent pattern of public support across the museum sector. In 

some museum types, more public support comes from one level of government. For example, on 

average, more than 50% of the public dollars reported by science and technology museums in the 

survey came from federal government sources. In contrast, local government dollars accounted for 

76% of government support on average for zoos, aquariums, and zoological societies. For other 

museum types, public support was more broadly distributed across levels of government. 

As a proportion of total revenue, government support to U.S. museums ranged between 7% 

and 33% by museum type. However, when government administered museums are removed from 

the analysis, the highest proportion of public support drops to 24%. A great deal of variation lies 

beneath this simple estimate. Because museums of different types have widely varied operating 

budgets, equivalent proportions represent radically different public dollar investments. For example, 

while science and technology centers and history museums reported similar proportions of their 

operating support coming from government sources, 30% and 32% respectively, the public dollar 

investment is quite different. For science and technology centers in the survey, the median public 

support was $289,970. For history museums, the median support was $32,182.

Museum Public Funding at the Federal Level

Museums receive federal dollars through a wide variety of federal sources. This study provides a 

detailed look at direct support to museums from the Institute of Museum and Library Services 

(IMLS), the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), the National Endowment for the Humanities 

(NEH), and the National Science Foundation (NSF), and from congressional earmarks from twelve 

Executive Summary
federal appropriation subcommittees over a seven-year period. In 2006, the last fiscal year examined for this study, federal support across the five sources amounted to slightly more than $149 

million. Of this FY 2006 total, 44% was made up of congressional earmarks to museums, 23% 

came from NSF, 21% came from IMLS and 8% and 4% came from NEH and NEA, respectively.

This review of federal-source dollars reveals a concentration of museum funding by discipline 

and geography. The disciplinary concentration is a function of museum grants flowing from federal 

agencies with discipline-specific legislated priorities such as NEA, NEH, and NSF. Disciplinefocused grants result in a higher concentration of funds available for museum services that align 

with the specific disciplines that match federal agency priorities. In contrast, IMLS supports museums as a sector, regardless of discipline. 

Geographic concentration of direct support to museums becomes evident when public finance 

is examined at the state level. Among the five federal sources examined, only IMLS provided direct 

support to museums in all 50 states in each fiscal year from FY 2000 to FY 2006. Among the 

competitive grant awards reviewed, more than 50% of the grants distributed during the seven years 

went to five states: California, New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Pennsylvania, all of which 

have large museum sectors. Earmarks were slightly less concentrated by state than are competitive 

grants. Over the six years reviewed for this study, from FY 2001 to FY 2006, 50% of the earmark 

dollars for museums went to nine states—Alabama, California, New York, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, 

Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia—and the District of Columbia. 

While this study provides new details about federal-source dollars, much more information 

is needed to provide a full account of federal support to the museum sector. On the supply side, 

more information is needed about direct support to museums from federal government agencies 

beyond those included in this study. Federal dollars to museums flow through a variety of agencies 

across the federal government. It can be very difficult to track and analyze data from the possible 

range of agencies that fund museums because some agencies may not code grants to the sector as 

“museum grants.” The data obtained for this report identified museums only by name and location, limiting the kind of analysis that could be done. For the federal sources where data on direct 

funding to museums are available, more analysis is needed about the institutions that apply and 

receive support in order to assess which segments of the sector are most successful in securing 

federal dollars. 

On the demand side, the lack of a definitive list of museums in the United States makes it 

difficult to assess how deeply federal-source dollars penetrate into the sector. While the diversity of 

U.S. museums is one of the great assets of the sector and provides for an incredibly broad range of 

services to the public, it also presents very real challenges to determining the number of museums 

in the nation. It can be difficult to provide standard definitions for organizations that collect, conserve, research, communicate, and exhibit such a wide range of the human experience. However, 

broad agreement is necessary to account for the scope of the sector and the range of museum 

services available in the United States. These basic statistics are needed for a more detailed 

assessment of how federal funding addresses the institutional needs of the museum sector.
10

Museum Public Funding and Federal-State Partnership Models

This study examined three federal-state partnerships that support the cultural sector and identified among them a set of common mechanisms for distributing federal funds through the 

state-level partner. Each of the federal agencies allocates a base grant to the state partner and 

distributes any remaining funds by population and/or equal distribution among the states. All three 

models are designed to achieve some identified public purpose, each requires that federal dollars 

be matched in some proportion by state dollars or other nonfederal sources, and the grant’s use 

is conditioned by the distinct purposes of each of the federal agencies. In addition, state-level 

partners are required to implement statewide planning and evaluations, and some models require 

a public involvement process. As is true of some direct federal support to museums, funding for 

museums delivered through current federal-state partnership programs is discipline based. Decentralized funding mechanisms in the cultural sector are seen as a way to increase citizen access 

to cultural programming and as a means for helping states cultivate and promote initiatives that 

marshal their unique assets to address locally defined priorities. At present there is no federalstate partnership with the goal of increasing the capacity for public service to the museum sector 

as a whole.

Museum Public Funding at the State Level

Much like the decentralized nature of federal government support to museums, government 

support for museums at the state level flows through a variety of different agencies and funding 

mechanisms. However, the scope of these funding mechanisms and the available infrastructure 

to deliver museum support vary considerably among the eight states studied in this report. The 

review of cultural support systems in the eight states identified very different models for administering grants to museums. While some of the states provide support to public museums through a 

single agency, others provide support through multiple agencies for discipline-specific programs in 

the arts or humanities or for other targeted statewide initiatives. 

Support mechanisms for museums at the state level vary, in part, because the perception 

of the public character of museums is very different from one place to the next. In some states, 

public support flows primarily to museums that are state owned and operated. As there are no 

standards or accepted guidelines to follow in defining which museums are (or should be) eligible 

for public support, state programs tend to target different institutions depending upon understandings of the sector’s public value and mission as well as state-specific goals and priorities for the 

funding program. For example, public support initiatives in Illinois are available only to museums 

on public land, regardless of their governance structure.

State-level support for museums may also vary based upon the financial condition of the 

state. As with other cultural support programs, state funding can fluctuate radically from one year 

to the next depending upon fiscal conditions. While federal matching grants to states may provide 

leverage for state dollars, the extent to which this leverage can hold in times of considerable fiscal 

restraint is unclear.

Executive Summary
11

The review of eight state case studies identified state-level financial support mechanisms for 

museums in all cases. However, few states have agencies that fund across the entire museum 

sector. State public cultural agencies tend to serve the arts, humanities, heritage, libraries, and 

archives as distinct constituencies. A review of state-level capacities did not provide uniform evidence that a federal-state funding partnership would galvanize support and administrative capacities at the state level. Although federal dollars may promote integration of the public cultural 

sector in some states, in others these federal dollars may prove a point of contention because they 

may challenge established agencies to develop new policies or to shift from discipline-focused 

practice in order to serve a broader cross section of museums.

Museum Public Funding at the Local Level

The study found a variety of local government cultural funding mechanisms, the largest of which 

were driven by targeted tax initiatives. Although large local investments do not exist in every state, 

some provide support in excess of the amount distributed by federal agencies for the entire country. For example, in FY 2006, NEA distributed $12.3 million through competitive grants programs 

to 149 museums across the country, while that same year, the Scientific and Cultural Facilities 

District distributed $24.7 million to four museums and one performing arts center in Denver. 

Survey respondents and public hearing participants identified local government contributions as 

important to addressing needs such as capital projects and general operating support. 

The review of local government funding also reveals concentrated investments that may 

affect the character of a federal-state partnership for museum support. Like federal funding, 

local government funding appears to cluster within certain museum types. Among Museum 

Public Finance Survey respondents, local government sources accounted for an average of 50% 

of the public support received by art museums; children’s museums; arboretums and botanical 

gardens; and zoos, aquariums, and zoological societies. A question remains as to how the concentration of these local initiatives might affect the ways in which states administer federal-state 

partnership funding. 

Future Considerations

This report provides a great deal of new information about the magnitude of federal, state and 

local funding to museums and the varying methods for delivering financial support to museums at 

the state and local levels. While the analysis sheds new light on the current state of public finance 

and explores gaps in the distribution of public funding, more information will be needed to determine whether and how a new funding model, such as a population-based state grant, could make 

a significant impact in addressing any identified gaps in museum services. An assessment of the 

impact of new funding models will require additional discussion about the purpose of new funding 

strategies as well as more information about the size of the sector and the character of museum 

services to be delivered. 
12

In accordance with its congressional mandate, the Institute of Museum and Library Services is 

working to address the need for more data about the sector and developing a more robust museum 

research program in consultation with state, regional and national museum organizations and other 

relevant agencies and organizations. The agency is committed to working with Congress and the 

museum community on analysis of potential new funding models. 

Executive Summary
1133

Pictured: A visitor gazes up at the Oriental Institute’s colossal 

stone Lamassu (721–705 BC). Photo by Wendy Ennes, courtesy 

of the Oriental Institute Museum of the University of Chicago.

In spring 2007, IMLS entered into a cooperative agreement with 

the Urban Institute, a Washington, DC-based research organization, to examine the following questions:

What mechanisms are currently used to deliver public 

funding from federal, state, county, and local governments 

to museums? 

For what purposes are public funds allocated to museums?

How do delivery mechanisms impact the quality of museum 

services? Are there gaps?

Would alternative funding models, such as a populationbased state grant, make a significant impact in addressing 

any identified gaps in museum services? 

With these questions guiding the data collection process, 

the Urban Institute conducted research by undertaking the following activities:

collecting administrative data from the federal funding 

programs that provide the most opportunities for museums: 

•

•

•

•

•

Research Method 

and Process: 

A Brief Overview
14

IMLS, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Endowment for the Humanities 

(NEH), and the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA);

collecting data from nonprofit entities that monitor congressional appropriations; 

implementing a nationally representative Web-based survey of museums, the Museum Public 

Finance Survey, that asked several questions regarding the sources and uses of public funds; and

conducting eight state-specific case studies of museums and state agencies that fund museums. 

In its analysis, the Urban Institute used categories of museum type that were identified in the 

Heritage Health Index4: art museums; arboretums and botanic gardens; children’s museums; history 

museums; historical societies; natural history and natural science museums; science and technology centers; zoos, aquariums, and zoological societies; and others (such as tribal, multi-disciplinary, 

transportation, or specialized museums).

This report draws heavily on the findings of the Urban Institute analysis provided by the research 

team headed by Carole Rosenstein and Carlos Manjarrez.

Knowing that the research undertaken by the Urban Institute would provide a wealth of data 

concerning federal programs and cultural infrastructure in selected states, IMLS gathered perspectives from knowledgeable people to provide a qualitative dimension to the study. To that end, IMLS 

convened public hearings in Ohio, Missouri, and California in March 2008 and received written comments from museum professionals, trustees, public officials, and the interested public on the means 

and uses of public dollars to support museums. 

Finally, to address directly the question of alternative funding mechanisms, IMLS assembled a 

sample of 15 states and asked the two other cultural agencies with long-standing federal-state partnerships, the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, how 

museums were funded in those states. The examples provided by IMLS’s Grants to States program, 

NEA’s State Arts Agencies, and NEH’s State Humanities Councils show various ways of providing 

funds through federal-state partnerships. 

Findings from the Urban Institute’s research efforts, together with data from federal-state partnerships and perspectives from museum-interested people, form the basis of this report.5

4 Heritage Preservation. 2005. A Public Trust at Risk: The Heritage Health Index Report on the State of America’s Collections. Washington, DC: The Institute of Museum and Library Services.

5 Appendix A describes in greater detail the methodology used to produce this report.

•

•

•

Research Method and Process: A Brief Overview
15

This section provides background information on the U.S. 

museum sector, with a particular emphasis on conditions relevant for assessing the potential impact of alternative funding 

models such as a federal-state museum funding partnership. 

One of the challenges to this task is that the groups of institutions that make up “the sector” vary greatly in terms of mission, size, and operations, and they often defy simple attempts 

at categorization. Despite these differences, the services that 

museums provide to the public, whether in rural townships or 

major cities, form an essential part of the American cultural 

and educational landscape. 

We begin by highlighting recent research on the social and 

economic impact of U.S. museums. This section is followed 

by an overview of the institutions that make up the museum 

sector, examining their geographic distribution, their principal 

governance structures, and their funding sources. A better 

understanding of these basic features of the American museum 

sector is essential for understanding the potential impact that 

new public funding mechanisms may have on museums and 

museum services.

Overview of the 

Museum Sector 

in the United States

Pictured: An American flag made in 1865, showing new repairs, 

is rolled for storage by Mary Williamson at the American Textile 

History Museum.
16

Visitation and Use of American Museums

Recent statistical reports indicate that the museum sector attracts high numbers of attendees.6

Among household surveys of Americans, the use of museums and museum services is widespread. 

In 2002, the National Science Foundation’s Science and Engineering Indicators, a nationally 

representative phone survey, reported that 69% of adults surveyed visited a museum one or more 

times per year. The most recent household survey to report on museum attendance, Interconnections: The IMLS National Study on the Use of Libraries, Museums, and the Internet, estimated that 

in 2006, approximately 148 million U.S. adults, more than 63.2% of the adult population, visited 

a museum in the United States.

7

Among the national museum associations in the United States, reports of attendance also 

demonstrate that museums consistently engage substantial audiences of national and international 

visitors. Triennial member surveys of the American Association of Museums, as well as member 

surveys conducted by the Association of Science Technology Centers, the Association of Children’s 

Museums, and the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, indicate that museums in the United States 

likely receive several hundred million visitors per year. These associations also report that millions 

of schoolchildren use museums and museum services each year. 

Cultural Preservation and Education

America’s museums are community leaders in cultural and historic preservation, research, and education. Museums provide important services to visitors in these three areas and others. Across the 

country, museums are key contributors to the development and implementation of new and existing 

methods to enhance conservation and preservation of cultural heritage. Museums are both critical 

stewards and trusted community resources. 

The Heritage Health Index (HHI) conducted by Heritage Preservation and IMLS was the first 

comprehensive survey of the conditions and preservation needs of collections held in public trust

by the nation’s archives, historical societies, libraries, museums, scientific research collections, and 

6 An important caveat to studies on museum visitation is the lack of a standard definition for what constitutes a 

museum visit. Attendance surveys vary greatly in methodology. Some counts may include any kind of entrance into 

the museum as a visit, some may include only transactions such as ticket purchases, and others may not distinguish 

between individual visitors and the number of visits. Attendance estimates from museums submitted across museum 

types are few, and most have very small sample sizes that are not representative of the museum universe. Comparisons of household surveys are likewise compromised by variations in sample design and survey methodology from one 

study to the next, but they are cited here as the most recent and representative general estimates of attendance across 

museum types. 

7 Griffiths, José-Marie, and Don King. 2008. Interconnections: The IMLS National Study on the Use of Libraries, 

Museums, and the Internet. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. http://interconnectionsreport.org/. The 

figures provided here differ slightly from the first Interconnections report. These more conservative estimates adjust the 

sample based on a reanalysis of the survey data based on new weighting procedures that adjust for the effect of education. The differences in percentages between the NSF and IMLS estimates of museum attendance may simply reflect 

differences in sampling methodology and should not be taken as confirmed evidence of a decline in attendance. 

Overview of the Museum Sector in the United States
17

archeological repositories.8 The HHI emphasized the critical role of these institutions in the conservation and preservation of cultural heritage and identified baseline measures of the current conditions of artifact collections and the most urgent needs of institutions in charge of their survival. 

According to the HHI, these institutions hold 4.8 billion artifacts in public trust, of which museums 

hold 20%.9 To ensure the preservation and conservation of such a magnitude of artifacts, the HHI 

made a series of recommendations regarding the critical importance of institutional policy for conservation and preservation as well as the role that all levels of government and the private sector 

should play in their survival. Taking these recommendations into account, these institutions and the 

public and private sectors that support them have vital roles in the research and development of 

conservation and preservation efforts to ensure the survival of cultural heritage collections in the 

public trust.

Furthermore, as centers of learning in communities, museum partnerships with schools provide valuable curriculum support to K–12 education, engaging children of all ages both within the 

museum and out in the community.10 It is estimated that museums in the United States provide 

millions of instructional hours per year to students, through programming that spans the range of 

museum type, location, and student grade level. Museum education services are delivered in a 

variety of ways, including on- and off-site activities with museum staff, teachers, and students; 

pre- and post-visit lessons; and educational programs that support school curriculum standards 

and learning objectives.11 Museum-school partnerships offer unique and exciting programs that 

extend beyond traditional curriculum and formal education models to create a collaborative network 

of learning approaches and environments that enhance K–12 education and set the foundation for 

lifelong learning habits.12 In addition to transformative partnerships with schools, museums incorporate families, individuals, community groups, and others into their educational activities and outreach. Museum services address many stages of development in the lifelong learning process and 

8 Heritage Preservation. 2005. A Public Trust at Risk: The Heritage Health Index Report on the State of America’s 

Collections. Washington, DC: The Institute of Museum and Library Services.

9 HHI distinguishes historical societies from other museum types. 2% of artifacts are held in trust by historical societies. HHI defines artifacts as rare books and manuscripts, photographs, documents, sound recordings, moving images, 

digital materials, art, historic and ethnographic objects, archeological artifacts, and natural science specimens. 

10 For a sampling of research on museum-school partnerships, see Rapp, Whitney H. 2005. “Inquiry-Based Environments for the Inclusion of Students With Exceptional Learning Needs.” Remedial and Special Education 26(5): 

297–310; Caniglia, Joanne. 2003. “Math in the City: Experiencing Mathematics Through Visiting Black Historic Sites.”

Journal of Experiential Education 26(2): 70–74; and Rahm, Irène. 2006. “A Look at Meaning Making in Science 

through School-Scientist-Museum Partnerships.” Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education

6(1): 47–66.

11 Hirzy, Ellen Cochran (ed). 1996. True Needs, True Partners: Museums and Schools Transforming Education. Washington, DC: The Institute of Museum and Library Services.

12 Carslon, Neil. 2004. Charting the Landscape, Mapping New Paths: Museums, Libraries, and K–12 Learning. Washington, DC: The Institute of Museum and Library Services.
18

encourage audiences of all ages to be actively engaged in educational programs and other museum 

activities both on site and elsewhere.13

Financial Impact of the Sector

Evaluation of the impact of museums is a growing field of study. The economic contribution of 

museums to the community is one of many measures that informs an understanding of the public 

value of museum services. Impact studies for museums have primarily been conducted among 

individual institutions, though several notable studies have been conducted for museums at the 

regional and state levels. 

One national-level study, which measured the impact of museums as part of the arts and 

cultural sector as a whole, was conducted by Americans for the Arts.14 The Arts and Economic 

Prosperity report estimated the impact of the nonprofit arts sector at the national level. This study, 

which estimated that the nonprofit arts and culture sector generates $166.2 billion each year, has 

spurred numerous studies of the economic impact of the arts and culture sector at the regional 

and local levels. 

More recently, impact studies of the museum sector have begun to incorporate a broader set 

of social and economic measures. For example, the Center for Creative Community Development, 

which conducted an impact study of the Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art (MASSMoCA) in North Adams, Massachusetts, evaluated a variety of socioeconomic measures in the two 

years following the museum’s opening, including institutional spending, local and nonlocal visitor 

spending, increases in household incomes, and increases in employment in five different sectors 

of industry. In addition, because of heavy state investment in the new museum, the study examined the return on investment for the government in terms of indirect tax revenues. The study also 

evaluated changes in property values, neighborhood stability, commercial development, and hotel 

tax collections. This multifaceted view of the museum’s economic impact revealed positive growth 

in all of the measures employed by the researchers and provided a detailed picture of the many 

ways in which a museum generates significant economic returns to a community.15

These are just some of the measures of the public value of museums in the United States, but 

this brief sampling demonstrates the significant role that museums play in their conservation and 

preservation efforts, research practices, contributions to youth and adult education, community 

participation, and economic impacts from the neighborhood to the nation. 

13 For a comprehensive review of museum learning and its research and evaluation, see Dierking, Lynn D., Kirsten M. 

Ellenbogen, and John H. Falk (eds.). 2004. “In Principle, In Practice: Perspectives on a Decade of Museum Learning 

Research (1994–2004).” Science Education 88, Supplement 1.

14 Americans for the Arts. 2007. Arts and Economic Prosperity III. Washington, DC: Americans for the Arts.

15 Sheppard, Stephen C., Kay Oehler, Blair Benjamin, and Ari Kessler. 2006. Culture and Revitalization: The Economic Effects of MassMoCA on its Community. North Adams, MA: Center for Creative Community Development.

Overview of the Museum Sector in the United States
19

Geographic Distribution of Museums in the United States

Table IV.1 offers one view of the distribution of museums across the United States. This table 

displays the 17,774 museums identified in a database collected by IMLS in 2002 by state and 

museum association region, with per capita distribution.16 The range in the number of institutions 

across each region is quite large. More than 1,700 institutions were identified in the New England 

Museum Association region; the Association of Midwest Museums has just over 3,800 institutions. 

The counts for all other regions fall within this range. 

The range in the number of institutions at the state level is also quite large, with some states 

having close to 10 times the number of institutions found in others. For example, five states in two 

museum association regions have more than 900 identified institutions each. Those states are California, Illinois, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. At the other end of the distribution, eight states 

and the District of Columbia each have fewer than 150 identified institutions each. 

Population totals and population estimates appear alongside the museum estimates to provide 

a basis of comparison for funding formulas based on population. One important fact arises from 

this comparison: There is no clear correlation between the number of museums in a state and the 

state’s population. In other words, in a strict population-based formula, two states with the same 

population size may receive the same amount of federal support, but one could have considerably 

less to distribute per institution, depending upon the size of the state’s museum sector. 

16 The number of institutions represented in this table and in the map below is drawn solely from IMLS data. In the 

course of this study, a significantly larger list of museums was created by augmenting the IMLS data file with museum 

records provided by the American Association of Museums and the National Center for Charitable Statistics. However, 

systematic verification of this new, larger list of museums was beyond the scope this study. Therefore, the figures 

reported in this study are based on the comprehensive list collected by IMLS in 2002. IMLS is currently working with 

stakeholders in the museum community to develop a comprehensive baseline of museums for future study. 
20

Table IV.1. Population and Number of Museums by State and Region, 2007

AAM Museum Region State

Estimated 

Number of 

Museums Population 2007

Museums per 

100,000 Pop

New England Museum 

Association

Connecticut 354 3,502,309 10.1

Maine 263 1,317,207 20.0

Massachusetts 608 6,449,755 9.4

New Hampshire 167 1,315,828 12.7

Rhode Island 59 1,057,832 5.6

Vermont 289 621,254 46.5

Region Total 1,740 14,264,185 12.2

Mid-Atlantic Museum 

Association

Delaware 86 864,764 9.9

Maryland 360 5,618,344 6.4

New Jersey 334 8,685,920 3.8

New York 855 19,297,729 4.4

Pennsylvania 1080 12,432,792 8.7

District of Columbia 73 588,292 12.4

Region Total 2,788 47,487,841 5.9

Southeastern Museum 

Association

Alabama 284 4,627,851 6.1

Arkansas 159 2,834,797 5.6

Florida 477 18,251,243 2.6

Georgia 330 9,544,750 3.5

Kentucky 274 4,241,474 6.5

Louisiana 215 4,293,204 5.0

Mississippi 148 2,918,785 5.1

North Carolina 371 9,061,032 4.1

South Carolina 248 4,407,709 5.6

Tennessee 169 6,156,719 2.7

Virginia 655 7,712,091 8.5

West Virginia 166 1,812,035 9.2

Region Total 3,496 75,861,690 4.6

Midwest Museum 

Association

Illinois 905 12,852,548 7.0

Indiana 331 6,345,289 5.2

Iowa 245 2,988,046 8.2

Michigan 342 10,071,822 3.4

Minnesota 282 5,197,621 5.4

Missouri 355 5,878,415 6.0

Ohio 903 11 ,466,917 7.9

Wisconsin 477 5,601,640 8.5

Region Total 3,840 60,402,298 6.4

Overview of the Museum Sector in the United States
21

AAM Museum Region State

Estimated 

Number of 

Museums Population 2007

Museums per 

100,000 Pop

Mountain-Plains 

Museum Association

Colorado 320 4,861,515 6.6

Kansas 261 2,775,997 9.4

Montana 170 957,861 17.7

Nebraska 299 1,774,571 16.8

New Mexico 186 1,969,915 9.4

North Dakota 170 639,715 26.6

Oklahoma 467 3,617,316 12.9

South Dakota 208 796,214 26.1

Texas 631 23,904,380 2.6

Wyoming 11 2 522,830 21.4

Region Total 2,824 41,820,314 6.8

Western Museums 

Association

Alaska 147 683,478 21.5

Arizona 238 6,338,755 3.8

California 1,344 36,553,215 3.7

Hawaii 94 1,283,388 7.3

Idaho 11 3 1,499,402 7.5

Nevada 11 8 2,565,382 4.6

Oregon 239 3,747,455 6.4

Utah 172 2,645,330 6.5

Washington 529 6,468,424 8.2

Region Total 2,994 61,784,829 4.8

Totals 17,744 301,621,157 5.9

Source: Museum estimates are based on a 2002 IMLS inventory. State population estimates are based on estimates 

provided by the Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau, December 27, 2007.

Table IV.1. Population and Number of Museums by State and Region, 2007 (continued)
22

While the three states with more than 900 museums each are among the most populous in the 

nation, other states with large populations, such as Florida, Michigan, and Georgia, rank far below 

these states in terms of the total number of institutions. Similarly, states with small populations, 

such as Vermont, Maine, and Nebraska, do not necessarily rank at the bottom in terms of number 

of institutions. The variation in the size of the museum sector relative to the state populations 

means that a strictly population-based funding formula would not provide equitable funding from a 

per-institution standpoint. This issue is discussed in more detail in the summary of this section.

Figure IV.1 displays the number of museums from Table IV.1 in the form of a U.S. map.17

Though population centers are not directly identified on the map, it is clear from the clustering of 

institutions in the eastern part of the United States and in areas of the Midwest and the West that 

the spatial distribution of museums is highly correlated with population density and with certain 

features of the physical landscape. In the Southeast, museums cluster along the Atlantic coast 

and the Gulf of Mexico. Florida displays this pattern quite clearly, as museums cluster around the 

perimeter of the entire peninsula. The Mississippi River provides another example, as museums 

cluster on both sides of the river in Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Louisiana.

17 Because many of the museum address fields in the listings were post office boxes rather than a physical street 

address, the Urban Institute team geo-coded institutions at the ZIP code level. As a result, each point on the map 

identifies a coordinate within a ZIP code boundary, not the specific longitude and latitude coordinate of an actual street 

address. However, in most national, regional, and state-level maps, ZIP code-level coordinates produce a display that is 

very similar to maps with street-level coordinates. Readers should note that 12% of the institutions could not be geocoded at the ZIP code level and are not represented in the national or regional maps below.

Overview of the Museum Sector in the United States
23

Figure IV.1. U.S. Map of Museums

Sources: Combined museum listing from Institute of Museum and Library Services, 

American Association of Museums and National Center for Charitable Statistics. 

U.S. Census Bureau population estimates provided by DataPlace.

The Urban Institute 

Prepared by: Justin Resnick 

February 26, 2008

Museum Regions

Museums (all types)

New England

Mid-Atlantic

Southeastern

Mountain-Plains

Midwest

Western
24

Overview of the Museum Sector in the United States

Museums Institutional Profile

The Museum Public Finance Survey (MPFS), which gathered responses from more than 1,000 

separate institutions, asked museum professionals a broad range of questions regarding their 

governance structure as well as the sources of their income and the uses of dollars received. The 

governance structures described by respondents to the survey are comparable to the breakdown 

found in previous studies.18 Slightly more than 70% of museums in the United States are private 

nonprofit entities; the rest are publicly owned and managed by various forms of government, including state departments of natural resources, departments of education, public universities, and city 

and county governments. 

Figure IV.2. Governance Structure of Museums in the United States

Source: Urban Institute analysis of IMLS Museum Public Finance Survey, 2008

18 The HHI identified a nonprofit museum sector of 69%, and the AAM 2006 Museum Financial Information study 

found that 72% of the respondents were nonprofit entities. The MPFS finding of 71.3% is within the margin of error of 

both studies.

College or 

University

8.8%

Nonprofit

71.3%

For-Profit Entity

0.2% Federal

1.4%

State

6.3%

Local

10.3%

Tribal

1.1%

Other

0.6%

College or University

Nonprofit

For-Profit Entity

Federal

State

Local

Tribal

Other
25

Median Income and Expenses

In Table IV.2, the MPFS identified a range in median operating income from $153,630 for historical societies to more than $5.8 million for zoos, aquariums, and zoological societies. Within the 

museum types, there was no significant difference in median income and expenditures across 

the country.19

Table IV.2. Median Income and Expenditures for Museum Sample, FY 2006

Museum Type

Median Operating 

Income

Median 

Expenditures

Total Operating 

Revenue N

Art Museums $1,233,924 $1,270,000 $931,088,782.60 132

Children’s Museums $1,154,321 $1,175,716 $97,564,196.97 41

History Museums $230,000 $228,000 $328,133,515.10 252

Natural History and Natural Science Museums $1,327,608 $1,210,410 $115,686,204.80 43

Science and Technology Museums $2,218,977 $2,637,462 $269,970,751.37 41

Historical Societies $153,630 $149,610 $174,731,270.00 135

Arboretums and Botanical Gardens $906,561 $975,319 $169,982,649.00 29

Zoos, Aquariums and Zoological Societies $5,861,302 $4,639,000 $692,925,446.36 42

Hybrid and Other $620,500 $589,903 $49,678,098.60 52

Total 767

Source: Urban Institute analysis, IMLS Museum Public Finance Survey, 2008.

Revenue Sources: Private, Earned, Investment, Government

Income and expenditure reports provide invaluable information about the basic operating costs 

across the American museum sector. However, relatively little is known about the mix of revenue 

sources that make up these budgets. In the MPFS, both nonprofit and government-managed museums were asked to report the source of their support across four possible categories: private donations, earned income, institutional investments, and government contributions. Respondents were 

asked to report the amount each source contributed to their total operating revenue. These figures 

were then used to calculate the overall contribution that museums of different types reported 

receiving from each of the four sources. The results of this tabulation are listed in Table IV.3. 

As Table IV.3 shows, institutions of different types report significant variation. Focusing on 

the last column, readers will note that the average government contribution ranged from 7% for 

children’s museums to 33% for history museums. In the cases of history museums, science and 

technology museums, and zoos, aquariums, and zoological societies, government support exceeded 

private support. Six of the nine types of museums listed earned income as the single largest source 

of support.

19 For a description of the research method regarding the assignment of museum types, see appendix A. Museum 

types for MPFS are drawn from categories used by the HHI.
26

Overview of the Museum Sector in the United States

Table IV.3. Sources of Support for All Museums in Sample, by Type, FY 2006

Museum Type

Source of Support

Private Earned Investment Government N

Art Museums 23.3% 46.1% 17.5% 13.1% 129

Children’s Museums 24.4% 48.1% 20.5% 6.9% 41

History Museums 32.9% 21.6% 13.2% 33.2% 235

Natural History and Natural Science 29.5% 41.6% 5.7% 23.6% 39

Science and Technology Museums 22.8% 42.8% 4.0% 30.4% 41

Historical Societies 32.2% 21.5% 24.7% 21.6% 132

Arboretums and Botanical Gardens 34.1% 28.9% 13.7% 23.3% 29

Zoos, Aquariums and Zoological Societies 17.4% 60.3% 4.2% 18.1% 39

Hybrid and Other 27.2% 38.5% 9.6% 27.5% 48

Overall 24.4% 43.7% 12.2% 19.7% 733

Source: Urban Institute analysis, IMLS Museum Public Finance Survey, 2008.

Table IV.4 selects out nonprofit museums by type to examine how this large class of museums (more than 70% of the total) differs in terms of revenue sources.20 In all cases but one, 

removing public museums from the pool resulted in a significant drop in the proportion of 

government contributions. Across museum types, history, natural history, and hybrid or general 

museums saw the largest drop when public museums were removed from the analysis, suggesting higher rates of public sector governance across these museum types. The single exception 

was among children’s museums, because 40 of the 41 institutions that broke out their operating 

support were nonprofit entities. 

20 There were too few respondents across museum types that were government-managed museums to report the 

same data for reliable estimates of government-managed museums alone.
27

Table IV.4. Sources of Support for Nonprofit Museums in Sample, FY 2006

Museum Type

Source of Support

Private Earned Investment Government N

Art Museums 23.0% 48.1% 18.5% 10.4% 101

Children’s Museums 24.6% 47.8% 20.7% 6.9% 40

History Museums 46.0% 23.5% 21.4% 10.3% 174

Natural History and Natural Science Museums 38.0% 41.6% 6.6% 13.9% 25

Science and Technology Museums 23.8% 47.2% 4.7% 24.4% 33

Historical Societies 33.9% 22.1% 26.8% 17.3% 120

Arboretums and Botanical Gardens 34.4% 29.0% 13.7% 22.9% 24

Zoos, Aquariums and Zoological Societies 17.6% 61.9% 4.4% 16.1% 31

Hybrid and Other 32.0% 48.1% 10.2% 9.7% 31

Total 579

Source: Urban Institute analysis, IMLS Museum Public Finance Survey, 2008.

Though the proportions listed in Table IV.4 outline the relative contribution from each source, 

readers should note that the widely varying operating budget sizes across museum types mean that 

the proportions listed in this table represent very different dollar amounts. To provide a sense of 

the amount of money these figures represent, Table IV.5 shows the median revenue for all museums that listed revenue by source.21

Table IV.5. Median Operating Income by Source and Type of Institution, 

All Museums in Sample, FY 2006

Museum Type

Source of Support

Private Earned Investment Government N

Art Museums $429,775 $190,393 $56,250 $144,802 129

Children’s Museums $357,550 $490,345 $600 $50,000 41

History Museums $46,187 $26,120 $695 $32,182 235

Natural History and Natural Science Museums $11 0,309 $408,321 $4,500 $86,465 39

Science and Technology Museums $350,000 $898,911 $12,602 $289,970 41

Historical Societies $32,727 $23,000 $3,023 $7,751 132

Arboretums and Botanical Gardens $251,355 $253,226 $14,128 $130,000 29

Zoos, Aquariums and Zoological Societies $437,706 $2,686,310 $15,277 $911,480 39

Hybrid and Other $59,171 $48,267 $1,000 $36,737 48

Total 733

21 In the sample there were no statistically significant differences in the relative size of operating budgets between 

government-managed and nonprofit museums. Therefore, Table IV.5 lists the median revenue by source for all museums, government-managed and nonprofit. 

Source: Urban Institute analysis, IMLS Museum Public Finance Survey, 2008.
28

A comparison of Table IV.5 to the proportional estimates in Table IV.3 provides a fuller picture 

of the nature of public support across different institution types. In some cases, a relatively small 

proportion of operating budget can amount to a significant public expenditure based on the overall 

size of the subsector. In other cases, a relatively large proportion of public money (compared to 

other sources of revenue) may amount to a smaller public expenditure for a given segment of the 

museum community. 

Two museum subsectors illustrate this point clearly. While the estimated government support 

amounted to a relatively small proportion of the overall budget for zoos, aquariums, and zoological 

societies (18.1%), median support from government sources is the highest of any museum type 

($911,480). The opposite scenario is seen with history museums. History museums reported the 

highest proportional public contribution of any museum type (33%). However, the median government support among these institutions is just over $32,000. 

Section Summary

In this section, we have reviewed some basic features of the museum sector, including governance 

structure, budget size, sources of financial support, and geographic distribution. The many institutions that make up this diverse sector preserve cultural heritage and provide educational resources 

and opportunities to communities across the country in great number and variety. The sector’s 

diversity is reflected not only in its substantive areas of expertise but also in the characteristics of 

the organizations themselves. 

These institutions vary dramatically in size, spatial distribution and, importantly for this study, 

sources of financial support. U.S. museums report a diversified funding base. Many of the institutions in the MPFS sample identified support from private donors, earned revenue, investment 

income and from government. Indeed, eight of the nine museum types in the study reported 

double-digit percentages of revenue from private, earned revenue, and government sources. 

In terms of public dollars, the average government support for museums of different types 

ranged from 7% to 33% of the total operating budget, with the majority of the institutions reporting that 20% to 30% of their total operating budget comes from government support. Of course, 

the same proportion of public support for different types of museums does not mean that the 

dollar investments are similar. Because the cost of doing business varies so dramatically from 

one museum type to the next, these estimates represent dramatically different dollar values. Two 

museum types illustrate this point clearly. As a percentage of the total operating expenditure, the 

average public sector support for zoos, aquariums, and zoological societies and historical societies 

is quite similar (18% for zoos and 21% for historical societies). However, in dollar terms the level 

of public support for these very different types of institutions is dramatically different. Among zoos, 

aquariums, and zoological societies in the sample, the median public support level is $911,480. 

Among historical societies, the median public support level is $7,751.

This comparison of proportional government investment in museums to the public dollar investment raises an important question regarding the operation of federal-state partnership models. If 

Overview of the Museum Sector in the United States
29

a goal of a new funding model is to achieve greater equity in the distribution of federal dollars to 

museums, then the basis for this distribution requires greater definition. One perspective would be 

that equity is achieved when the proportion of government support is comparable across museums 

of different types. An alternative interpretation might be that equity corresponds, in some manner, 

to a comparable dollar amount invested across museums of varying types. However, each of these 

scenarios relies heavily on the assumption that the measure of equity is dependent upon the institutional outcomes. 

Of course, a federal-state partnership may address other public policy objectives that might 

be considered institutionally neutral, such as promoting museum service and access to particular segments of the U.S. population, irrespective of museum type, subject discipline, or delivery 

mechanism. The IMLS mission as cited in the Museum Services Act (20 U.S.C. §9171) reflects 

such institutionally neutral objectives. IMLS is directed to encourage and support museums in their 

public service, education, leadership, stewardship, management, resource sharing, and partnership. 

In other words, IMLS directs its funding to museums to encourage capacity building for the sector 

as a whole and to encourage the delivery of museum services to the whole of society. In this model, 

equity is based on access to museum services and the institutional capacity to deliver them across 

the entire sector, which is an important public policy objective to consider in shaping a federalstate partnership model for museums. 

Another issue raised by the data in this section, and which is relevant to the discussion of 

a population-based funding model, is the fact that the number of museums varies dramatically 

among states. There is no clear correlation between the number of museums in a state and that 

state’s population size. This fact would likely have implications for the conduct of a federal-state 

museum funding partnership depending upon the ways these programs are managed at the state 

level. For example, two states with identical populations could have significantly more (or less) 

money to distribute per institution if their museum sectors vary substantially in number. 
30

To provide some context to the financial data presented in this 

report, IMLS reasoned that public perspectives were a critical 

part of the analysis. If indeed there are gaps in adequate and fair 

funding for museums across the country, people who work in the 

museum sector, as well as community members, would understand the issues and have useful perspectives that would inform 

the report.

To that end, in March 2008, IMLS convened public hearings in Columbus, Ohio; Kansas City, Missouri; and Oakland, 

California. At these three sites, a total of 28 invited speakers 

delivered remarks to a panel consisting of IMLS Director AnneImelda Radice and members of the National Museum and Library 

Services Board.22 These speakers came from many positions in 

the museum sector. Most were museum directors, some museum 

funders, some museum trustees, others museum association 

executives, and a few were museum advocates, active in their 

communities. Each participant delivered a 10-minute statement 

22 A complete list of public hearing participants is in appendix F. Further 

references to the comments provided at these hearings, if not apparent in 

the text, will be noted by date: March 10, 2008 (Columbus, Ohio); March 12, 

2008 (Kansas City, Missouri); and March 14, 2008 (Oakland, California).

Public Hearings: 

Perspectives from 

the Museum Sector

Pictured: At the hearing in Kansas City, Barbara L. Peterson, 

President of the Black Archives of Mid-America, spoke before 

a panel that included Dr. Radice and Dr. Colgan.
31

Public Hearings: Perspectives from the Museum Sector

reflecting his or her perspective about the best public funding mechanisms to support museums. 

All had been asked to focus their remarks on the most effective, most accessible, and most fair 

channels of public funding. 

The hearings were open to the public, and at each site, a number of people came to listen to 

the comments. After prepared remarks were heard, members of the audience had the opportunity 

to submit comments. At each venue, federal and state elected officials either had statements read 

into the record or appeared in person to speak. Twenty people from various organizations offered 

comments on the remarks that they had heard or offered points related to their own experiences 

and circumstances.23

In addition to the public hearings, IMLS issued a broad appeal to the public in general, soliciting written comments from those unable to attend the hearings but who wanted to provide their 

perspectives for consideration. IMLS received 32 letters in response to this call. Comments came 

from individuals as well as organizations.24

Several themes emerged from the hearings and written comments:

Importance of Peer Review and the Grant Application Process

Among the public hearings participants there was near universal support for the peer review system 

at the federal level and within other funding bodies. Museum professionals, association executives, 

grant writers, grantees—all commented on the value of peer review. The peer review system is a 

time-honored process widely used across the federal government and elsewhere in the museum 

funding community. In federal grant-making agencies, it has become a highly developed practice to 

evaluate the merits of grant applications by seeking the judgment of experts in the field. At the federal level, these expert reviewers, who have vast experience in the sector, are recruited from across 

the country to evaluate proposals for the use of federal funds. Mindful of the goals and criteria of the 

grant program, these experts study a group of proposals and, in most cases, meet in Washington, 

DC, to discuss the relative merits of the applications. They advise the funding agency on the design 

and substance of the proposals as well as the potential effectiveness of the use of public funds. The 

agency head makes the final decision. Agency staff notify unsuccessful applicants of the strengths 

and weaknesses of their proposals, and often unsuccessful applicants are encouraged to submit a 

revised plan. As one speaker summed up the process, “The best get funded. The rest get advice.”25

Moreover, several speakers stated that the grant application process itself and the resultant 

competitive grant (should it be awarded) raise the quality of museum services appreciably. The time 

and energy invested in constructing an application demand that the institution focus on its strategic 

goals and assess its capacity. Patricia Murphy, executive director, Oberlin Heritage Center, described 

the process in Columbus: 

23 Transcripts of the hearings are available on the IMLS Web site: www.imls.gov.

24 Written comments are available from IMLS by request.

25 Marc Wilson, March 12, 2008.
32

Preparing the grant application for the Museums for America [program in IMLS] 

was a daunting, demanding, and rigorous experience, but I also found it to be quite 

worthwhile in that it demanded that we thoughtfully present our funding needs in 

relation to our organization’s institutional priorities and plans. Our Museums for 

America Grant not only helped us to become a stronger organization, both programmatically and organizationally, but it also helped us to become a better resource for 

other small museums and historical societies in our region.26

Furthermore, speakers noted that federal grant categories themselves are constructed to raise 

the quality of museum services. Federal agencies make grant opportunities available by carefully 

assessing the needs of the museum sector and in response to national priorities. The IMLS grant 

guidelines follow closely the mandates that Congress placed on the agency to enable museums 

to carry out their educational and public service roles. NEH encourages applicants to respond to 

the national needs for preservation of, interpretation of, and access to their collections and other 

humanities-related projects. Deborah Schwartz, president, Brooklyn Historical Society, praised the 

“exemplary role” of IMLS and NEH in “identifying the needs of the field, and then in formulating 

dynamic, well articulated priorities for categories of grant making.” She commented:

IMLS and NEH’s funding guidelines are detailed and rigorous. The guidelines are 

intelligent in design so as to compel organizations to fully assess proposed programs 

in order to ensure that the programs’ outcomes align with the organization’s mission 

statement and long-term goals. Without fail, the results of this rigorous examination 

process yield more focused programming that better serves an organization’s objectives and allows us to serve our public responsibly and efficiently.27

A final argument that was consistently made in support of peer-reviewed competitive awards 

is that a federal award leverages local funding support. Federal dollars attract more dollars and 

thereby expand museum services. Receiving a peer-reviewed competitive grant elevates the visibility of the organization and serves to assist in fund-raising. The publicity that accompanies a federal 

grant draws attention to the excellence of the organization; it is, as a few mentioned, the “Good 

Housekeeping Seal of Approval.” Lori Fogarty, director of the Oakland Museum of California, made 

this point about receiving an IMLS grant:

26 Patricia Murphy is executive director of Oberlin Heritage Center, Oberlin, Ohio, as well as vice president of the Ohio 

Association of Historical Societies and Museums.

27 Written comments provided March 3, 2008.

Public Hearings: Perspectives from the Museum Sector
33

A grant from this national organization, as recommended through a rigorous peer 

panel review process, indicates that our projects have met the highest standards in 

the field, adhere to criteria of quality and professionalism as established by our colleagues, and serve as true models, thereby helping to leverage private funding.

David Chesebrough, president and chief executive officer (CEO) of COSI (Center of Science 

and Industry) in Columbus, Ohio, succinctly addressed how the grant category, specifically the 

Museums for America (MFA) competition in IMLS, the process of writing the application, and the 

requirement for connections with the community increase the quality of museum services: 

[W]riting Museums for America grant proposals ... forces discipline internally in an 

organization. ... Since it is evaluated based on an institution’s strategic direction, it 

encourages a museum’s staff and board to be clear and articulate about its strategic direction. It encourages the museum to employ community input so that the 

museum is serving its community, not just itself. ... The MFA process also encourages partnerships. ... Partnerships are another way in which a museum connects to 

its community and leverages the federal dollars of an IMLS grant.

Matching Funds

The funding mechanism employed at the federal level is predominantly direct grants for projects 

awarded through a peer review evaluation system. But for some of these grants, the federal agency 

requires a matching component. Speakers were less enthusiastic about this type of grant. If the 

program requires the grantee to raise private money to match the federal award, the museum must 

find third-party resources, such as a donor particularly interested in the project. The participants 

who spoke about matching felt that this situation disengages the museum from pursuing its own 

goals and objectives and forces it to package a program compatible with its ability to provide costsharing.28

Julie Henahan, executive director of the Ohio Arts Council, which provides sustainability grants 

to art museums in Ohio, weighed in on this subject with an important distinction. Requiring matching funds for projects may compromise the intent of the project, but requiring matching funds for 

general operating support at the state and local levels may be less likely to affect programmatic 

intents of institutions and instead help leverage other sources of funding. Alicia Oddi, grants and 

services director, Greater Columbus Arts Council (GCAC), agreed, saying that GCAC’s philosophy 

28 It should be noted that IMLS requirements for grants with a matching component can include goods, services, and 

in-kind contributions, as well as third-party donations of cash.
34

regarding matching funds has evolved over the years and that “organizations that receive operating 

support from us should have a well-rounded revenue stream.” But GCAC has relaxed the matching 

requirement for projects, moving away from one-to-one cash matches to accepting in-kind contributions for the matching requirement. 

Public Funding Patchwork at the State and Local Levels

There is no consistent model for how state and local governments channel public money to museums. For example, Pennsylvania created the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission 

(PHMC) to preserve the state’s historic heritage. According to Executive Director Barbara Franco, 

PHMC manages a $5.535 million annual grant program that is 75% funded from an allocation 

from the Pennsylvania General Assembly with the balance from a fund created from a 1% realty 

transfer tax. Grants from the legislative allocation go mostly (71%) for general operating support to 

eligible organizations; grants from the transfer tax go mainly for capital projects.29

As another example, Missouri has levied a nonresident Athletes and Entertainers Withholding 

Tax to support its cultural organizations. In FY 2005, this device produced almost $21 million, 

60% of which went to the Missouri Arts Council and 10% to each of the following organizations: 

Missouri Humanities Council, Missouri State Library, Missouri Public Television Broadcasting 

Corporation, and Missouri Historic Preservation. According to Gregory Glore, a museum advocate 

speaking in Kansas City, this tax served to elevate Missouri’s position from 49th in total spending 

on the arts in 2005 to 14th in 2008.

A survey conducted by the California Association of Museums (CAM) in 2006 provided a more 

detailed funding picture for museums in that state. Among the points of information provided by 

William Moreno, a member of the board of directors for CAM, were the following:

California museums, on average, receive the highest percentage of their revenue from private 

sources, at 39.9%—more than twice the average percentage received from all government 

sources combined.

In 2006, fewer than one-fifth of California museums, 16.8%, received funding from the federal government in their most recently completed fiscal year.

Local government provides the largest percentage of public funding for California museums, 

with 45.1% of museums indicating that they receive funds from local public sources.

In 2006, the following were the median percentages of a museum’s operating budget from 

government sources: 2.4% from the federal government, 3% from the state government, and 

10.3% from local government.30

29 Written comments dated March 10, 2008.

30 March 14, 2008. William Moreno is executive director of the Claremont Museum of Art in Claremont, California.

•

•

•

•

Public Hearings: Perspectives from the Museum Sector
35

The few museums that have a dedicated revenue stream coming from property taxes or sales 

taxes count themselves extremely fortunate. In explaining how Kansas City, Missouri, supports 

museums, Christopher Leitch expressed deep gratitude for the funding structure his museum 

enjoys. The Kansas City Museum at Corinthian Hall, where he is director, is supported in the main 

by a dedicated property tax. Other museums partially funded by the city receive their funding 

through line items in the parks budget, which receives an allocation from the general fund. And 

being supported from the general fund, as speaker after speaker identified, means that museums 

must compete with other pressures on the state and local budget, including health care, transportation, and social services.

Museums that enjoy a dedicated public revenue stream are able to plan that their basic operating needs will be addressed and are left to seek money from elsewhere for programming support. 

Museums that begin each fiscal year without the promise of funds to cover operating costs labor 

to find money to remain in business. When state budgets and local economies are strapped for 

revenues, museums are sometimes encouraged to devise self-sufficiency plans, but as Mindi Love, 

director of the Johnson County Museum in Shawnee, Kansas, points out, “The cost to operate 

a museum and serve our visitors is far higher per person than the revenues generated by most 

museums. The median cost of serving one museum visitor is $23, compared to the median revenue 

earned of $6 per visitor.”31

Needs of Small to Midsize Museums

Many participants felt that museums with large budgets and a sizeable visitorship are consistently 

more competitive in receiving federal grants. As important as federal awards are to the museums 

that receive them, many participants felt that these awards are mostly earned by museums with 

the resources to have grant writers on staff, knowledgeable trustees to assist them in defining their 

strategic direction, and the capacity and experience to administer federal funds. Marc Wilson, 

director of the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art in Kansas City, Missouri, commented on how the peer 

review system on the federal level favors large institutions:

The peer review system encourages and rewards excellence in the name of maximizing public benefits and ensuring the most effective, efficient use of public funding. 

... But smaller institutions especially have a hard time competing because they do 

not often have the same levels of capacity, of expertise, and even of outlook. It is 

not that their missions and goals are not valuable. They are. They have a more difficult time being successful in a system that favors excellence of performance criteria 

and accountability to use taxpayers’ monies efficiently.

31 March 12, 2008. Ms. Love cited research conducted by the American Association of Museums.
36

For some small to midsize museums, the accountability requirements connected with receiving federal funds make applying for them unattractive. Kate Viens, executive director of the New 

England Museum Association, cited the example of a group of museums in southern Maine. This 

group seeks to raise the standard of conservation for museum objects within its region, but at the 

outset decided not to apply for federal funding because “they consider the application and reporting requirements to be too onerous.”32

Several participants spoke to small and midsize museums’ need for basic stabilization support. 

It was often said that the current federal competitive grant system ensures that large museums 

thrive and that small museums continue to struggle to exist. As one speaker pointed out, “Over 

time the rich get richer, and the smaller organizations are always in bootstrap mode.”33

Mindi Love, director of the Johnson County Museum, spoke to the number of small museums 

in the sector: “Today’s museums are largely small and largely rural. History museums and historical societies make up the largest percentage (67%) of all museums, which number approximately 

17,500. Of those, about 35% are accessible to the public at no cost, according to information 

gathered by the largest museum service organization, the American Association of Museums. Of 

the 65% that do charge an admission fee, 60% offer free days and virtually all (98%) offer discounted admissions.”34

As executive director of the Mid-America Arts Alliance, Mary Kennedy McCabe is close to small 

communities and their museums in the middle of America: specifically, in Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas. She offered statistics that underscore the needs of small 

museums:

50% of all Missouri museums report having no full-time paid staff;

61% of all museums in Oklahoma operate with less than $100,000 annually, and 37% operate 

with $25,000 or less;

75% of Texas’s small and midsize museums have not received any training in the past three 

years in board management, fund-raising, or administration/finance; 

76% of Kansas museums spend less than $1,000 in total annually to train all of their staff, 

trustees, and volunteers combined;

32 March 12, 2008.

33 Richard Winefield, March 14, 2008. IMLS funds more museums in every state than do the other three federal 

agencies. (See Table IV.3.) Furthermore, IMLS sponsors funding opportunities that specifically invite small to midsize 

museums; for example, the Bank of America/IMLS American Heritage Preservation Program is tailored to small and 

midsize museums, archives, and libraries. 

34 March 12, 2008.

•

•

•

•

Public Hearings: Perspectives from the Museum Sector
37

70% of Arkansas museums cite “lack of funding” as the primary obstacle to pursuing staff and 

volunteer training;

71% of Nebraska museums are located in communities with a population of 10,000 or less.35

Funding Mechanisms for Small and Midsize Museums

As broad as the consensus was among the hearing participants about the needs of small to midsize 

museums, there was wide disparity about how to address those needs. The idea most frequently 

mentioned was to establish within IMLS a funding mechanism that mirrors the federal-state partnership funding models designed for our nation’s libraries.36 Speakers at each site spoke directly in 

favor of federal formula funding for museums, often identifying themselves as members of the Federal Formula Grant Coalition. The Federal Formula Grant Coalition, made up of more than 56 local, 

state, regional, and national associations, proposes an increase in museum funding through IMLS, 

specifically dedicated to a state-based program and not to replace any existing IMLS programs or 

any other federal or state programs. 

The Coalition conducted a survey early in 2008 to investigate the readiness of the states to 

administer federal funds on the basis of population. Of the 48 known state museum associations, 

31 responded to the survey, which found that:

At least 12 states already have a state agency or commission that administers grants 

for museums.

These grants are all awarded through a competitive process.

Half of these states provide general operating support for the museums. 

Also, the Coalition’s survey found that state competitive grant programs for museums fund a 

variety of programs or services: for example, 83.3% of the grant programs fund exhibits, 66.7% 

support education programs and collections/conservation, and 58.3% fund capital projects.

Those who identified the need for federal formula funding gave several arguments in support of 

a state-based program. In California, Phil Kohlmetz talked about its potential for efficiency (“most 

of the administration will take place at the state and not the federal level”) and effectiveness 

(“each state will be able to decide how best to use the funds. . . it will be a new, sorely needed 

source of support for the stewards of America’s culture”). In Ohio, Bill Laidlaw explained that formula funding would be successful, saying that “mechanisms can be set up in each state, perhaps 

using existing organizations, to receive and disburse funds, to organize and prioritize planning, to 

raise levels of achievement and to evaluate results.” In Missouri, Mary Kennedy McCabe stated that 

“a major boost in the museum funding that is on par with public libraries is long overdue.”

35 March 12, 2008.

36 See section IX for a description of the Library Grants to States program.

•

•

•

•

•
38

IMLS also received written comments in favor of federal formula funding for museums. Anne 

Ackerson, director, Museum Association of New York, pointed to New York’s system of chartering 

museums according to a set of recently upgraded standards. Writing specifically about New York’s 

situation, she contended that— 

Federal support of museum general operations, preferably as formula grants, 

recognizes and supports the educational contributions these institutions make to 

Preschool–16 students and their teachers (annually 6.6 million school children), and 

to scholars, to lifelong learners, and casual visitors totaling more than 50 million 

people every year.

Supporting the concept of formula funds for museum services, Ralph Lewin, executive director 

of the California Council for the Humanities, suggested that rather than a state government agency, 

the state entity charged with administering museum services should be a nonprofit organization, 

much like the NEH-sponsored state humanities councils. He explained, “In establishing these 

nonprofit museum organizations, you would also be creating strong, independent advocates for 

museums in each state. The establishment of these nonprofit museum organizations would not be 

an easy task, but it would be easier than creating a new state agency in each state.”

Some speakers expressed skepticism about federal-state partnership funding models. David 

Chesebrough, president and CEO of COSI in Columbus, worried about whether federal dollars 

would be well used in a state-based program, thinking that merit may give way to the impulse to 

spread money broadly: “There are many museums, often small, but not always, that are unable, 

unwilling, or unskilled in creating value for their communities with the federal investment.” 

Dennis Bartels, executive director of the Exploratorium in San Francisco, cited the example of 

the Eisenhower program authorized in 1998, which distributed 85% of a $200 million program by 

means of formula grants to school districts for the purpose of improving science and math education. The remaining 15% was reserved for competitive grants. When the Government Accounting 

Office evaluated the program, only the programs supported by competitive grants “showed clear 

and substantially positive differences for the teachers and kids.”

Mechanisms That Encourage Collaboration

Other ideas about aiding small and midsize museums abounded. Among them were for federal 

granting agencies to sort applications by institution size and type.37 Another was a fast-track program with simplified application processes and reporting. Another was to encourage a collaboration 

component to the use of funds awarded through competitive grants. Marc Wilson, director of the 

37 The IMLS Museums for America grant program arranges its competitive grant process so that museums of similar 

type and budget size are grouped together. 

Public Hearings: Perspectives from the Museum Sector
39

Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art in Kansas City, saw an exciting possibility for large museums. Calling 

America’s large museums “centers of excellence and capability” making up the “most remarkable 

museum system in the world,” he observed that the system has nonetheless fallen short:

[I]n my view, we have failed to employ these centers of capability to serve as agents 

of improvement for smaller institutions that reside in the service regions of the 

large institutions. I, for one, would be eager and pleased to redirect a share of the 

expertise, the intelligence, and the passion of the large, highly capable staff of 

my museum into a program intended to transfer knowledge and best practices to 

smaller institutions. ... This is not a one-way street, an avenue of condescension 

running from large to small. It is a two-way street occupied by professionals who 

share common goals and passions that unite us regardless of institutional size or 

scope. Harness that passion and we can do wonders. 

Bill Laidlaw, executive director of the Ohio Historical Society, also took up the need for collaboration. Consistent with his support for the Coalition’s efforts, he expressed the need for “collective 

improvement” of American museums. He observed, “We must work together to improve our professional skills. From art museums and botanical gardens to zoos, we must do a better job of planning 

for our future and helping each other strengthen our ability to perform our functions. Collaboration, 

not competition, must be the dominant model in the future if we are all to succeed.”

Many speakers cautioned against pitting museums against one another to struggle for the few 

federal dollars available. A few had concerns about state-administered population-based formula 

funds, worrying that IMLS could not reasonably expect an increase in funding at the level that 

would support such a model and keep intact its national competitive grant program. As Ford Bell, 

president of the American Association of Museums, pointed out, “The idea of a funding stream 

administered by the states has much merit; however, is not practical if the amount to be distributed is not far higher than current levels.”38 Richard Winefield, executive director of the Bay Area 

Discovery Museum, also mulled over the amount of money it would take to mount a state-based 

program for museum services and thought that the most prudent idea was to continue to make 

competitive grants but to reenergize efforts to engage small museums. “It’s important that marquee museums continue to thrive, and equally important that smaller museums continue to exist.”39

38 Written comments dated March 21, 2008.

39 March 14, 2008.
40

Other Points/Opinions

Earmarks. In Kansas City, one speaker whose museum had just received an earmark gave a passionate defense of the practice. On the same panel, another speaker, who expressed profound 

respect for the earmark-receiving museum, nonetheless cautioned against the practice. Earmarks, 

in his view, have the capacity to disconnect the award of taxpayers’ money from merit.

Measures of Effective Funding. Citing the societal benefits of museums in Columbus, John Frazer, 

director of public research and evaluation at the Wildlife Conservation Society, gave compelling 

statistics and examples of how zoos and aquariums engage families, are trusted sources of environmental information, and help people develop stronger relationships with nature. As such, public 

funds are most effectively used to advance museums, and IMLS should “measure its funding effectiveness through contributions to knowledge and professional advancement across the industry.” 

He added, “There is an urgent need for IMLS to produce and disseminate information to local, 

state, and federal governments about the social benefits that flow from having a well-supported, 

publicly financed museum sector across the nation.”

Michael Bauman, executive director of the Missouri Humanities Council, suggested that the 

quality of the visitor’s experience should be the measure of excellence, saying, “Collections, by 

themselves, do not engage our interest and help us think more widely, more deeply, more critically. 

People do that. To improve America’s museums, we have to do everything we can to bring the 

visitor’s experience to the forefront of our ideology.”40

Ways to Gain Community Support

Some participants spoke enthusiastically of their success in gaining community donations. For 

example, Kansas City has initiated a metropolitan-wide workplace giving campaign, similar to 

United Way, to support nonprofit arts organizations. The National Underground Railroad Freedom 

Center in Cincinnati has undertaken a national campaign to encourage 50,000 donors to contribute 

a minimum of $20 each. The resulting goal of $1 million is being used to form a bedrock of private 

support for the museum and its services. 

Eligibility to Apply for Other Federal-Funded Education Programs

In Oakland, Dennis Bartels called attention to the fact that museums, many of which actually 

operate after-school programs, are not eligible to apply for federal funding under the guidelines 

promulgated by the U.S. Department of Education. More than 25 years ago, the Mott Foundation 

mounted a program to provide funds to community-based organizations to provide after-school 

learning. When the Department of Education took over the administration of the program, only 

schools became eligible for after-school funding.41

40 Written comments dated March 10, 2008.

41 At present, museums are eligible for some Department of Education grant programs.

Public Hearings: Perspectives from the Museum Sector
41

Section Summary

Throughout these hearings, the public weighed in on funding challenges and mechanisms for 

museums, highlighting the strengths and benefits of the competitive grants process, characterizing 

the landscape of state and local support for museums, and identifying the challenges that small 

and midsize museums face and the potential for museums of all sizes to be more integrated as a 

sector. Participants also contributed their views on how museum funding could be affected by new 

federal-state partnerships and on how existing mechanisms could encourage more collaboration in 

the field. 

Two themes emerged from the spoken and written comments that can inform thinking and 

planning for a potential federal-state partnership in support of museums. The most prominent 

theme was the value of the competitive grant process, particularly the peer review process and the 

effect not only of the actual awards but of the grant application process in increasing the quality of 

museum services. Competitive grants programs at the federal level were cited as mechanisms that 

directly respond to national priorities and the needs of the nation’s museums, raising the quality of 

service by the museum sector and leveraging other sources of support in the community. 

The second theme was the consensus among participants about the needs of small to midsize 

museums, as well as the need for greater collaboration among museums of all sizes. However, there 

was disparity over how best to address these needs and the potential implications of a federal-state 

partnership for the museum sector. Throughout these hearings, a lack of consensus emerged about 

whether a formal federal-state partnership would be the best way to channel federal dollars to 

museums, given current levels of agency funding. A strong and well-organized group of advocates 

have argued for this model. But there are other, opposing voices within the museum community. 

It is vital for policymakers in such situations to consider solid, reliable evidence that can inform 

decisions about how best to direct federal dollars in ways that both build museum capacities and 

increase the reach of museum services. The following sections of this report mark an important 

step toward providing such evidence.
42

Public Funding 

Sources and the Flow 

of Public Dollars to 

Museums in the U.S.

This section defines a variety of mechanisms and purposes for 

public support for museums and discusses some of the ways 

these funds are distributed through various levels of government. 

It concludes with data from the section of the MPFS that reports 

on government contributions by source and type, as well survey 

items that ask respondents to report on the availability of state 

and local support. 

Overview of the Public Funding Process

The most common source of public support for American museums, most of which are nonprofit entities, comes in the form of 

forgone taxes from 501(c)(3) organizations and their donors.42

Federal, state, and local authorities do not tax revenues generated from activities that are directly related to the missions of 

nonprofit museums. Consequently, qualified museums can use 

substantially more of their revenues than commercial ventures 

can. Also, qualified private donors receive a tax deduction and 

are thereby encouraged to contribute to museums. This public 

42 Schuster, J. Mark. 1998. “Neither Public nor Private: The Hybridization of 

Museums.” Journal of Cultural Economics 22(2–3): 127–150.

Pictured: The National Museum of Women in the Arts 

in Washington, DC.
43

Public Funding Sources and the Flow of Public Dollars 

to Museums in the U.S.

support in the form of forgone taxes allows museums to use revenues from memberships and 

general donations more fully.43

Direct financial support for American museums comes through a wide variety of mechanisms. 

Figure VI.1 depicts three major pathways through which public dollars flow to individual museums: 

lump-sum appropriations, earmarks, and line items. 

Figure VI.1. Basic Flow of Public Money to Museums

Lump-sum appropriations to government agencies, which are provided through the federal, 

state, or local appropriations system, support the missions of the agencies and leave decisions 

regarding grant programs to the agency leaders. The agencies may allocate these funds to other 

government or nonprofit entities. Once allocated, these funds are typically distributed through competitive grant programs. These programs, also known as grant opportunity programs, provide public 

funds to museums on the federal, state, and local levels. Competitive grants are typically awarded 

through a peer review process. Experts in the field, serving on peer review panels, provide the 

agency head with recommendations about which activities to fund. Ultimately, the decision about 

which projects to fund rests with the head of the agency. 

43 Revenue generated from regularly occurring trade or business that is not substantially related to the exempt purposes of a museum could be subject to Unrelated Business Income Tax. www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p598.pdf.

Taxpayers’ 

Money

Appropriations 

Committee

Line Item Lump-sum to 

Government Agency

Earmark Attached to Agency 

Spending Authority

Grant Opportunity 

Program

Grant to Museum

Merit-based 

Peer Review

Funds Awarded to 

Museum

Funds Awarded to 

Museum
44

Earmarks attached to the spending authority legislation of departments and agencies are 

consistent with the authorizing statute of those government entities. That is, when earmarks are 

attached to federal grant-making agencies, such as IMLS, the appropriating body directs that 

money be given to specific museums for programs that fall within the mission of the agency. Earmarks do not employ a formal peer review.

Line items are specific funding directives in an appropriations bill. More common in state, 

county, or city budgets than in federal budgets, line items may direct funding to a specific museum 

or to a nonprofit group that will support museum activities. Line items are recurring, dedicated 

funding allocations within an appropriations bill. 

Though most museums are eligible to receive monies through one or more of these public 

funding pathways, the amount of public money that makes its way to museums varies considerably 

by museum type and by level of government. The section below provides information from Internal 

Revenue Service (IRS) administrative data (Form 990) and the MPFS and details the manner and 

type of support museums receive from varying levels of government.

Government Revenue Sources: Federal, State, Local

Most institutions report some form of government support. Table VI.1, which presents data from 

the MPFS, lists the percentage of respondents in a given category that cite some form of government support. Across most museum types, more than 50% of the respondent institutions reported 

some form of financial support from at least one level of government. 

However, when looking at specific sources of support, differences in government support 

become more pronounced for some museum types. Among the MPFS respondents, science and 

technology museums were much more likely to report support from federal sources than any other 

type of museum. Museums in the “hybrid and other” category, which include general museums 

and culturally specific institutions, were more likely to report state support than local or federal 

support, and historical societies were much more likely to report local support than federal or state 

support. Other types of institutions reported a relatively high likelihood of government support 

across federal, state, and local sources. For example, more than 50% of the children’s museums 

and arboretums and botanical gardens that responded to the survey reported support from federal, 

state, and local sources. 

Public Funding Sources and the Flow of Public Dollars 

to Museums in the U.S.
45

Table VI.1. Museums Reporting Government Contributions by Source and Type

Museum Type

Source of Support

N

Some 

Federal 

Support

Some 

State 

Support

Some 

Local 

Support

Some 

Tribal 

Support

Some 

Government 

Support 

(any source)

Art Museums 41.7% 72.2% 52.2% 5.2% 62.5% 129

Children’s Museums 51.6% 74.2% 80.6% 0.0% 64.6% 41

History Museums 30.4% 50.3% 68.1% 0.5% 59.1% 235

Natural History and Natural Science Museums 36.4% 63.6% 69.7% 3.0% 60.0% 39

Science and Technology Museums 62.9% 48.6% 38.9% 0.0% 72.9% 41

Historical Societies 21.2% 44.7% 71.8% 1.2% 47.2% 132

Arboretums and Botanical Gardens 52.6% 63.2% 57.9% 0.0% 55.9% 29

Zoos, Aquariums and Zoological Societies 18.9% 22.6% 20.8% 0.0% 69.8% 39

Hybrid and Other 30.6% 63.9% 41.7% 11.1% 42.9% 48

Overall 733

Source: Urban Institute analysis, IMLS Museum Public Finance Survey, 2008.

Table VI.1 does not convey the relative contributions made by different levels of government. 

Table VI.2 compares the investment made by each level of government as a percentage of all government dollars received. This estimate was done only for museums that reported receiving some 

public money. 

Breaking out support by level of government highlights pronounced differences in the amount 

of financial support that was received. Some of these distributions are consistent with the results of 

Table VI.1, which identified the likelihood of receipt, while others are not. For example, science and 

technology museums, which reported a greater likelihood of receipt of federal support than other 

government support, reported that half of their public money comes from federal sources. Historical societies, on the other hand, were more likely to report receipt of local government dollars than 

any other source. But, in the aggregate, federal sources of support amount to almost half of historical societies’ government source dollars.44 Local government dollars make up more than 50% of 

the public money reported by art museums, children’s museums, arboretums and botanical gardens, and zoos, aquariums, and zoological societies in the sample. Across all museum types except 

for science and technology museums and historical societies, state and local dollars account for 

more than 80% of the government support reported.

44 Although both science and technology museums and historical societies reported high rates of federal support 

compared to other government support, readers should note that underlying dollar amounts (reported in Table IV.6) are 

very different. For science and technology museums, the median government support amount was $289,970 for FY 

2006. For historical societies, the median government support amount was $7,751.
46

Table VI.2. Percentage of Government Revenue by Type and Source, FY 2006

Museum Type

Source of Support

Federal State Local Tribal N

Art Museums 16.4% 30.1% 52.5% 1.0% 115

Children’s Museums 17.8% 24.4% 57.8% 0.0% 31

History Museums 18.4% 43.0% 38.5% 0.0% 191

Natural History and Natural Science Museums 18.2% 42.4% 39.4% 0.1% 33

Science and Technology Museums 52.0% 21.8% 26.1% 0.0% 35

Historical Societies 45.7% 26.8% 27.4% 0.0% 85

Arboretums and Botanical Gardens 18.7% 12.5% 68.9% 0.0% 19

Zoos, Aquariums and Zoological Societies 8.5% 15.0% 76.4% 0.1% 37

Hybrid and Other 6.8% 67.8% 23.8% 1.5% 36

Total 582

Source: Urban Institute analysis, IMLS Museum Public Finance Survey, 2008.

Perceptions, Competition, and Uses of Public Support

To better understand the reach of public dollars to museums, the MPFS asked respondents about 

their perceptions, attempts to secure, and uses of federal, state, and local support. 

Federal Support

Among the MPFS respondents, 71% reported that they had applied for federal grants, 19% said 

they had not applied for federal grants, and 9% said that they did not know if their institution had 

ever applied for federal grants through a competitive process. Among the respondents that applied 

for federal grants, 85% reported having been successful in securing this type of support in the 

past three years. 

The study also explored whether museums had sought congressional earmarks. Figure VI.2 

shows the responses. Among institutions that did seek earmark support, 49% sought earmarks 

for capital construction or renovation, 21% for educational programs, 13% for outreach, 11% for 

conservation of collections, and 6% for other purposes.

Figure VI.2. Museums Seeking Federal Earmarks

Source: Urban Institute analysis, IMLS Museum Public Finance Survey, 2008.

Public Funding Sources and the Flow of Public Dollars 

to Museums in the U.S.

Yes

19%

No

61%

Don't Know

20%

Yes

No

Don’t Know
47

The MPFS found significant differences in the types of museums that reported applying for 

federal earmarks. Table VI.3 lists the different types of institutions seeking federal earmark support. Science and technology centers are much more likely than any other type of institution to 

seek such support. 

Table VI.3. Museums Seeking Federal Earmarks by Type

Museum Type Yes No Don’t Know Total

Art Museums 12.3% 60.0% 27.7% 130

Children’s Museums 23.7% 55.3% 21.1% 38

History Museums 19.0% 63.3% 17.7% 237

Natural History and Natural Science Museums 20.5% 61.4% 18.2% 44

Science and Technology Museums 53.7% 34.1% 12.2% 41

Historical Societies 10.9% 65.9% 23.3% 129

Arboretums and Botanical Gardens 25.0% 64.3% 10.7% 28

Zoos Aquariums and Zoological Societies 26.8% 58.5% 14.6% 41

Hybrid and Other 19.2% 67.3% 13.5% 52

Total 740

Source: Urban Institute analysis, IMLS Museum Public Finance Survey, 2008.

State and Local Support

The MPFS asked respondents a series of questions about the perception of the availability of state 

and local dollars for museums. Figure VI.3 lists results from two separate questions. The survey 

asked respondents whether their local government provided direct financial support to museums 

through a competitive grant process. It also asked whether their state governments provided direct 

financial support to museums via a competitive grant process. It is important to note that respondents were not asked if their museum had received direct financial support from state or local 

government, but whether such support was available. 

There was little variance in the responses by museum type; however, we did find significant 

differences in the responses by region. Figure VI.3 displays the responses to both questions by 

the six museum association regions.45 The red bars represent the percentage of respondents who 

answered “Yes” to the question about the availability of state competitive support to museums. The 

blue bars represent the percentage of respondents who answered “Yes” to the question about the 

availability of local competitive support to museums. Across all six regions, respondents were much 

more likely to report the availability of direct financial support to museums from state government 

than from local government. 

45 Museum regions are those designated by the American Association of Museums. See appendix B for the lists of 

states comprising each region.
48

Figure VI.3. Competitive Grants Available at State and Local Levels

Source: Urban Institute analysis, IMLS Museum Public Finance Survey, 2008.

In some regions, the availability of state support by means of competitive grants was twice that 

reported for local government. The New England Museum Association service area stands out as 

the region with the greatest reported difference in the availability of competitive grants, with 75% 

of the region’s respondents reporting that state-level monies were available and only 20% reporting 

that local competitive grant monies were available. 

On the question of availability, the survey also asked respondents to report whether or not their 

institution had applied for these grants. Among respondents reporting the availability of local-level 

competitive grant money, 83% in all regions reported applying for this support in the last three 

years. Among respondents who reported the availability of state-level competitive grant money, 

78% reported applying for this support in the last three years. 

The MPFS also asked respondents to identify whether earmarks from the state legislature were 

available to museums in their states. These responses were aggregated at the regional level, and 

the results are shown in Table VI.4. Only in one region, the Southeastern Museum Conference, 

did the majority of respondents say that state-level earmarks were an option open to museums in 

their states. Across the other five regions, the most common response to this question was “Don’t 

Know.” 

Public Funding Sources and the Flow of Public Dollars 

to Museums in the U.S.

19.7

47.5

38.4

25.8

28.5

36.3

74.7

82.8

65.9

54.7

60.9

66.9

0 20 40 60 80 100

New England Museum Association

Mid-Atlantic Association of Museums

Southeastern Museums Conference

Mountain-Plains Museum Association

Association of Midwest Museums

Western Museums Association

State

Local
49

Table VI.4. Are State Earmarks an Option for Museums in Your State?

Museum Region Yes No Don’t Know Total

New England Museum Association 41.1% 16.4% 42.5% 73

Mid-Atlantic Association of Museums 38.1% 15.9% 46.0% 11 3

Southeastern Museum Conference 55.1% 19.7% 29.5% 132

Mountain-Plains Museums Association 16.5% 33.0% 50.4% 11 5

Association of Midwest Museums 28.8% 25.6% 45.6% 160

Western Museums Association 23.3% 23.3% 53.3% 150

All Regions 32.3% 22.9% 44.8% 743

Source: Urban Institute analysis, IMLS Museum Public Finance Survey, 2008.

Availability of In-Kind and Dedicated Tax Support

Apart from competitive grants, all respondents were asked whether they received in-kind support 

from state or local governments. In-kind support is the donation of equipment, services, supplies, or 

other property distinct from monetary donations. Across all respondents, only 8% reported receipt 

of in-kind support from state government. However, 30% of the respondents reported receipt of inkind support from local government. Respondents were asked to provide monetary estimates of the 

in-kind support, but most reported that the value of the support had not been assessed. 

Respondents were also asked whether tourism, property, and sales taxes (including general 

sales, retail, and amusement taxes) were dedicated to support museums. Among the three taxing 

options, property taxes (40%) and tourism taxes (39%) were the most likely to be used for museum 

support. Sales taxes were mentioned by 18% of respondents. However, for each question, a significant number of respondents were not sure whether local tax dollars were used to support area 

museums (Figure VI.4). 

Figure VI.4. Taxes Used for Museum Support

Source: Urban Institute analysis, IMLS Museum Public Finance Survey, 2008.

39% 40%

18%

38%

30%

46%

23%

30%

37%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Tourism Taxes (N=256) Property Tax (N=255) General Sales, Retail, and 

Amusement Tax (N=257)

Yes

No

Don’t Know
50

Uses for State and Local Support

The MPFS asked respondents to select the most important use from a list of purposes for state 

and local funds for museums. For the overwhelming majority of respondents, the most important 

purpose for funds from both sources was general operating support. Program support was listed as 

the second most important purpose, followed by support for capital improvements and renovations. 

Table VI.5 indicates the ranking of importance for each type of support and the number of respondents who selected them as most important. 

Table VI.5. Most Important Purpose for State and Local Source Funds for Museums

Most Important Purpose for Funds for Museums

State Funds 

(Frequency)

Local Funds 

(Frequency)

General operating support 283 182

Program support (collections care, exhibits, research, educational programming) 11 7 36

Funds for capital improvements/expenditures or new construction 83 29

Unrestricted funds 4 4

Restricted funds for management and general expenses (administrative, 

maintenance, other) 1 0

Salary 1 0

Source: Urban Institute analysis, IMLS Museum Public Finance Survey, 2008.

Section Summary

This section highlights the important yet understudied fact that public finance of U.S. museums 

comes through a wide variety of mechanisms, through varying levels of government, and in very 

different amounts. The majority of institutional respondents reported receipt of public funds in 

some form or other. Across the museum types, science and technology museums were the most 

likely to report receipt of government support, followed by zoos, aquariums, and zoological societies. Historical societies and hybrid institutions were among the least likely types to report government support. Respondents reported the availability of a wide variety of public finance mechanisms 

at different levels of government. Given this diverse funding base, an important consideration for 

a new federal-state partnership is how federal dollars might complement or leverage state dollars, 

as well as their relationship to the broader funding base of museums, which includes local public 

funding and private and earned income support. 

Survey respondents reported the availability of state and local competitive grants in all regions 

of the country, although responses suggest that state competitive grants are almost twice as likely 

to be available as local competitive grants. There was a wide range in the availability of state 

budget earmarks, from 16% of the respondents reporting their availability in the Mountain-Plains 

states to more than 55% in the Southern Museum Conference. Two out of five survey respondents 

reported local government availability of tourism and property taxes, and one in five reported the 

availability of general sales, retail, and amusement taxes for museums.

Public Funding Sources and the Flow of Public Dollars 

to Museums in the U.S.
51

This section showed that different types of museums reported receipt of support from different levels of government; the dollar amounts received by institutional respondents highlight the 

fact that some government sources account for a much greater share of their public dollars than 

others. Federal sources provide greater proportional shares of government support to science and 

technology museums and to historical societies than state or local sources. In turn, local sources 

provide greater proportional shares of government support to art museums, children’s museums, 

arboretums/botanical gardens, and zoos. State governments do not appear to provide greater 

proportional shares of support to specific museum types to the degree that federal and local 

sources do. 

Examining the proportional distribution of government dollars is a useful way of looking at 

the relative contribution of federal, state, and local support by museum type, but here again it 

is important to ask what these contributions represent in dollar terms. For most museum types 

that have resource-intensive collections and operations, such as science and technology museums and zoos, aquariums, and zoological societies, one level of government tended to dominate 

the public investment. For example, in the case of science and technology museums, federal 

dollars accounted for more than half of the government money received. For zoos, aquariums, 

and zoological societies, local government dollars accounted for close to 70% of the government 

money received. In short, different levels of government tend to concentrate museum funding by 

museum type. 
52

Public Funding 

for Museums at the 

Federal Level

This section reviews administrative data from four federal agencies and data drawn from passed and signed congressional 

appropriation bills to describe the distribution of federal competitive grants and earmarks to museums across the United States. 

The funding sources listed below do not account for all of the 

direct federal contributions to museums. However, they do represent the largest sources of direct federal support to museums.

Federal Grant Opportunity Programs

IMLS, NEA, NEH, and NSF are the four grant-making agencies 

that provide most of the federal competitive awards to museums in the United States. Each agency has a distinctive role in 

providing support to museums that is defined by the mission of 

the agency. As their titles indicate, NSF, NEH, and NEA strive to 

support programmatic efforts to improve understanding of sciences, humanities, and arts, respectively. As a result, competitive 

grants from these agencies tend to support a narrower segment 

of the museum sector. An examination of FY 2006 giving for 

the three agencies illustrates this point. Of the 34 NSF museum 

grantees in FY 2006, 65% were either natural history/natural science museums or science and technology centers. Similarly, 64% 

Pictured: A volunteer leads a group of students on a tour of the 

Japanese American National Museum in Los Angeles, California. 

Photo by Don Farber.
53

Public Funding for Museums at the Federal Level

of NEA’s 149 museum grantees in FY 2006 were art museums, and 49% of NEH’s 164 museum 

grantees in FY 2006 were history museums or historical societies.46 IMLS, which does not have a 

disciplinary focus, provides competitive grant support to many different museum types. 

Apart from differences in disciplinary focus, there are significant differences in the number 

of awards made annually, the amount of money distributed, and the distribution of awards across 

the United States.47 Between FY 2000 and FY 2006, these four federal agencies awarded 5,619 

direct grants to museums, amounting to more than $628 million.48 More than three-quarters of this 

amount came from IMLS and NSF, which provided 32% and 46%, respectively, of the total federal 

dollars distributed over the study period. NEA accounted for 5% and NEH accounted for 17% of 

the direct competitive museum grants distributed by the four agencies during the study period (see 

Table VII.2). 

Distribution of Federal Competitive Grant Funds According to Regions

A review of federal grants from FY 2000 to FY 2006 highlights major differences in the distribution of these dollars across the agencies and the states. This is illustrated for one year in Table 

VII.1. Among the four granting agencies, NSF provided the largest amount of support to museums 

for FY 2006—more than $34 million. NSF is followed by IMLS with more than $31.5 million, NEH 

with $12.3 million, and NEA with $5.4 million. 

Most of the competitive federal money distributed to museums in FY 2006 (78%) came 

from NSF and IMLS. Listed alongside each agency’s distribution is the percentage distributed to 

each museum region. As Table VII.1 shows, the distributions vary widely; however, a few patterns 

emerge. The Mid-Atlantic region garnered more support than any other region. Two regions (MidAtlantic and Western Museum Association regions) received more than 50% of the NSF support. 

The New England Museum Association and the Association of Midwest Museums regions had 50% 

of the NEH support in FY 2006.

46 Because the administrative data files for the three agencies did not include a classification for the type of museum, 

each record had to be postcoded by hand based on the name of the institution. This type of coding did not result in a 

100% match. For NSF, 17% of the museums could not be classified by name alone. For NEA, 23% of the museums 

could not be identified by name, and for NEH, the figure was 34%. These percentages also include museums that 

could be classified as tribal museums, hybrid museums, or specialized museums based on MPFS categorization. 

47 Appendix C presents tables for each agency that provide a year-by-year breakdown of funding to states between FY 

2000 and FY 2006 and the distribution of funds per 1,000 residents. 

48 In several tables that represent dollar amounts of awards over multiple years, the award amounts are adjusted for 

inflation and set to 2006 dollars for comparative purposes. Notes at the bottom of the tables indicate when this occurs.
54

Table VII.1. Federal Grant Funding to Museums from IMLS, NSF, NEA, and NEH 

by Museum Association Region, FY 2006

Distribution of Grants/Earmarks to Museums by Identified Source

IMLS NSF NEA NEH Earmarks

Total All Federal 

Sources

2006 $ % 2006 $ % 2006 $ % 2006 $ % 2006 $ % 2006 $ %

New England 

Museum 

Association 4,000,796 13 5,739,344 17 811 ,500 15 3,751,923 30 6,850,000 10 21,153,563 14

Mid-Atlantic 

Association of 

Museums 9,105,491 29 8,893,737 26 1,804,700 33 2,216,529 18 6,635,000 10 28,655,457 19

Southeastern 

Museum 

Conference 4,334,272 14 2,076,488 6 713,000 13 2,128,745 17 16,945,000 26 26,197,505 18

Mountain-Plains 

Museums 

Association 3,103,635 10 2,977,097 9 427,000 8 1,143,556 9 7,660,000 12 15,311,288 10

Association 

of Midwest 

Museums 6,650,012 21 4,109,781 12 893,250 16 2,521,493 20 15,950,000 24 30,124,536 20

Western 

Museums 

Association 4,311,214 14 10,351,507 30 825,000 15 573,577 5 11 ,600,000 18 27,661,298 19

Total United 

States 31,505,420 100 34,147,954 100 5,474,450 100 12,335,823 100 65,640,000 100 149,103,647 100

Source: Federal support from agencies is based on Urban Institute analysis of administrative data obtained from IMLS, 

NSF, NEA, NEH, 2008. Earmark/allocation reports are based on Urban Institute analysis of data obtained from the 

Citizens Against Government Waste, 2008.

Note: All amounts are expressed in 2006 dollars.

Distribution of Federal Competitive Grant Funds by State

Table VII.2 depicts the four agencies’ funding from FY 2000 to FY 2006. IMLS and NEH were 

the only agencies that provided grants to museums in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. 

During that period, museums in 3 states did not receive NEA support and museums in 22 states 

did not receive NSF support.49 An examination of the cumulative support amounts across all four 

agencies reveals that support tends to be concentrated among states with the largest populations 

and largest museum sectors. Five states (California, New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Pennsylvania) received more than 50% of all the competitive grant dollars awarded by the four agencies 

over these seven years. Based on state-level estimates for museums provided earlier in this report, 

these five states account for 28% of the identified museums in the United States.

49 The tables reporting state-level distribution of NEA grants report direct grants from the agency to museums. NEA 

gives grant to all 50 states through its grants to State Arts Agencies. 

Public Funding for Museums at the Federal Level
55

New York, California, Massachusetts, and Illinois received the most money from IMLS over the 

seven years, with cumulative grant totals ranging from $13.2 million in Illinois to $25.4 million in 

New York. The states that received the least financial support from IMLS over these years were 

North Dakota and Idaho, which received $230,570 and $305,485, respectively. 

The full range of total grant funding to museums from NEH over the same period runs from 

cumulative seven-year grant totals of $18,339 in South Carolina to $15,592,743 in New York. 

From 2000 to 2006, NSF distributed competitive grants to museums in 28 states, ranging from 

a cumulative total of $33,538 in Maine to $82,561,632 in California. Over the same period, NEA 

distributed competitive grants to museums in all states except Arkansas, Kansas, and Oregon, 

with cumulative seven-year totals ranging from $11,383 in South Dakota and West Virginia to 

$7,109,939 in New York.

Table VII.2. Federal Grant Funding to Museums from IMLS, NSF, NEA, and NEH 

by State, FY 2000–2006

IMLS NSF NEA NEH

Total Across 

Four Agencies

Total 2000–06 Total 2000–06 Total 2000–06 Total 2000–06 Total 2000–06

Alabama 1,142,473 141,869 521,594 352,214 2,158,150

Alaska 1,624,800 1,919,189 46,435 1,829,923 5,420,346

Arizona 3,715,776 0 216,921 1,424,750 5,357,446

Arkansas 621,455 0 0 71,684 693,139

California 15,679,429 82,561,632 4,209,933 10,166,693 112,617,687

Colorado 4,950,773 2,453,389 330,467 942,203 8,676,832

Connecticut 5,339,894 1,949,192 592,348 3,219,892 11,101,326

Delaware 820,271 544,310 216,652 906,558 2,487,790

District of Columbia 5,296,898 0 1,11 5,284 3,031,612 9,443,794

Florida 6,450,864 7,842,543 302,145 2,598,796 17,194,347

Georgia 1,757,673 0 1,314,114 1,363,480 4,435,268

Hawaii 659,431 1,922,293 93,380 351,332 3,026,436

Idaho 305,485 0 60,306 32,552 398,344

Illinois 13,299,258 16,348,063 2,306,368 3,974,727 35,928,416

Indiana 2,055,619 1,343,081 82,298 959,830 4,440,827

Iowa 2,080,381 0 306,561 1,005,405 3,392,347

Kansas 1,897,198 0 0 62,428 1,959,626

Kentucky 2,370,180 2,126,934 183,085 153,849 4,834,049

Louisiana 2,501,804 0 168,018 592,575 3,262,396

Maine 4,265,581 33,538 166,889 2,585,170 7,051,178

Maryland 3,257,595 3,387,163 437,424 2,924,086 10,006,268

Massachusetts 15,411,838 26,505,013 2,175,235 7,222,587 51,314,673

Michigan 6,205,450 0 936,560 3,418,255 10,560,265

Minnesota 4,331,881 17,642,016 178,838 2,697,849 24,850,584
56

IMLS NSF NEA NEH

Total Across 

Four Agencies

Total 2000–06 Total 2000–06 Total 2000–06 Total 2000–06 Total 2000–06

Mississippi 504,182 0 156,089 1,206,809 1,867,080

Missouri 3,993,170 2,889,818 712,796 4,175,213 11,770,997

Montana 1,762,548 0 201,383 297,697 2,261,628

Nebraska 1,876,733 0 20,995 608,212 2,505,939

Nevada 735,595 0 53,085 61,075 849,755

New Hampshire 1,553,243 824,780 49,171 1,112,923 3,540,117

New Jersey 1,355,000 2,162,953 460,576 749,525 4,728,053

New Mexico 3,178,852 742,108 528,706 2,819,292 7,268,959

New York 25,431,901 47,476,779 7,109,939 15,592,743 95,611,362

North Carolina 4,890,456 2,725,137 700,882 1,592,222 9,908,698

North Dakota 230,570 0 203,450 53,740 487,761

Ohio 5,461,685 2,738,807 884,629 2,614,034 11,699,156

Oklahoma 1,904,863 0 303,737 554,648 2,763,247

Oregon 2,029,196 6,666,751 0 96,396 8,792,342

Pennsylvania 10,474,319 17,327,026 2,083,777 5,317,059 35,202,181

Rhode Island 718,433 0 26,264 630,605 1,375,302

South Carolina 1,401,435 0 39,973 18,339 1,459,748

South Dakota 808,234 0 11 ,383 71,938 891,555

Tennessee 3,989,249 0 532,604 356,024 4,877,878

Texas 6,543,668 8,741,114 1,555,500 2,477,307 19,317,589

Utah 2,324,967 0 26,296 35,025 2,386,287

Vermont 2,010,912 4,523,074 22,056 1,153,724 7,709,765

Virginia 4,903,352 24,378,909 202,366 5,286,085 34,770,712

Washington 4,813,912 417,305 852,671 1,308,515 7,392,403

West Virginia 695,677 0 11 ,383 25,962 733,022

Wisconsin 4,404,882 965,592 195,633 1,247,538 6,813,645

Wyoming 1,072,514 0 89,864 104,620 1,266,997

U.S. Total 205,111,551 289,300,379 32,996,063 101,455,723 628,863,716 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of data provided by IMLS, NSF, NEA, NEH and Citizens Against Government 

Waste, 2008.

Note: All amounts are expressed in constant 2006 dollars.

Table VII.2. Federal Grant Funding to Museums from IMLS, NSF, NEA, and NEH 

by State, FY 2000–2006 (continued)

Public Funding for Museums at the Federal Level
57

Federal Earmarks

Congressional earmarks are another important source of federal funds for museums.50 Table VII.3 

provides summaries by state of identified earmarks for more than 1,212 museums between FY 

2001 and FY 2006.51 Note that the earmarks identified in Table VII.3 and Figures VII.1 and VII.2 

cover funds allocated to all types of museums, including government-managed and nonprofit museums, federal and military museums, and university-based museums and centers.

Table VII.3. Earmarks to Museums by State, FY 2001–2006

Total Earmarks ($ 2006)

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Total 

2001-06

Alabama 597,628 4,902,724 3,944,348 1,120,593 2,076,903 3,600,000 16,242,196

Alaska 1,707,510 4,762,646 2,191,304 2,241,186 5,082,839 0 15,985,485

Arizona 227,668 56,031 0 1,040,551 849,290 0 2,173,540

Arkansas 0 0 0 80,042 358,194 0 438,236

California 7,884,142 7,765,914 6,347,113 7,031,987 5,065,548 7,700,000 41,794,705

Colorado 341,502 840,467 986,087 4,268,925 258,065 250,000 6,945,046

Connecticut 828,711 1,193,463 838,174 202,774 1,858,065 4,700,000 9,621,187

Delaware 0 0 197,217 0 0 0 197,217

District of 

Columbia 6,830,040 4,773,852 6,847,826 4,546,406 7,458,065 1,470,000 31,926,188

Florida 1,074,593 1,149,759 1,265,478 3,068,290 5,398,710 1,300,000 13,256,830

Georgia 1,792,885 1,277,510 3,438,704 346,850 3,655,226 675,000 11 ,186,175

Hawaii 3,585,771 3,193,774 876,522 853,785 516,129 0 9,025,981

Idaho 0 840,467 0 1,227,316 258,065 0 2,325,847

Illinois 5,099,763 1,456,809 2,651,478 3,601,906 8,237,419 2,880,000 23,927,376

Indiana 0 11 2,062 0 640,339 103,226 2,580,000 3,435,627

50 The earmarks data for this report were drawn from earmarks identified from signed and passed congressional 

appropriation bills collected by the nonprofit organization, Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW). To flag congressional earmarks consistently, CAGW established seven criteria. To be counted as an earmark, appropriations must satisfy at least one of the following criteria: (1) requested by only one chamber of Congress; (2) not specifically authorized; 

(3) not competitively awarded; (4) not requested by the president; (5) greatly exceed the president’s budget request or 

the previous year’s funding; (6) not the subject of congressional hearings; (7) serve only a local or special interest. By 

comparison, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) defines earmarks as funds provided by Congress for projects 

or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents executive branch merit-based or 

competitive allocation processes, specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the executive 

branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process. OMB did not start collecting data on earmarks until 

FY 2006, making the CAGW data the only consistent source of information for the period covered in this report. The 

Urban Institute compared the OMB and CAGW data for the one year in which the two sources overlapped (FY 2006) 

and found the dollar figures to be comparable within 2 percentage points, with the CAGW database providing the 

slightly lower estimate.

51 Earmark data were not available for FY 2000. Therefore, the total amount of federal-level support for museums 

identified in this report is from earmarks from FY 2001–2006 and competitive grants from IMLS, NEA, NEH and NSF 

from FY 2000–2006. 
58

Total Earmarks ($ 2006)

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Total 

2001–06

Iowa 2,276,680 3,025,681 4,683,913 3,255,056 3,210,323 365,000 16,816,652

Kansas 1,081,423 0 310,617 186,765 412,903 0 1,991,709

Kentucky 1,928,348 1,372,763 0 1,227,316 11,489,032 0 16,017,459

Louisiana 284,585 560,311 547,826 0 1,135,484 500,000 3,028,206

Maine 398,419 2,801,556 1,512,000 0 100,129 400,000 5,212,104

Maryland 701,217 0 5,752,174 1,464,241 877,419 200,000 8,995,052

Massachusetts 2,514,593 1,372,763 1,764,000 1,067,231 1,858,065 250,000 8,826,651

Michigan 1,377,391 952,529 221,870 2,134,463 1,465,548 1,850,000 8,001,801

Minnesota 581,692 0 1,698,261 133,404 428,387 250,000 3,091,744

Mississippi 1,400,158 1,428,794 273,913 2,881,525 3,716,129 2,950,000 12,650,519

Missouri 8,935,968 560,311 4,355,217 982,920 1,496,774 6,950,000 23,281,191

Montana 0 392,218 0 1,334,039 1,290,323 450,000 3,466,580

Nebraska 0 0 0 0 1,147,871 5,240,000 6,387,871

Nevada 0 0 383,478 160,085 206,452 0 750,015

New Hampshire 341,502 0 0 26,681 2,012,903 1,500,000 3,881,086

New Jersey 3,606,261 0 0 0 1,823,742 340,000 5,770,003

New Mexico 227,668 0 1,062,783 346,850 0 200,000 1,837,301

New York 6,740,111 16,181,790 8,268,065 4,161,135 7,059,871 2,825,000 45,235,972

North Carolina 942,545 560,311 769,696 1,387,401 837,419 2,030,000 6,527,372

North Dakota 227,668 336,187 273,913 0 0 0 837,768

Ohio 397,281 3,397,728 3,670,435 3,308,417 5,410,065 1,075,000 17,258,925

Oklahoma 0 0 1,725,652 747,062 2,683,871 420,000 5,576,585

Oregon 170,751 1,512,840 378,000 1,173,954 333,161 400,000 3,968,707

Pennsylvania 5,778,213 3,440,311 4,545,313 4,028,798 4,797,677 1,800,000 24,390,313

Rhode Island 1,309,091 1,120,623 443,739 586,977 51,613 0 3,512,043

South Carolina 2,561,265 381,012 0 533,616 258,065 200,000 3,933,957

South Dakota 0 336,187 2,958,261 2,134,463 1,703,226 200,000 7,332,136

Tennessee 1,878,261 952,529 368,687 3,335,098 2,519,742 300,000 9,354,317

Texas 2,112,759 1,949,883 1,695,522 426,893 619,355 550,000 7,354,411

Utah 1,707,510 0 0 240,127 77,419 1,800,000 3,825,056

Vermont 2,561,265 3,434,708 0 0 0 0 5,995,973

Virginia 2,922,119 4,263,969 5,216,400 3,612,578 3,664,516 1,250,000 20,929,582

Washington 2,447,431 1,008,560 843,104 907,147 3,169,032 1,700,000 10,075,274

West Virginia 1,821,344 5,821,634 0 106,723 4,129,032 4,140,000 16,018,734

Wisconsin 569,170 1,232,685 0 373,531 154,839 0 2,330,224

Wyoming 0 0 0 0 325,161 350,000 675,161

U.S. Total 91,195,826 90,723,362 83,307,091 72,802,253 11 2,415,484 65,640,000 516,084,016

Source: Urban Institute analysis of Citizens Against Government Waste data, 2008.

Note: All amounts are expressed in constant 2006 dollars.

Table VII.3. Earmarks to Museums by State, FY 2001–2006 (continued)

Public Funding for Museums at the Federal Level
59

There is considerable unevenness in the amount of earmarked funding to museums in most 

states over the six-year period. For example, seven states and the District of Columbia received 

more than $1 million each in all six years. Some states (Delaware, Nebraska, and Wyoming) 

received earmarks in only one year. 

There is also significant variation in the amount of earmark money that is distributed to a given 

state over time. The presence of one or two major earmarks in a given year may result in a significantly larger amount of money compared to previous or later years. For example, Ohio received 

a total of $17.2 million over the six years, but the dollar amounts in individual years ranged from 

$397,281 to $5.4 million. 

Over the six years reviewed for this study, 1,214 earmarks were distributed to museums through 

12 federal appropriation subcommittees (see appendix G). The median size of award for the six 

years was $250,000, while the full range extended from $50,000 to $5 million. The number of 

earmarks to museums rose steadily from 2001 to 2005 (see Figure VII.1) and then fell to the 

lowest level of all six years in 2006. In 2005, the year with the highest number and dollar amount 

of federal earmarks to museums, the total number of museum earmarks was just over 2% of the 

total number of federal earmarks awarded, according to the data collected by CAGW. As a proportion of dollars distributed through earmarks, the $112 million in earmarks to museums in 2005 

represents 0.4% of all earmark monies distributed in that fiscal year. 

Figure VII.1. Number of Earmarks to Museums by Budget Year, FY 2001–2006

Source: Urban Institute analysis of Citizens Against Government Waste data, 2008.

156

174

225

220

297

141

FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
60

Although detailed descriptions are not available for many of the earmarks in the CAGW data, a 

review of the earmarks with project descriptions indicates that the largest share of museum earmarks were for program support (46%), followed by capital construction (29%), and then operating 

support (4%) and research (4%). Many earmarks could not be identified (17%) from the information available (see Figure VII.2).52 The types of earmarks specified in Figure VII.2 were the result of 

Urban Institute analysis of earmark data.53

Figure VII.2. Types of Federal Earmarks to Museums, FY 2005. Total = 296 earmarks

Source: Urban Institute analysis of Citizens Against Government Waste data, 2008.

Table VII.4 details museum funding from IMLS, NSF, NEH, NEA, and federal earmarks, by 

state. The states most successful in receiving federal money, from both competitive grant programs 

and earmarks, are again California and New York. The next two most successful states lag far 

behind. The third most successful state (Massachusetts), as well as the fourth (Illinois), received 

less than half as many federal dollars as either California or New York.54

52 Earmarks for FY 2005 were coded for this analysis because this was the last year of available data that contained 

earmarks distributed through the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriation. A significant 

percentage (17%) of earmarks could not be categorized because of insufficient descriptive information and should be 

taken into account when comparing the distribution of earmark purposes. 

53 Capital construction includes earmarks for expansion, construction, renovation, restoration, and updates to and 

repairs of facilities. Earmarks for traffic and transportation infrastructure were also classified as capital construction. 

Program support includes earmarks for conservation and assessment projects, preservation, digitization, education, 

community outreach, and exhibition and earmarks designated to projects. Operations support includes earmarks for 

equipment, wages, training, technological infrastructure, and maintenance. Research support includes earmarks for 

research projects and studies. Undefined includes all earmarks for which only the name of the museum receiving the 

earmark is known and no other information is available.

54 For further comparison, appendix C, Table AC.10 shows per capita funding from all federal sources by state for the 

years 2000–2006.

Public Funding for Museums at the Federal Level

88, 29%

136, 46% 13, 4%

11, 4%

49, 17%

Capital Construction

Operating Support

Program Support

Research Support

Undefined
61

Table VII.4. Museum Funding from IMLS, NSF, NEH, NEA, and Earmarks: FY 2000–2006, by State

Total ($ 2006)

2000* 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Total 

2000–06*

AL 380,675 796,496 5,181,731 4,336,219 1,412,815 2,202,999 4,089,412 18,400,347 

AK 531,105 1,811,913 5,625,432 3,204,397 2,813,749 6,321,702 1,097,533 21,405,831

AZ 725,830 1,672,104 515,498 807,599 1,332,516 2,055,949 421,490 7,530,986 

AR 136,553 98,055 154,357 65,979 223,531 372,681 80,219 1,131,375 

CA 12,395,872 26,734,786 20,090,563 21,726,760 24,641,779 28,303,076 20,519,556 154,412,392 

CO 633,028 1,831,526 1,868,126 1,483,338 6,285,168 1,876,405 1,644,288 15,621,878 

CT 780,321 2,240,258 2,131,378 1,979,779 4,164,091 2,938,693 6,487,993 20,722,513 

DE 149,074 489,891 250,564 431,862 804,391 138,472 420,752 2,685,008 

DC 783,790 8,318,484 5,579,715 7,638,181 5,110,479 9,149,216 4,790,117 41,369,982 

FL 2,020,099 2,355,761 2,768,556 4,666,503 6,396,178 9,101,357 3,142,722 30,451,177 

GA 428,020 2,182,389 1,645,499 3,720,927 1,386,774 4,038,338 2,219,497 15,621,443 

HI 279,026 4,103,677 3,622,321 1,222,992 1,748,600 1,030,316 45,485 12,052,417 

ID 31,962 88,846 885,941 101,029 1,273,052 281,110 62,251 2,724,191

IL 5,360,722 8,707,843 6,160,431 8,743,450 8,330,124 15,040,551 7,512,671 59,855,792 

IN 1,605,516 222,696 344,567 602,056 1,406,782 444,191 3,250,647 7,876,454 

IA 753,223 2,701,324 3,489,513 4,841,562 3,936,803 3,639,991 846,583 20,208,999 

KS 176,426 1,354,403 577,043 362,345 727,383 434,508 319,226 3,951,335 

KY 330,958 2,897,560 2,108,660 146,928 3,177,370 11,705,032 485,000 20,851,507 

LA 229,727 527,822 951,812 1,349,492 926,976 1,162,694 1,142,080 6,290,603 

ME 277,297 1,197,218 4,269,741 2,813,057 1,563,123 413,993 1,728,853 12,263,283 

MD 2,815,372 1,663,380 1,169,499 7,316,307 3,651,224 1,562,104 823,435 19,001,320 

MA 4,990,345 8,649,800 6,493,839 8,580,873 9,955,298 11,567,202 9,903,968 60,141,324 

MI 1,213,342 2,556,073 2,279,638 2,188,794 3,806,671 3,064,309 3,453,240 18,562,066 

MN 4,707,623 3,874,776 3,947,985 3,759,168 4,242,690 4,956,830 2,453,256 27,942,328 

MS 149,461 1,930,875 1,749,146 284,064 3,217,209 3,747,278 3,439,564 14,517,599 

MO 524,282 10,316,092 1,460,857 7,525,324 3,305,948 3,286,564 8,633,122 35,052,188 

MT 382,725 361,447 717,873 165,880 1,929,777 1,341,924 828,582 5,728,208 

NE 282,673 462,517 323,519 624,571 166,214 1,575,945 5,458,371 8,893,810 

NV 343,407 22,342 45,833 553,025 169,732 455,429 10,000 1,599,769 

NH 1,291,435 777,935 999,787 223,589 340,352 2,210,041 1,578,065 7,421,203 

NJ 107,828 4,051,117 374,334 1,445,461 1,052,638 2,201,786 1,264,892 10,498,056 

NM 536,615 1,746,626 1,859,690 1,929,859 1,040,083 416,499 1,576,888 9,106,259 

NY 8,894,556 21,033,066 29,383,981 22,430,286 17,586,960 25,907,436 15,611,050 140,847,334 

NC 1,428,788 2,137,036 2,027,760 2,094,008 3,659,251 2,184,838 2,904,389 16,436,071

ND 49,572 317,403 444,211 328,429 101,738 59,174 25,000 1,325,529 
62

Total ($ 2006)

2000* 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Total 

2000–06*

OH 2,204,060 2,495,075 5,885,577 4,509,722 5,203,724 6,195,361 2,464,561 28,958,080 

OK 269,837 710,534 515,611 1,955,095 1,096,737 3,259,741 532,278 8,339,832 

OR 244,544 1,234,167 4,285,264 3,430,662 2,455,284 659,516 451,613 12,761,049 

PA 4,316,215 11,408,730 7,852,203 10,387,680 8,768,932 11,113,524 5,745,211 59,592,495 

RI 759,646 1,322,034 1,422,558 480,399 789,355 79,494 33,860 4,887,345 

SC 417,399 2,705,851 536,801 116,977 663,176 485,703 467,797 5,393,704 

SD 58,155 155,446 524,409 2,965,158 2,314,841 1,781,698 423,985 8,223,692 

TN 738,043 2,428,255 1,193,939 916,179 4,588,171 3,753,472 614,135 14,232,195 

TX 1,282,136 5,150,860 4,903,736 4,887,087 3,946,202 2,668,916 3,833,064 26,672,001

UT 348,965 1,727,966 331,582 196,756 651,428 433,519 2,521,127 6,211,344 

VT 1,707,155 3,213,288 4,461,639 317,053 869,980 1,715,799 1,420,824 13,705,738 

VA 5,189,514 11,545,442 11,079,601 9,704,070 7,509,438 7,433,068 3,239,161 55,700,294 

WA 941,821 3,989,116 1,740,803 1,973,927 2,147,319 4,142,449 2,532,243 17,467,677 

WV 40,402 1,838,129 5,860,894 92,327 141,627 4,404,847 4,373,529 16,751,756 

WI 717,204 2,228,933 2,266,550 731,706 1,107,779 581,241 1,510,456 9,143,869 

WY 155,067 59,967 52,232 253,057 335,161 417,068 669,606 1,942,158 

U.S. 

Total 75,117,410 182,447,327 174,412,798 172,611,949 174,476,622 214,314,052 149,103,647 1,142,483,806 

Sources: National Science Foundation, National Endowment for the Humanities, National Endowment for the Arts, 

Institute of Museum and Library Services, and Urban Institute analysis of Citizens Against Government Waste data, 

2008.

* No data on federal earmarks to museums were available for 2000. Data for 2000 reflect only NSF, NEA, NEH, and 

IMLS grants.

Figure VII.3 compares the total distribution of funds to museums over time across IMLS, 

NSF, NEH, NEA, and earmarks. The chart highlights the considerable gap between the amounts 

distributed in competitive grants and the amounts distributed by means of earmarks. For several 

years, dollars distributed through the earmark process approach the amounts allocated from the 

four granting agencies combined. The total distribution of dollars from the five federal sources over 

these years amounts to more than $1.2 billion.55 Museum support from the four granting agencies 

remained fairly consistent over time, until 2005. NSF support was steady at around $40 million 

55 The drop in FY 2006 dollars is due to the absence of earmarks accompanying the FY 2006 Labor, Health and 

Human Services, and Education appropriations bill. 

Table VII.4. Museum Funding from IMLS, NSF, NEH, NEA, and Earmarks: FY 2000–2006, by State 

(continued)

Public Funding for Museums at the Federal Level
63

over the seven years. IMLS support increased slightly, settling at $31.5 million in 2006. NEH 

support for museums hovered just above $10 million, and NEA funds were among the most stable, 

albeit the lowest of the agencies, remaining around $5 million.

Figure VII.4. Federal Grants and Earmarks to Museums, FY 2000–2006, in Constant 2006 $

Source: Urban Institute analysis of data provided by IMLS, NSF, NEA, NEH and Citizens Against Government 

Waste, 2008.

Section Summary

Given the extremely wide range of substantive expertise in the sector, it is not surprising that 

U.S. museums partner with many different federal agencies. While it is important for museums 

to have a variety of access points into the federal government, the diffuse nature of the support 

presents significant challenges to a full accounting of the federal government’s contribution to U.S. 

museums. The federal-source dollars reported here are not exhaustive; however, it is reasonable to 

assume that the sources identified for this report represent the largest group of direct federal support to U.S. museums. 

Although the data presented here may not cover all direct federal dollars distributed to museums, important conclusions can be drawn from these data. First, direct federal support to museums appears to be larger than previously reported.56 Across the five federal sources examined for 

this study, direct support to museums between FY 2001 and FY 2006 averaged just under $200 

56 The American Association of Museums estimated federal support for museums in FY 2006 at approximately $135 

million (excluding State Arts Agency grants to museums). Its report does not include earmark data. See American 

Association of Museums, March 2007, “Federal Support for Museums FY 2004–FY 2008.” Available at www.aamus.org/getinvolved/advocate/ffc/upload/Chart_Federal_Support_for_Museums_FY_2004_FY_2008.pdf. 

$100,000

$20,100,000

$40,100,000

$60,100,000

$80,100,000

$100,100,000

$120,100,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

NEA NEH IMLS NSF Ea rma rks/Appropria tions
64

million a year. In FY 2006, direct competitive grant funds to museums from the four agencies 

amounted to more than $83 million. In the same year, $65 million was distributed to museums in 

the form of congressional earmarks. Second, because a major portion of this direct federal support is provided for advances in certain disciplines, the pool of federal money may be significantly 

smaller for some types of institutions than others. Third, the distribution of competitive grants and 

earmarks across the states suggests that federal dollars may be concentrated among certain states. 

Across the competitive grant programs reviewed for this report, five states received slightly more 

than 50% of all funds awarded. 

Public Funding for Museums at the Federal Level
65

Federal-State 

Partnerships in 

the Cultural Sector: 

IMLS, NEA and NEH and the Role 

of State-Level Intermediaries

To investigate the potential effectiveness of a program that would 

provide museum services by means of grants to states, IMLS 

examined the current federal-state partnerships in the NEA, 

NEH, and IMLS grants to states programs. This section provides 

a broad overview of federal-state partnership funding mechanisms that deliver support to cultural organizations and programs 

within the states.

NEA and NEH have channeled funds to state organizations 

from very early in their operational history. Indeed, the National 

Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, which 

created the two endowments, emphasizes the importance of 

support from nonfederal sources with federal support in a 

complementary position. For example, in the “Declaration of 

Findings and Purposes” of the Act (20 U.S.C. §951), Congress 

finds and declares that “[t]he encouragement and support of 

national progress and scholarship in the humanities and the 

arts, while primarily a matter for private and local initiative, are 

also appropriate matters of concern to the Federal Government.” 

Another finding and purpose declares that “[i]t is necessary and 

appropriate for the Federal Government to complement, assist, 

Pictured: The Rotunda entrance of the Birmingham Civil Rights 

Institute in Birmingham, Alabama.
66

Federal-State Partnerships in the Cultural Sector

and add to programs for the advancement of the humanities and the arts by local, state, regional, 

and private agencies and their organizations.”

The Museum and Library Services Act (MLSA) of 1996 established the Institute of Museum 

and Library Services within the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities. The Library 

Services and Technology Act (LSTA), a subtitle of MLSA, directed IMLS to support library services 

and technology through state-based programs under LSTA to sharpen the focus on these goals: to 

adapt new technologies to identify, preserve, and share library and information resources across 

institutional, local, and State boundaries; to ensure that all Americans have access to the information superhighway; and to extend outreach to those for whom library service requires extra effort 

or special materials (such as new readers, the geographically isolated, children in poverty, or 

people with disabilities).

State Arts Agencies

NEA supports a cohort of State Arts Agencies (SAAs), which, in turn, support arts programs and 

organizations within the states. By law, NEA allocates 40% of its annual grants budget to the 

SAAs and regional arts organizations. These SAAs are entities of state government, and their 

administrative staffs are state employees. Of the 56 SAAs (50 states and six U.S. jurisdictions), 

55 are situated in the executive branch.57 To receive funding from NEA, the SAA becomes party 

to a State Partnership Agreement that specifies the use of the funds. NEA identifies seven standards of accountability for which SAAs are responsible as funding recipients: inclusive planning, 

responsive plans, evaluation of performance in relation to plans, fair decision-making, reporting 

on funded activities and leadership in arts education, access to artistic excellence, and partnerships for the arts.58 A State Partnership Agreement award must be matched 1:1 by the state. NEA 

awards a $200,000 base grant to each SAA, and additional funds are awarded based on formula 

and equal-share apportionment. In FY 2006, the total allocation to the state partnership program 

was $40.6 million.

To better understand the federal-state partnerships supported by NEA, IMLS asked the 

National Assembly of State Arts Agencies to provide data regarding museum-funding mechanisms 

that 15 SAAs use (Table VIII.1).59 SAAs distribute funds for the purpose of enhancing access to 

57 The National Assembly of State Arts Agencies reports that 6 SAAs are within the governor’s or secretary of state’s 

office; 23 are independent state agencies, reporting to the governor; 26 are within a larger division of state government; and one, Vermont’s, is a nonprofit organization that complies with state government regulations.

58 Accountability standards as outlined in NEA description of State Partnership Grants. www.nea.gov/grants/apply/

Partnership/states.html.

59 IMLS staff selected the 15 states to comprise the sample. The first requirement was geographic distribution to 

account for regional differences. Next, based on staff experience with grantees and potential grantees, states were 

included because IMLS had awarded either a large number or a small number of grants to the state. Thus, the states 

in the sample represent a range of success in receiving IMLS awards. IMLS is grateful for the professional courtesy 

of the staffs of NEH and the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies in assembling the data regarding the State 

Humanities Councils and State Arts Agencies support for museums.
67

the arts, without regard to museum type. SAAs conduct peer review evaluations and provide funds 

to museums for a variety of activities, including general operating support. 

Each state’s SAA determines its individual priorities and allocates funds accordingly. For 

example, in 2006, the Pennsylvania Council on the Arts made 26 museum awards for a total of 

$1,512,191, of which awards for general operating support comprised 45%. Exhibit awards made 

up 36%, and the balance was for other activities, such as audience services and performances.

Table VIII.1. State Arts Agency Grants to Museums in 15 Selected States, FY 2006

SAA

Dollars to 

Museums

Median 

Museum 

Grant

General 

Operating 

Support 

Awards

GOS as 

% of 

Museum 

Grant $

Exhibition 

Awards

Exhibits 

as % of 

Museum 

Grant $

All Other 

Museum 

Grants

All 

Other 

%

No. of 

Museum 

Grants

AZ $434,366 $5,000 $359,168 83% $3,500 1% $71,698 17% 29

HI $61,217 $7,129 $0 0% $19,121 31% $42,096 69% 6

ME $15,000 $15,000 $0 0% $0 0% $15,000 100% 1

MI $3,881,650 $33,550 $0 0% $1,732,100 45% $2,149,550 55% 23

MS $363,125 $6,612 $31,500 9% $65,200 18% $266,425 73% 15

MO $156,974 $4,072 $0 0% $149,952 96% $7,022 4% 10

NE $124,811 $2,664 $96,907 78% $12,718 10% $15,186 12% 15

ND $59,519 $3,000 $13,350 22% $44,777 75% $1,392 2% 10

OH $1,364,176 $16,653 $1,296,232 95% $17,279 1% $50,665 4% 23

PA $1,512,191 $37,691 $681,707 45% $543,450 36% $287,034 19% 26

SC $86,005 $7,037 $78,815 92% $1,000 1% $6,190 7% 10

TX $341,098 $2,294 $29,092 9% $56,804 17% $255,202 75% 95

UT $74,800 $2,750 $57,000 76% $6,300 8% $11 ,500 15% 11

VA $173,379 $500 $158,000 91% $6,400 4% $8,979 5% 24

WA $170,564 $10,543 $134,564 79% $1,000 1% $35,000 21% 14

Total $8,818,875 $2,936,335 $2,659,601 $3,222,939 312

Source: National Assembly of State Arts Agencies (NASAA) from Final Descriptive Report (FDR) data submitted annually to NASAA and the NEA, 2008.

Data reflect most current grant data available from each state (2005 or 2006).

State Humanities Councils

NEH distributes its federal-state partnership funds through the State Humanities Councils, which 

are private nonprofit organizations as opposed to the state agencies that are the partners with NEA 

and IMLS. The councils are made up of between 15 and 20 volunteers, one-fourth of whom are 

appointed by the governor. All humanities councils operate under a 501(c)(3) status. By law, at 

least 20% of NEH’s program funds must be allocated to the federal-state partnership program. The 

minimum award is $200,000, and the rest of the allocation is distributed by equal share and by 

a formula. Individual councils may also apply to other divisions within NEH. The award from NEH 

must be matched 1:1, but goods and services may be counted toward the matching requirement. In 

FY 2006, the total allocation to NEH’s federal-state partnership program was $38.446 million. 
68

Humanities Councils do not provide general operating support to museums; instead, they 

encourage museums to expand and enhance public understanding and appreciation for the 

humanities by means of exhibits and public programming. Study and appreciation of humanities 

may include, for example, exhibits and programs focusing on state and local history. Like State 

Arts Agencies, State Humanities Councils conduct peer review evaluations. 

The study team asked the Division of Federal-State Partnerships within NEH to provide data 

on the grants that State Humanities Councils award to support museums in the states. NEH 

provided information for the same 15 states in the sample for SAAs (see Tables VIII.2 and VIII.3). 

Table VIII.2 reflects State Humanities Council awards made to museums in the 15-state sample, 

by category of purpose. Almost three-fourths of the support was devoted to exhibits and public 

programming. The other categories of support fall far behind, but in general are the same categories that NEH emphasizes: materials for exhibits and programming, care of collections, and professional development.

Table VIII.2. State Humanities Council Grants to Museums in 15 States, FY 2006

Project Amount %

Exhibits $332,968 39%

Public Programming $291,398 35%

Materials $145,954 17%

Care of Collections $40,690 5%

Professional Development $30,525 4%

Total $841,535 100%

Source: National Endowment for the Humanities, 2008.

Humanities Council awards to museums are on average smaller that those provided by State 

Arts Agencies and than most federal competitive grant awards. In Table VIII.3, to use Pennsylvania 

again for comparison, the Pennsylvania Humanities Council made 35 awards to 32 museums for 

a total of $106,847. The average amount of museum award from the Pennsylvania Humanities 

Council was $3,053. The North Dakota Humanities Council gave out three awards to three separate museums for a total of $22,100, with an average award to each museum of $7,367. Like the 

SAAs, the Humanities Councils decide their individual strategies for funding after assessing needs 

within their states. 

Federal-State Partnerships in the Cultural Sector
69

Table VIII.3. State Humanities Council Grants to Museums in 15 Selected States, FY 2006

State

Dollars to 

Museums

Average $ per 

Grant

Number of 

Museums 

Receiving $

Average $ per 

Museum

No. of Museum 

Grants

Arizona 52,020 4,335 11 4,729 12

Hawaii 11 7,450 6,525 13 9,035 18

Maine 32,475 1,910 17 1,910 17

Michigan 78,967 7,897 9 8,774 10

Mississippi 71,260 3,393 20 3,563 21

Missouri 27,608 2,510 10 2,761 11

Nebraska 43,220 3,087 8 5,403 14

North Dakota 22,100 7,367 3 7,367 3

Ohio 55,850 2,428 23 2,428 23

Pennsylvania 106,847 3,053 32 3,339 35

South Carolina 24,459 2,446 9 2,718 10

Texas 59,074 2,110 24 2,461 28

Utah 23,867 1,836 9 2,652 13

Washington 36,285 1,910 11 3,299 19

Virginia 80,050 5,718 18 4.447 14

Total 831,532 217 248

Source: National Endowment for the Humanities, 2008.

Grants to States for Libraries

The Grants to States program for libraries in IMLS is by far the largest of the three programs under 

review. Its purpose is the delivery of library services to all states and territories. To participate in 

this program, each state must establish a State Library Administrative Agency (SLAA) and certify 

that it has the fiscal and legal authority, as well as the capacity, to administer the federal funds 

that it receives. Forty-nine SLAAs are located in the executive branch of state government.60 In 

administering these funds, each state must develop a five-year plan approved by IMLS that outlines 

programs to strengthen the efficiency, reach, and effectiveness of library services. These programs 

support the six Grants to States priorities:

60 State Library Administrative Agencies are in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, 

Northern Marianas, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, 2 SLAAs are part 

of the legislative branch of state government and 49 are part of the executive branch. Of these 49 agencies, 18 are 

independent agencies and 31 are situated within a larger agency such as the department of education or department 

of cultural resources. Source: Henderson, E., Manjarrez, C., Miller, K., Dorinski, S., Freeman, M., Music, C., O’Shea, P., 

Sheckells, C. (2008) State Library Agency Survey: Fiscal Year 2007 (IMLS-2008-StLA-02). Washington, DC: Institute 

of Museum and Library Services. 
70

expand services for learning and access to information and educational resources in a 

variety of formats, in all types of libraries, for individuals of all ages; 

develop library services that provide all users access to information through local, state, 

regional, national, and international electronic networks; 

provide electronic and other linkages between and among all types of libraries; 

develop public and private partnerships with other agencies and community-based organizations; 

target library services to individuals of diverse geographic, cultural, and socioeconomic 

backgrounds, to individuals with disabilities, and to individuals with limited functional 

literacy or information skills; and 

target library and information services to persons having difficulty using a library and to 

underserved urban and rural communities, including children from families with incomes 

below the poverty line. 

Following approval of the five-year plan, a base grant amount is allocated to each state, with 

the remaining funds distributed to each state on a per capita basis. For FY 2008, the base grant 

was $540,968, with a total allotment to SLAAs of $160,885,357.61 Grants are also made available to nine U.S. territories. 96% of the allotment awarded to the SLAAs by IMLS must be spent 

within the six priorities listed above, and none can be used for construction. The SLAA must match 

in cash the federal funds it receives with nonfederal funds, with a 66% federal to 34% nonfederal 

funding ratio. In addition, each state must sustain a “maintenance of effort” level of state spending 

on libraries and library programs to ensure that federal funds do not replace state funds in supporting state-based programs. State expenditures that demonstrate “maintenance of effort” address 

four broad purposes of the program: 

to consolidate federal library service programs;

to promote improvement in library services in all types of libraries in order to better serve 

the people of the United States;

to facilitate access to resources in all types of libraries for the purpose of cultivating an 

educated and informed citizenry; and

to encourage resource sharing among all types of libraries for the purpose of achieving 

economical and efficient delivery of library services to the public.

“Maintenance of effort” is determined if state expenditures remain at or above the average of 

the total of such expenditures in the previous three fiscal years. If the previous year’s state expenditure is below the average of the total expenditures in three fiscal years preceding that year, then 

61 A state-by-state account, including U.S. territories, of SLAA allotments from FY 2004 to FY 2008 is available at 

www.imls.gov/programs/allotments.shtm.

.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

.

2.

3.

4.

Federal-State Partnerships in the Cultural Sector
71

the next fiscal year allocation to the state is reduced proportionately. Each state may establish an 

advisory group to guide the work of the SLAA. At the end of the five-year period, each state reports 

to IMLS on its results in achieving the goals and objectives outlined in the five-year plan. 

Section Summary 

Table VIII.4 outlines the comparisons among the three federal-state partnership funding mechanisms in this section. Several key components occur across the federal-state partnerships at IMLS, 

NEA, and NEH, which are likely to influence the creation and implementation of a new federalstate partnership for museums.

Table VIII.4. Summary of Current Federal-State Partnership Funding Mechanisms

Federal Partner IMLS NEA NEH

State Partner State Library Administrative 

Agency

State Arts Agency State Humanities Council

Purpose

Provide equity of access to 

information and learning to 

all people

Furnish adequate programs, 

facilities and services in the 

arts to all American people.

Increase public awareness 

of and participation in the 

humanities in all places in 

the country

Governance State agency State agency Nonprofit organization

Base Award to State $540,968 $200,000 $200,000 

FY 2006 Appropriation $163.7 million $40.6 million $38.4 million

% of Federal Agency 

Budget

Per enacted FY 2006 budget: 66.25%Min 40% by law Min 20% by law 

FY 2008 Appropriation $160.9 million $41.4 million $31.7 million

 Adjustments

Base grant given with 

remaining funds distributed 

by population

Base grant given with 

remaining funds distributed 

by equal share 

Base grant given with 

remaining funds distributed 

by equal share and by 

population

State Match/Maintenance 

of Effort Requirements

66% federal/34% nonfederal funds 50% federal/50% nonfederal funds 50% federal /50% nonfederal funds 

Mandatory Provisions, 

Restrictions on Use

96% of allotment must be 

spent on the six priorities 

defined in legislation for 

IMLS grants to SLAAs; funds 

cannot be used for construction

Funds must be used within 

the defined purposes of NEA 

legislation

All funds must be used for 

the humanities that match 

the funding areas of the NEH

Public Participation 

Requirements

Yes: SLAA must make state 

plan available to the public, 

and the plan must describe 

procedures that the SLAA 

will use to involve library 

users in policy decisions 

regarding the implementation of the LSTA program

Yes: State agency must hold 

public meeting of state plan 

for public opportunity to 

comment

Yes: Councils must give 

their public an opportunity 

to comment (ex: open board 

meeting, public meeting, 

Internet, etc)

Planning Requirement

Yes: 5 year plan Yes: Each state determines 

the length of its state plan

Yes: Annual compliance plan 

that includes quantitative 

data collection

Data Collection/

Performance Evaluation 

Requirement

Annual reporting; 5 year 

evaluation

Annual reporting 5 year assessment with 

qualitative evaluation

Source: IMLS, NEA, and NEH.
72

The IMLS partnership with SLAAs is focused on capacity building and the delivery of services 

across the library sector, while the NEA partnership with SAAs and the NEH partnership with 

Humanities Councils are focused on advancing their respective disciplines by supporting the arts 

and the humanities at the state level. While NEA and NEH federal-state partnerships contribute 

considerable funds to museums for programs and services in advancement of their respective 

agency missions, no federal-state partnership addresses the capacity of the museum sector and its 

delivery of museum services as a whole. 

In each partnership, certain commonalities exist in the distribution of federal funds through 

the state-level partner. Each of the federal agencies allocates a base grant to the state partner 

and distributes any remaining funds by population and/or equal distribution. With the exception 

of NEH, the agencies require that federal funds be matched in some proportion by state funding, 

and in all cases their use is conditioned by the distinct purposes of the federal agency. In addition, 

state-level partners are required in all three instances to have statewide planning and regular evaluation and some form of public involvement through open board meetings, public hearings, public 

advisory committees, or some other means. In short, whether through a state agency or a private 

nonprofit organization, the state partner for the IMLS, NEA, and NEH programs must have some 

infrastructure in place in order to fulfill the partnership requirements. 

Throughout the history of the program, most SLAAs have been able to meet or exceed the 

match requirement of the Grants to States program. However, at times some states have been 

unable to meet the “maintenance of effort” requirement for a fiscal year. While a count of the 

number of states able to meet NEA’s match requirement was not available at the time of this writing, states have generally been able to maintain a high ratio of state to federal funding and to meet 

match requirements. For example, in 2008, the ratio of state to federal support of the SAAs was 

10.6:1, and it has been higher in recent years.62 State expenditures are vulnerable to budgetary 

pressures in times of fiscal crisis; however, the leveraging power of federal funds is evidenced in 

the frequent ability of library and art agencies to meet or exceed their match requirements.63

The NEH federal-state partnership distributes federal funds through the humanities councils, 

which operate independently of state government as private nonprofits. Their nonprofit status qualifies them for deductible donations from corporations and foundations, as well as individual donors, 

and they can match federal funds with state or other funds. In addition, their match requirement 

can be partially fulfilled by in-kind goods and services. In FY 2005, for example, state governments funded just 15.5% of the total State Humanities Council budgets.64 As a result, Humanities 

Councils may not be as vulnerable as state agencies to budgetary pressures within the state legis62 This information was obtained from the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies.

63 Lowell, Julia F. 2004. State Arts Agencies 1965–2003: Whose Interests to Serve? Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. 

64 Federation of State Humanities Councils. May 10, 2006. “FY 2005 Funding for State Humanities Councils.” 

Handout received at March 2007 AAM-sponsored Conversation on Federal Funding, Washington, DC.

Federal-State Partnerships in the Cultural Sector
73

lature because of their diversified funding base. This is not to imply that Humanities Councils are 

immune to any number of economic factors within their individual states, and historical information regarding Humanities Council budgets would need to be considered in a comprehensive 

comparison of state agency partners and private nonprofit partners in a federal-state partnership.

Matching fund requirements are designed so that federal funds do not replace state funds but 

instead act as an incentive to maintain support when state budgets are constrained. In light of 

the issues discussed above, if a federal-state museum partnership is to be considered, it is very 

important to identify differences and implications among delivery mechanisms at the state level to 

ensure that federal funds contribute to maintaining and leveraging state support. 

In each partnership, certain commonalities exist in the distribution of federal funds through 

the state-level partner. Each of the federal agencies allocates a base grant to the state partner 

and distributes any remaining funds by population and/or equal distribution. With the exception 

of NEH, the agencies require that federal funds be matched in some proportion by state funding, and in all cases their use is conditioned by the distinct purposes of the federal agency. In 

addition, state-level partners are required in all three instances to have statewide planning and 

regular evaluation and, though not a direct requirement of IMLS, some kind of public involvement 

through open board meetings, public hearings, public advisory committees, or some other means. 

In short, whether through a state agency or a private nonprofit organization, the state partner for 

the IMLS, NEA, and NEH programs must have some infrastructure in place in order to fulfill the 

partnership requirements. 

Furthermore, because the criteria for participation in the existing federal-state partnership programs operate on certain assumptions about the purpose of the federal funds, a common understanding of state-level capacities and of the number and capacities of the individual institutions 

that make up the sector being supported is essential. This is one of the fundamental strengths 

of the IMLS state-based library program, which collects sound current data on the number and 

capacities of each state’s libraries. Similar systematic data collection on the museum sector, 

including data on state-level infrastructure and institutional capacity, would be essential to an 

informed discussion of the delivery and use of federal funds to the states in a new federal-state 

partnership for museums. 
74

This section provides information about state government funding 

for public museums and agencies that fund museums and about 

perceptions of the public character and role of museums. As this 

report has shown, the federal-state funding partnership model is 

structured in different ways in the arts, in the humanities, and 

for libraries. The following questions guide the analysis: What 

would policymakers want to know about states in order to design 

a federal-state funding structure for museums? What structures 

already exist that might be leveraged for a federal-state funding 

partnership for museums? Are there existing state-level structures 

that might affect the efficiency and equitability of a new federalstate funding partnership? To answer these questions, a clearer 

understanding of the cultural sector at the state level is needed. 

The Urban Institute (UI) gathered field and administrative 

data on systems of support for culture and quantified the dollars 

delivered through these systems in eight states selected as case 

studies for the report. A first round of states was selected based 

on identifying ongoing state-level projects supporting museums: 

Maine had an active, small-grants program run by the state 

museum and an orientation toward greater integration of public 

sector cultural agencies; Michigan had a developing alliance 

working at the state level to leverage private and federal investPublic Funding 

for Museums at 

the State Level

Pictured: A family visits the pachyderm exhibit at the Brookfield 

Zoo of the Chicago Zoological Society, in Brookfield, Illinois.
75

ments in museums; Washington had robust capital grant-making programs and a host of large 

new cultural facilities. UI then chose to visit Illinois and Pennsylvania because an analysis of 

IRS Form 990 data indicated that these states make high levels of investment in museums, 

Massachusetts because the difference between very high federal investments in the state and 

very low state investments was striking, New Mexico because federal grants are most widely 

distributed across museums in the state, and Virginia because it is a southern state that ranks 

high in federal support. 

In the UI analysis of interview and administrative data across the eight states, three key 

dimensions of state-level support emerged in which states vary in significant ways: 

level and types of state investment in museums;

level of integration in the state’s public cultural sector; and

perceptions about the public character and role of museums.

Information about these dimensions of state-level support is presented below, along with 

discussions of why and how this information might be important to developing a federal-state 

structure for supporting museums. Full portraits of state-level support in the eight states 

studied are presented in appendix D.

Level and Types of State Investment

Knowing how much a state invests in its public sector cultural infrastructure provides a 

baseline against which to measure the future financial impact of federal-state partnerships. 

However, the condition of cultural sector data at the state level presents serious challenges to 

developing comprehensive plans for museum support at the state level and to monitoring and 

measuring the financial impact of a new funding model. The research team found significant 

barriers to collecting comprehensive information in a systematized way about state support 

to the cultural sector. State-level data collection proved time-consuming because the information, when available, was recorded by an array of agencies which, in many cases, are not 

coordinated with one another. Moreover, data were often incomplete or incompatible because 

they are organized and stored in different formats across several different agencies. When the 

data were collected, they were often not readily available to the public via government publications or Web sites. In other cases, agencies do not specifically identify museums as a category 

of recipients of state government dollars. Apart from the challenges in identifying funding 

amounts, it can be very difficult to track funding of different types. The study team found it 

particularly difficult to track museum funding in states where a large proportion of dollars are 

distributed to museums through state earmarks. The researchers made every effort to gather 

as comprehensive an account of state-level financial information as possible from the eight 

states, and they express their gratitude to participating state agencies for the work required to 

provide this information. 

.

2.

3.

Public Funding for Museums at the State Level
76

Through detailed interviews and information requests with state-level agencies, the study team 

collected and compiled FY 2007 data on levels and types of state investment in the eight state 

case studies. These data show that there is a high degree of variability among the eight states in 

terms of the scale and character of investment in the public cultural sector infrastructure and the 

mechanisms used to deliver public dollars to museums. 

Figure IX.1 shows FY 2007 levels of funding going into the public cultural sector in each of 

the eight states studied. It compares investments in the public culture sector based on the actual 

dollar expenditures in FY 2007. It also shows the proportions of state funding that go to public 

museums versus museum funding agencies versus other public sector cultural sector agencies. The 

blue portions of this figure represent state dollars going to agencies that fund museums, including 

the State Arts Agency, State Humanities Council, and State Historic Preservation Office. The red 

portions represent state dollars going to public museums and to recurring line items for specific, 

named museums. These dollars are not exclusive to museums. The green portions represent dollars 

going to state libraries and other public cultural sector agencies and offices, such as administrative 

and umbrella cultural agencies.

Figure IX.1. Public Cultural Sector Dollars Apportioned to Museum Funders, Public Museums, and 

Other Cultural Agencies, FY 2007

Museum Funders Public Museums Library and Other

Illinois $40,035,243 $19,202,607 $65,864,177

Massachusetts $15,121,605 $4,591,045 $1,814,562

Maine $4,097,433 $4,028,758 $6,229,613

Michigan $8,561,400 $11,700,500 $31,447,400

New Mexico $5,256,310 $26,621,600 $9,516,800

Pennsylvania $30,653,700 $61,741,000 $29,365,494

Virginia $35,056,386 $34,968,046 $41,272,180

Washington $13,172,468 $8,450,569 $20,741,547

Source: Urban Institute analysis of data from a variety of state agencies.

Public Funding for Museums at the State Level

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Illinois

Massachusetts

Maine

Michigan

New Mexico

Pennsylvania

Virginia

Washington
77

Figure IX.1 shows that states vary widely in terms of the number of dollars they invest in the 

public cultural sector. But these eight states are also vastly different in terms of population, revenues, and overall expenditures. To accurately compare levels of investment, the Urban Institute 

needed to construct ways to compare these states of varied size. One way to compare these investment levels is to compare per capita expenditures. Table IX.1 shows that there was a wide range of 

FY 2007 investment in the public cultural sector as measured by per capita expenditures.

Table IX.1. FY 2007 Per Capita State Expenditures in the Cultural Sector

State

$ Per capita 

expenditures

New Mexico 15

Virginia 9.5

Pennsylvania 8.25

Maine 6

Illinois 5.25

Washington 5

Michigan 4

Massachusetts 2.5

Source: Urban Institute analysis, IMLS Museum Public Finance Case Studies, 2008.

To compare states with varied budget size, UI calculated how much a state invests in public 

museums and the public cultural agencies that deliver dollars to museums (adding together the red 

and blue portions in Figure IX.1) and calculated that amount as a proportion of the state’s total 

general fund expenditures. Using this “state share,” states with varied budget sizes can be compared with one another.65

When the shares of these eight states are compared, the range in commitments to the public 

cultural sector remains quite wide (see Table IX.2). The size of a given state’s budget does not 

appear to have a significant relation to the share of its overall expenditures on museums and the 

agencies that fund museums. Small New Mexico leads the eight states in this comparison, investing 0.21% of its total FY 2006 expenditures in appropriations to the cultural sector. Large Pennsylvania is second, but invests a share substantially lower than New Mexico. Midsize Massachusetts is 

last, investing just 0.037% in the cultural sector. 

65 The calculations do not include appropriations for capital investment. Although these expenditures often are substantial, they proved too difficult to track systematically. These figures are provided for comparative purposes only.
78

Table IX.2. State Share of Museum Dollars as a Percentage of Total Expenditures

State Rank 

Total General Fund 

Expenditures FY 2006

Total State 

Allocations to 

Museum Funding 

Agencies

Museum Funders 

as % of total 

expenditures

New Mexico 1 $11 ,842,000,000 $25,394,100 0.21%

Pennsylvania 2 $53,911,000,000 $79,380,800 0.15%

Illinois 3 $43,422,000,000 $57,209,807 0.13%

Virginia 4 $31,882,000,000 $40,893,532 0.13%

Washington 5 $27,839,000,000 $15,945,345 0.06%

Maine 6 $7,100,000,000 $3,443,749 0.05%

Michigan 7 $41,728,000,000 $19,565,400 0.05%

Massachusetts 8 $39,207,000,000 $14,481,312 0.04%

Source: National Association of State Budget Officers FY 2006 State Expenditures. 

UI also investigated the possibility that state shares might be related to population size, 

level of federal investment, or size of the museum sector. Although neither population size nor 

federal investments appear to be significant, the level of investment these eight states make in 

public museums and agencies that fund museums does appear to be related to the size of the 

museum sector. With the exception of the large museum sector and lower level of state investment in Massachusetts, states that have more museums tend to invest at higher levels than 

states with fewer museums.

Among the eight states studied, UI found a wide range of funding mechanisms, from line 

items that go directly to state-run museums to grant-making programs that deliver program and 

capital support to earmarks (see Figure IX.2). UI’s interviews in these states suggest that the 

most important types of state government support for museums are general operating support 

(GOS) dollars and capital dollars. Interview respondents claimed that GOS was key to sustaining museums financially and that state and local governments are the most likely avenues for 

such support. 

In certain cases, state-level GOS programs have been put in place. State Arts Agencies in 

Pennsylvania, Michigan, Massachusetts, and Virginia deliver large-scale, competitively awarded 

GOS dollars to museums. Except in Massachusetts, these dollars are available only to art 

museums.

Capital funding also emerged as an important type of support for museums at the state 

level. Capital funding appears to occur primarily through earmarks to large museums and to 

museums in districts with a history of congressional and local community advocacy for museums. However, in Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington, large-scale state-level competitive 

capital grant-making programs have recently been developed. 

These publicly administered, competitive GOS and capital programs do not appear to 

supplant other types of support given to large museums. For example, in many ways GOS 

programs function like line items for those museums; although they must reapply for them at 

Public Funding for Museums at the State Level
79

the end of each funding cycle, these museums usually are awarded the grants. In addition, these 

programs appear to leverage the power of larger, more politically connected museums in order 

to channel support to a cohort of other museums that might not be able to secure state dollars 

through earmarks or line items, which can require political influence. 

The leveraging power of competitive programs is apparent in established capital grant-making. 

In Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington, respondents explicitly stated that competitive capital 

grant-making programs were established in order to more equitably balance or formalize a process 

of delivering state dollars that previously went to a few institutions through earmarks and line 

items. With publicly administered state-level funding programs in place, larger, politically connected museums gained security while smaller, less politically connected museums gained access 

to state dollars. The perception among respondents was that this process had the net effect of 

bringing more state money into the system, rather than merely creating increased demand for a 

level amount of dollars. Further, publicly administered programs can be structured and monitored 

to ensure that museums of different types and sizes and in different places around the state are 

securing some portion of government resources. 

Figure IX.2. Mechanisms of Support at the State Level in Eight States

Capital Support Program Support General Operating Support

Earmarks Earmarks Regular allocations

Illinois, Michigan, New Mexico, 

Pennsylvania, Virginia

Virginia To state-managed museums in 

each state (high in New Mexico, 

Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Michigan)

Grants Grants Line items

Maine, Massachusetts, Washington Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, 

Michigan, New Mexico, 

Pennsylvania, Virginia, 

Washington

Illinois, New Mexico, 

Pennsylvania (heritage, science), 

Virginia (heritage)

Nonrecurring allocations

Massachusetts, Michigan, 

Pennsylvania (arts), Virginia (arts)

Source: Urban Institute analysis, IMLS Museum Public Finance Case Studies, 2008. 

Level of Integration in the State’s Cultural Sector 

Knowing about agencies that support museums and sponsor museum services at the state level 

provides essential information about potential federal-state partners. UI found significant differences in how public cultural sector agencies are organized and in how often and in what ways they 

work together. However, the level of cultural sector integration in a state does not appear to have 
80

any relationship to how much the state invests in its public cultural sector. New Mexico’s sector 

is highly integrated and invests at a high level. While Virginia’s investments are also high on a per 

capita basis, it has one of the most diffuse public cultural sectors of the states studied. The state’s 

population size does not appear relevant to how integrated its public cultural sector is. Less populated states like New Mexico and Maine are highly integrated. More populated states like Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Virginia are less integrated.

In three of the states studied, an umbrella cultural agency integrates authority, planning, and 

funding in the public cultural sector. In New Mexico, the Office of Cultural Affairs leads cultural 

planning, operates cultural institutions across the sector, and controls the substantial proportion 

of state money entering the public and nonprofit cultural sector. In Maine, public cultural agencies 

and nonprofit organizations that receive ongoing state funding belong to the Maine Cultural Affairs 

Council, an umbrella agency authorized by the state legislature to promote and develop the cultural 

sector and administer a special funding program. Directors of the individual agencies retain autonomous authority over their programming, staff, and finances. In Michigan, public cultural sector 

agencies are part of the Michigan Department of History, Arts and Libraries. Respondents suggested that while this agency could potentially serve to integrate the public cultural sector through 

centralized authority, shared planning, and funding, it does not currently do so.

In three states, UI did not find integration across the whole of the public cultural sector, but 

did find parts of the public cultural sector where shared cultural planning and funding take place. 

The Massachusetts Cultural Council (MCC) administers funding very broadly across the cultural 

sector and leads cultural planning for the state. However, the Massachusetts Commonwealth 

Museum, Historical Commission, Archives, and Library are not under MCC but rather are governed 

by the Secretary of the Commonwealth. In Washington, heritage and historical agencies and organizations are strongly integrated with one another and have a powerful voice in the state legislature. 

Respondents suggested that the coherence of the heritage sector helped push forward the development and funding of the state’s new $110 million State Library, Archives and Historical Exhibition 

building. While Pennsylvania’s public cultural sector is rather diffuse, the Pennsylvania Arts Council 

leads planning and funds in the arts, while the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission 

supports a range of public historical monuments, nonprofit historical societies, and history museums as well as administering line items to museums throughout the sector (including zoos and 

botanical gardens). 

Two of the states studied have diffuse levels of public cultural sector integration. At the state 

level, the Illinois public cultural sector is structured around several large and autonomous agencies. However, the Chicago Parks District Museums in the Parks Consortium does represent an 

important arena of collaboration around funding. Much of Virginia’s funding for museums is not 

even organized through agencies but rather is provided through line items and allocations delivered 

directly to individual museums.

Where there is a relatively high level of integration of authority, planning, and funding in the 

public cultural sector, federal-state partnerships are likely to be easier to establish. Authority on 

Public Funding for Museums at the State Level
81

decision-making is likely to be clearer, agencies are likely to have had experience working together 

and to have had the opportunity to accommodate themselves to distribution decisions, and leadership in the cultural sector is likely to have had opportunities to build shared plans and goals 

together. In some states, it will be necessary to build a structure through which to establish a 

federal-state partnership, both in terms of creating an actual office and in terms of building this 

shared bundle of experiences and goals. But perhaps even more challenging is the problem that in 

many states, some existing structures serve isolated components of the museum sector. For example, UI interviews suggest that the infrastructures for funding and supporting art museums and 

history museums are well developed and fully autonomous and even, in some cases, have a history 

of competition for authority and dollars in the public cultural sector. In some states, getting these 

agencies and organizations to work together and to distribute federal dollars efficiently and equitably may prove challenging, as both public administrators and museums may have vested interests 

in maintaining the existing systems.

Perceptions about the Public Character and Role of Museums

State-level perceptions about the public character and role of museums can provide a valuable 

sense of the strengths and gaps in relationships between a state’s public cultural sector and 

museum sector. The case studies show that there are clear differences in how public administrators 

and museum professionals understand the public character and roles of museums, and how these 

values relate to the levels and kinds of taxpayer support that should be delivered to museums. 

Such differences are particularly striking in a comparison between New Mexico and Massachusetts. 

New Mexican respondents consider museums to be part of the public sector and are proud of 

their government’s history of robust support for museums. Respondents suggested that the diverse 

and stable public museum infrastructure in New Mexico provides important and well-understood 

benefits to the public. When assets come into the public domain, there is a clear pathway and 

source of support for their incorporation into the public sector through public museums and public 

cultural agencies. Further, museums are acknowledged as essential to the cultural sector’s impact 

on the state’s identity and economy. The state invests heavily in a system of public museums that 

enable state government to fulfill the purposes of holding valuable items of cultural property, contributing to the economy through tourism, and providing museum services to the public. However, 

New Mexico provides only irregular state support for private, nonprofit museums. If state support 

to all museums (including nonprofit museums) were to be measured per institution, it would appear 

low. State taxpayer dollars in New Mexico go, in large part, to public museums. 

In contrast, respondents suggested that in Massachusetts there is a long standing belief that 

that wealthy contributors ( in particular families that entered New England aristocratic society 

during the nineteenth century ) should pay for (and control) cultural institutions, including museums, that cultural institutions are the responsibility of this sector of society. Even in Boston—the 

commonwealth’s largest city and home to internationally renowned museums—regular municipal 

support for cultural institutions was perceived to be negligible or nonexistent. When Boston city 
82

government came to be controlled primarily by members of Boston’s immigrant communities, the 

city distanced itself from its cultural institutions, which turned for support to the state, the federal 

government, and East Coast philanthropists. Respondents overwhelmingly identified the support of 

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy at the federal level as essential to the health and well-being of the state’s 

cultural institutions. Revenue for the Massachusetts Cultural Council is generated through a state 

lottery, not through regular taxpayer revenues, and these lottery funds have been curtailed and 

slashed repeatedly. Those state dollars that are delivered to museums in Massachusetts go, in large 

part, to private, nonprofit museums to fulfill their organizational missions rather than some explicit 

public purposes designated by the state. 

Because states view the public character and roles of museums differently, the public cultural 

sector may have greater or more consistent experience and commitment to working with certain 

types of museums or to promoting certain types of museum services. In Illinois, for example, the 

state’s definition of a “public museum”—any museum on public land—means that almost all state 

and local dollars are funneled to those institutions alone. In Illinois, state dollars are delivered to 

other museums through the state arts council, for example, but museums on public land are accustomed to state requirements and have longer lasting ties with state government. 

Section Summary

This section has examined the cultural sector at the state level, providing information about state 

government funding for public museums and agencies that fund museums and about perceptions 

of the public character and roles of museums. Through this analysis, several important characteristics of state-level support for museums emerge.

While a variety of state-level models for administering cultural grants to museums exist, the 

experience and commitment to working with certain museums or types of museums is shaped by 

perceptions about the public character and roles of museums and the expertise developed over 

time. A few states have dedicated agencies that fund across the range of museum types, but this 

funding may not be distributed across the entire museum sector. For example, New Mexico’s Office 

of Cultural Affairs funds multiple types of state museums, but not private nonprofit museums. 

In other cases, where individual programs within state agencies fund both state-run and private 

nonprofit museums of different types, other factors may limit the scope of their funding efforts. 

The Public Museum Grant program administered by the Illinois State Museum under the Illinois 

Department of Natural Resources funds a range of museum types, but only institutions situated on 

public land.

In contrast to dedicated state agencies or programs within agencies that fund across museum 

types and/or across the sector, state public cultural agencies have operated with a great deal of 

autonomy, serving the arts, the humanities, heritage, libraries, and archives as distinct constituencies. Federal dollars may help integrate the public cultural sector at the state level, but they may 

also prove a point of contention, as established agencies may have to develop new administrative 

policies or shift from past practice to serve a broad cross section of museums.

Public Funding for Museums at the State Level
83

General operating support was highlighted as an important role in state support of the museum 

sector. A federal-state partnership in the museum sector should take into account the importance 

of GOS and the key role of state government in delivering this type of support. 

To inform the planning of a potential federal-state partnership, it will be necessary to gather 

basic information regarding the size and scope of the sector. Designing and implementing a way 

to systematically collect and report data on funding for the state-level public cultural sector will 

be critical to measuring the impacts of a federal-state funding partnership. The implementation of 

more directed funding from the federal level should take into account the level and kinds of variability among states in terms of investments, public perceptions of museums, distinctions between 

public and private museums, and degree of integration across the public cultural sector. 
84

This section provides information about local-level funding of 

museums. As with state-level support of museums, there is 

significant variation in the size of the museum sector, the amount 

of public dollars available, and the mechanisms for the delivery of 

these dollars to museums. However, in regions across the country, the researchers found particular instances of funding at the 

local level that play a key role in the contribution of public dollars 

to museums. In Colorado, Illinois, Missouri, and Pennsylvania, 

institutions clustered around a specific urban area (Denver, Chicago, St. Louis, and Pittsburgh) were shown to be highly associated with the public sector at the local level. An understanding of 

the contributions of local government to public funding of museums informs a discussion of how these mechanisms may relate 

to the relationships between museums and the federal and state 

levels of the public sector.

The MPFS discovered a solid consensus among its respondents regarding the importance of local support for museums. By 

a wide margin, the survey respondents maintained that general 

operating support at the local level is crucial (see Table VI.5). 

Furthermore, local government support comprises a significant 

part of museum revenue by type, ranging from 76.4% for zoos, 

aquariums, and zoological societies to 23.8% for hybrid musePublic Funding 

for Museums 

at the Local Level

Pictured: A family learns together at the SciQuest exhibit at the 

Carnegie Science Center in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
85

ums. Of the nine museum types, four depended on local government for more than 50% of their 

revenues (see Table VI.2).

There is no single mechanism for delivering local support to museums. Like states, communities across the country have developed highly diverse strategies to support their cultural institutions. Those funding mechanisms are as varied as the history, demography, economy, and politics 

of the individual locations. Some counties have their county history museum as a line item in the 

county government budget. Some cities and towns deliver direct support to local museums as an 

investment in their community life and as a tourist attraction strategy. 

A strong environment of local public support to museums today may be grounded in a historical 

precedent set by local government and cultural institutions. One such example occurs in Chicago, 

where some of the city’s most renowned museums have had a relationship with public lands since 

the Columbian Exhibition in 1893. The Museums in the Park and Chicago Zoo form a consortium 

of museums supported by the Chicago Park District (CPD). As part of the CPD and as public museums by definition of their existence on public land, these 11 museums receive the largest amount 

of public dollars in Illinois—$39 million from the CPD in FY 2008 (see Figure AD.1 in appendix D 

for detail). This historical relationship between museums and their connection to government land 

has proved to be highly influential to their sustained support by the city government. 

While the Museums in the Park and Chicago Zoo provide a model of the impacts of a historical relationship between museums and public land, the most common forms of support at the 

local level are option taxes: lodging taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes. According to a report 

prepared by Americans for the Arts, an advocacy organization based in Washington, DC, 38% of 

the 50 largest U.S. cities use revenues from lodging taxes to provide ongoing operational support 

for their cultural organizations; 20% use property taxes; and 8% use sales taxes.66 When communities support museums with taxes, the general process is to define a tax district and legislate 

that a certain amount of the revenues collected in that location will be dedicated to museums. The 

legislation usually involves a ballot initiative proposed by advocates who undertake a public education campaign. Campaign success varies; Americans for the Arts tracked 34 state and local ballot 

initiatives in November 2004 and reported that 28 initiatives passed in favor of museums.67

Property Tax Support for Museums

Dedicating a portion of property taxes to support cultural institutions is an additional support 

mechanism that can be found at the local level. Property taxpayers in Denver, Colorado, for example, accepted an addition to their taxes in fall 2007 to support capital maintenance and construction of the Denver Botanic Gardens and the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. One of the 

largest property tax districts defined to support museums is in and around St. Louis, Missouri.

66 “Local Option Taxes to Support the Arts,” prepared for the Mayor’s Arts and Culture Funding Tax Force, Atlanta, 

Georgia, September 18, 2006. www.AmericansForTheArts.org.

67 Breitkopf, Susan. 2005. “Museums as Economic Engines.” Museum News (March/April): 41.

Public Funding for Museums at the Local Level
86

The Metropolitan Zoological Park and Museum District in the City and County of St. Louis was created in 1969 by the Missouri Legislature. The St. Louis cultural district taxes originally supported 

three institutions: the St. Louis Zoo, St. Louis Art Museum, and St. Louis Science Center. Over 

the years, two additional institutions have been gathered into the district: the Missouri Botanical 

Garden and the Missouri History Museum. This city and county district collects about $68 million 

to support the five institutions. Admission to four of the five institutions is free (the Missouri Botanical Garden charges a nominal fee to nonmembers). Purchasing membership provides important 

benefits, such as discounts at the shops and free parking.68

Sales Tax Support for Museums

Pennsylvania’s Allegheny Regional Asset District (RAD) provides an example of sales tax support for 

museums and other cultural organizations.69 RAD is a special-purpose unit of local government that 

covers Allegheny County, which includes the Pittsburgh metropolitan area. Through Act 77, enacted 

in 1994, RAD receives tax revenues from a 1% Allegheny Sales and Use Tax, which it distributes 

among county and municipal governments and “regional assets.” 

RAD distributes one-half of tax revenues as unrestricted operating grants to “regional assets,” 

defined as civic, cultural, and recreational entities; libraries; parks; and sports facilities.70 The RAD 

grants are administered and funding decisions made by RAD’s 7-member Board of Directors and 

27-member Advisory Board, and regional assets are required to submit annual funding requests. 

Several Allegheny County museums have received unrestricted operating grants since RAD’s 

enactment. The institutions receiving the largest amounts from RAD include the four Carnegie 

Museums (the Carnegie Museum of Art, the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, the Carnegie 

Science Center, and the Andy Warhol Museum), the National Aviary, the Phipps Conservatory, and 

the Pittsburgh Zoo. From 1995 to 2007, these seven institutions received a combined total of 

$125,432,250, 13.9% of RAD’s total grants of $904,357,694 (see Table X.1).71

68 See http://mzdstl.org for information about the Metropolitan Zoological Park and Museum District.

69 See www.radworkshere.org for information about the Allegheny Regional Asset District.

70 The other half of tax revenues is distributed as 25% to the county government and 25% to municipal government 

and has been used for tax elimination, reduction, and relief and to fund regional projects and municipal functions such 

as public safety or road repair.

71 Figures obtained from Allegheny Regional Asset District Web site, www.radworkshere.org/docs/GrantHistoryTotal.pdf.

Public Funding for Museums at the Local Level
87

Table X.1 Allegheny Regional Asset District Funding History, FY 1995–2007

Museum RAD Grant

Carnegie Museums $33,272,700 

National Aviary $14,044,200 

Phipps Conservatory $28,519,600 

Pittsburgh Zoo $49,595,750 

Total $125,432,250 

Source: Allegheny Regional Asset District, 2008.

In another example of sales tax support, metropolitan Denver supports the ongoing operations 

of its science and cultural institutions with the sales and use tax revenues that it collects within 

a defined cultural district. In 1988, amid a regional economic downturn that diminished local 

and state revenues, taxpayers in seven contiguous Colorado counties voted to create a special tax 

district, the Science and Cultural Facilities District (SCFD). Voters in Denver County and six nearby 

suburban and rural counties imposed upon themselves a sales and use tax of 0.1%, or one cent 

on every $10. Given that the greater Denver metropolitan area has enjoyed a steady and growing 

consumer base, this tax has provided sustainable, unrestricted funding for scientific and cultural 

facilities in the Denver community for 20 years. In 2004, voters approved an extension of the 

SCFD until 2018.72

In FY 2007, the benefits of this special tax district translated into more than $40 million being 

portioned out among three tiers of institutions. By statute, Tier I comprises five large institutions 

serving visitors from all parts of the state and the country: the Denver Museum of Art, Denver 

Zoo, Denver Botanic Gardens, Denver Museum of Nature and Science, and Denver Center for the 

Performing Arts. These facilities receive 65.5% of the total SCFD revenues and are open free to 

the general public for a few days each year. The 11-member SCFD Board of Directors distributes 

funds to the five institutions according to their size: for 2008, the Denver Museum of Nature and 

Science, which in 2006 was visited by 1.6 million people, was budgeted to receive 16.38% of the 

funds collected in the SCFD; the Denver Zoo, 15.87%; Denver Art Museum, 13.65%; the Denver 

Center for the Performing Arts, 11.91%; and the Denver Botanic Gardens, 7.69%.

Tier II comprises midsize institutions, serving mostly local and regional visitors. Organizations 

that wish to be considered Tier II facilities must apply each year to the SCFD Board of Directors, 

which determines applicant eligibility based on the criteria in the SCFD enabling legislation. For 

example, a Tier II organization must have been in operation for at least five years and must meet 

certain institutional requirements. One of the financial requirements is that, after 2006, organizations applying for the first time must certify a threshold of $1.3 million in operating income. Tier II 

institutions receive 21% of the SCFD revenues broken down according to the size of the organiza72 Information concerning the history and administrative procedures of the SCFD can be found at www.scfd.org.
88

tion. For example, in 2007 grants ranged from $977,754 for the Arvada Center for the Arts and 

Humanities to $ 74,186 for the Cherry Creek Arts Festival. In 2007, a total of $8,885,601 was 

distributed to the 27 Tier II institutions.

County cultural councils appointed in each of the seven counties distribute the remaining 

13.5% of SCFD funds to the mostly small Tier III organizations. To qualify for Tier III funding, 

organizations must apply each year to the SCFD Board, must have been in operation for at least 

three years, and must have strong beneficial connections to the communities they serve. After 

the SCFD Board determines eligibility of the Tier III applicants, each county cultural council 

distributes to the organizations in its county an amount of money proportionate to the amount 

of taxes the county collected. In 2007, Arapahoe County (just south and east of Denver County) 

had $1,107,924 to distribute to the science and cultural organizations in the county. Of that 

amount, $1,009,051 was given out as general operating support, and $98,873 was awarded for 

projects. Among the 76 organizations receiving Arapahoe County Tier III funding in 2007, for 

example, Friends of Dinosaur Ridge received $11,000, and Plains Conservation Center received 

$33,036 in general operating support.

In contrast to regions where local support for museums is strong, in Boston municipal support for museums is very weak, resulting in a heavier reliance on state and federal support. In 

site visits in Massachusetts, many interview participants suggested that Boston’s cultural institutions have largely turned to private philanthropy and state and federal support. Thus, we may 

assume that there are other areas in the country where federal and state dollars, as opposed to 

local dollars, are the predominant sources of public support. 

Section Summary

This section has presented key examples of strong support of museums at the local level across 

the United States. There is a strong consensus among museums about the importance of local 

support. Across museum types, the support of local government was found to contribute significantly to museum revenue; in four of nine types, local government contribution comprised more 

than 50% of museum revenues. 

Local funding is often grounded in the history, demography, economy, and politics of individual locations, resulting in diverse funding mechanisms and local perceptions of museums and 

their public value. Most of the cases described in this section can be seen as models of strong 

local support that provide dedicated funding to a variety of institutions. Yet, it is important to 

note that these cases all occur around urban areas and should not be viewed as representative 

of local support across the board. Support at the local level is highly varied across the country 

and may be conditioned by historical relationships between museums and local governments and 

long-standing traditions of local philanthropy. 

Public support for museums at the local level is an important contribution to the museum 

community; it can reflect a vote of confidence in the value that museums provide to local taxpayers. Local public dollars often aid museums in capital projects and general operating supPublic Funding for Museums at the Local Level
89

port, and most important, can provide support allocated through dedicated and regularly occurring 

mechanisms. Consideration of the funding picture at the local level is crucial to an analysis of the 

distribution of public support for museums and how local, state, and federal mechanisms may 

interact in the distribution of public monies. 
90

For some time, IMLS has been aware of the limits of current 

museum data collection efforts.73 This lack of reliable data on 

the size and scope of the museum sector affects the museum 

research community and limits the ability of the agency to monitor grant program performance.

For this study, the lack of a comprehensive list of museums 

required a significant amount of extra data processing in order to 

draw a reliable sample for survey research. To draw the Museum 

Public Finance Survey sample, the UI team combined three data 

sources: the IMLS database, which contained about 17,500 

records with museum names and addresses but no designation 

of museum size or type; the American Association of Museums 

database, which contained about 10,000 records but lacked 

consistent type or budget amounts for each record; and the 

National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS), which contained 

the most complete information but was much more limited in 

scope. NCCS identified more than 5,000 museum records over 

73 See Institute of Museum and Library Services, (2005), Museum Data 

Collection Report and Analysis, prepared by McManis & Monsalve Associates 

(Manassas, Virginia), for a review of the status of data collection about museums in works published from 1999 to 2004.

Need for More Research

Pictured: The Museums at 18th and Vine in Kansas City, Missouri, include the American Jazz Museum and the Negro Leagues 

Baseball Museum.
91

a three-year period (2003–2005), but it reflects only tax-exempt organizations that are required by 

law to file IRS Form 990 tax forms. The three files were combined for sample selection and then 

cleaned once selected into the survey sample. In short, the lack of a consistent, reliable census of 

museums had a significant impact on the research process.

Another important issue raised by this research is the need for greater standardization of data 

in the field and among funders and administrative data managers. While the American Association 

of Museums has done an exceptional job in standardizing terms for the Museum Financial Information Survey and in other areas, considerably more work is needed to be certain that the terms used 

inside and outside of the museum community are consistently applied. Standard definitions and 

descriptions of museum or institution type and museum services would allow for better accounting 

of the impact and public value of the museum sector. The lack of standardization has an impact on 

secondary analysis of data as well. Many large databases contain lists of museums, but there is no 

common definition of “museum.”74

The examination of museum finance relied heavily on administrative data collected at different 

levels of government. Some of the government sources were able to provide consistent museumlevel data over time. Others were only able to provide highly aggregated information that did not 

allow for detailed analysis by institution or by varying geographic levels. Given the wide differences 

in support by institution type and place, much more work is needed to collect and manage detailed 

museum-level data.

In addition to institutional information, information about the beneficiaries of museum services 

is vitally important. Very few systematic studies examine the breadth and depth of museum attendance or use of targeted museum programs and services for different museum types over time. 

The lack of this basic service information makes it very difficult to assess the human or social 

impact of museum services. As a result, studies of public value have tended to focus on economic 

benefits, which are based on a variety of economic indicators that may or may not reflect the mission of individual museums and are only one of many measures, economic and social, of the value 

of these institutions. 

Finally, considerably more information is needed about the nature of museum support at all 

levels of government. Data on museum funding can be very difficult to obtain. Many government 

agencies either do not have the staff support to supply such information or do not manage agency 

records in a way that would allow analysts or the general public to collect museum-level data. 

Greater coordination across federal agencies would yield a better understanding of the nature of 

federal-level support.

74 See www.aam-us.org/aboutmuseums/whatis.cfm for a comparison of museum definitions among AAM, IMLS, and 

the International Council of Museums.

Need for More Research
92

Appendixes

Appendix A. Research Methodology

Introduction

The Museum Public Funding Survey (MPFS) was designed to identify the source of public support for museums of varying types, 

across different regions of the country. The survey was conducted 

between November 2007 and January 2008. More than 1,000 

institutions responded to the survey. A survey weight is needed to 

accurately analyze the data collected by the MPFS. This appendix 

describes the sampling and weighting procedures used to produce 

the survey weight that should be used to generate representative 

estimates of the various museum populations analyzed. 

Sampling

While all museums were permitted to complete the study’s web 

survey, a stratified random sample of museums was selected to 

receive a personal invitation to participate. Museums that did 

not respond to the initial invitation were sent follow-up reminders 

emphasizing the importance of their participation in the study. 

The sampled museums were selected from three separate lists of 

museums. IMLS provided the largest list of museums; this list had 

Pictured: The façade of the Chicago Historical Society in 

Chicago, Illinois.
93

Appendix A. Research Methodology

names and addresses for about 17,500 organizations. AAM provided a list of just under 10,000 

museums. Finally, using the NCCS database, we found about 5,600 museums that filed IRS Form 

990 tax returns. After removing duplicates across the three lists, we estimated the museum universe to consist of approximately 25,000 organizations. In choosing the museums that would be 

invited to participate, we stratified by which list or lists they were on and by their location. 

Only the NCCS list identified the museum type for all records. The AAM list had assignments 

for a subset of institutions, and the IMLS list had no type assignments. Institution types that did 

not have a classification were postcoded based on key word searches of the institution names. 

Institutions that did not have a common museum type embedded in the name (e.g., the Smith 

Museum or New Carleton Museum), were categorized as undefined. Institution types were standardized and grouped according to NCCS classifications, which resulted in seven categories of 

museums for this descriptive analysis.

The product of this file merger process is substantially larger than the 17,500 institutions 

reported by the Institute of Museum and Library Services. However, records drawn from this process were not systematically verified. There are many problems in using this listing for a census of 

museums because the data were collected at widely varying points in time, using different procedures and operating definitions. In preparation for survey sampling, the Urban Institute employed a 

set of standard procedures to clean the file and identify gross data errors. Verification of all institutions in the newly combined list was beyond the scope of this study.

Survey Weights

The survey weights were designed to accomplish two goals. First, they allowed us to combine 

the data collected from the 448 respondents who responded without an invitation with the 562 

respondents who were invited and responded.75 Second, the weights were corrected for the differential sampling by museum list, and a geographic poststratification was included so that each 

museum region was accurately represented in the final sample distribution. 

The first goal of combining invited respondents with other respondents involved modeling the 

two different groups to see how they differed. This modeling included testing both key demographic 

and substantive variables for differences between the two groups. The results of the modeling 

showed that there were only minor differences between the two groups, and no variable or characteristic was significantly different between the two groups. Given the similarity between the two 

groups, we felt it was acceptable to combine them as long as the volunteer (not-invited) group was 

given a weighting adjustment so that they matched the invited group in terms of museum regions 

and the museum list they appeared on. This was important, given that the invited respondents were 

stratified by location and their probability of selection varied depending on which museum list or 

lists they appeared on. 

75 Five respondents were from outside of the continental United States and were removed from the sample, resulting 

in a final respondent pool of 1,005.
94

After combining the two groups of respondents, the second goal of making the sample more 

representative of the overall population of museums was straightforward. First we corrected for the 

differential sampling by museum list, and then we adjusted the survey weight so that the sample 

was proportional to the number of overall museums in each museum region. We did not poststratify the final survey weight by anything other than region, given the limited information about 

the museums on both the AAM list and the IMLS museum list. 

Respondent Distribution

Table AA.1 shows the distribution of museum types that responded to the online survey. Survey 

respondents were able to choose from a list of institution types shown in the table, as well as a 

write-in option for “other.” These types were further condensed into the seven categories of museums used in this descriptive analysis, based on the categories used for the Heritage Health Index. 

The numbers in Table AA.1 show the unweighted distribution of museum types. Smaller categories 

of museums were aggregated into broader National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities (NTEE) classification for cross-tabular analysis and for comparability with data presented in the report. 

Table AA.1. Survey Respondents by Institution Type

Museum Type*

Number of 

Respondents

Aquarium 10

Arboretum 34

Art Museum 156

Children’s/Youth Museum 51

Historic House or Site 11 0

History Museum 270

Historical Society 109

Natural History Museum 41

Nature Center 10

Planetarium 3

Science Technology Center 40

Zoo or Zoological Society 44

Specialty 55

General or Multidiscplinary 50

Transportation 10

Tribal 12

Total 1,005

Source: Urban Institute analysis, Museum Public Finance Survey, 2008.

*For the MPFS, respondents could choose from a list of museum types or specify a type in response to selecting 

“other.” For the purposes of analysis, the Urban Institute condensed the survey responses to museum type for this 

table. Types were further condensed for the primary survey analysis of the report to correspond with the categories 

employed by the Heritage Health Index. 

Appendix A. Research Methodology
95

The distribution across regions is comparable to the distribution in the source data from which 

the sample was drawn. Here again, the unweighted distribution is listed to show readers how well 

the various museum regions were represented by survey respondents. The museums listed in Table 

AA.1 include respondents from across the country, categorized by museum association region.

Figure AA.1. Distribution of Museum Sample

Source: Urban Institute analysis, Museum Public Finance Survey, 2008.

Selection of 15-State Sample for State Arts Agency and 

State Humanities Council Funding

IMLS staff selected the 15 states to comprise the sample. The first requirement was geographic 

distribution to account for regional differences. Next, based on staff experience with grantees 

and potential grantees, states were included because IMLS had awarded either a large number 

or a small number of grants to the state. Thus, the states in the sample represent a range of 

success in receiving IMLS awards. IMLS is grateful for the professional courtesy provided by the 

staff of the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Assembly of State Arts 

Agencies in gathering the data regarding the State Humanities Council and State Arts Council 

support for museums. 

105

10%

156

16%

171

17% 159

16%

210

21%

204

20%

0

50

100

150

200

250

New England 

Museum 

Association

Mid-Atlantic 

Association of 

Museums

Southeastern 

Museum 

Conference

Mountain-Plains 

Museums 

AssociatIon

Association of 

Midwest 

Museums

Western 

Museums 

Association
96

New England Museum 

Association (6)

Appendix B: AAM Museum Regions

Western Museum 

Association (9)

Connecticut

Maine

Massachusetts

New Hampshire

Rhode Island

Vermont

Mid-Atlantic Museum 

Association (5)

Delaware

Maryland

New Jersey

New York

Pennsylvania

Southeastern Museum 

Association (12)

Alabama

Arkansas

Florida

Georgia

Kentucky

Louisiana

Mississippi

North Carolina

South Carolina

Tennessee

Virginia

West Virginia

Midwest Museum 

Association (8)

Indiana

Illinois

Iowa

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Ohio

Wisconsin

Mountain-Plains Museum 

Association (10)

Colorado

Kansas

Montana

Nebraska

New Mexico

North Dakota

Oklahoma

South Dakota

Texas

Wyoming

Alaska

Arizona

California

Hawaii

Idaho

Nevada

Oregon

Utah

Washington
97

List of Tables, all amounts expressed in constant 2006 dollars:

Table AC.1. Institute of Museum and Library Services Grants to Museums, by State, FY 2000–2006

Table AC.2. Institute of Museum and Library Services Grants to Museums, Per Capita, FY 2000–2006

Table AC.3. National Science Foundation Grants to Museums, by State, FY 2000–2006

Table AC.4. National Science Foundation Grants to Museums, Per Capita, FY 2000–2006

Table AC.5. National Endowment for the Arts Grants to Museums, by State, FY 2000–2006

Table AC.6. National Endowment for the Arts Grants to Museums, Per Capita, FY 2000–2006

Table AC.7. National Endowment for the Humanities Grants to Museums, by State, FY 2000–2006

Table AC.8. National Endowment for the Humanities Grants to Museums, Per Capita, FY 2000–2006

Table AC.9. Number of Grants to Museums from IMLS, NSF, NEA and NEH, by State, FY 2000–2006

Table AC.10. Number of Earmarks to States by Fiscal Year, FY 2001–2006

Table AC.11. Total Federal Dollars to Museums, Per Capita, FY 2006

APPENDIX C: Federal Funding to Museums, by State
98

Table AC.1. Institute of Museum and Library Services Grants to Museums, by State, FY 2000–2006

Total ($ 2006)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total 2000–06

Alabama 275,309 142,137 201,695 82,940 187,657 33,192 219,543 1,142,473

Alaska 139,220 42,696 514,167 177,996 28,936 572,655 149,129 1,624,800

Arizona 677,849 465,704 434,385 498,893 174,586 1,206,659 257,700 3,715,776

Arkansas 136,553 98,055 154,357 65,979 76,786 14,488 75,237 621,455

California 1,816,062 1,404,618 2,814,103 728,792 2,416,220 3,898,419 2,601,215 15,679,429

Colorado 382,534 1,135,960 792,563 275,929 1,022,479 653,099 688,209 4,950,773

Connecticut 487,772 176,653 852,434 495,548 1,390,117 983,679 953,690 5,339,894

Delaware 5,555 180,263 233,755 83,445 166,515 76,537 74,201 820,271

District of Columbia 339,592 589,611 700,558 547,127 210,615 132,397 2,776,997 5,296,898

Florida 1,570,889 823,741 737,992 1,102,751 642,389 1,060,680 512,422 6,450,864

Georgia 223,141 235,828 138,526 95,962 314,721 184,919 564,577 1,757,673

Hawaii 279,026 72,858 64,979 111 ,840 8,420 76,822 45,485 659,431

Idaho 21,553 43,317 39,871 101,029 35,064 2,400 62,251 305,485

Illinois 1,739,494 999,760 2,475,768 2,056,966 1,742,842 2,809,351 1,475,076 13,299,258

Indiana 407,203 9,443 221,298 196,665 766,443 73,920 380,647 2,055,619

Iowa 350,316 379,208 408,328 124,779 313,553 127,614 376,583 2,080,381

Kansas 176,426 267,563 577,043 51,728 483,606 21,605 319,226 1,897,198

Kentucky 246,341 869,861 254,129 114,058 568,604 179,871 137,316 2,370,180

Louisiana 180,866 219,298 363,485 242,883 916,303 16,888 562,080 2,501,804

Maine 142,915 662,348 1,355,331 791,454 607,997 280,213 425,323 4,265,581

Maryland 726,960 310,658 524,739 402,742 376,507 497,330 418,659 3,257,595

Massachusetts 1,725,333 2,228,731 1,108,927 2,601,345 3,888,064 1,904,137 1,955,302 15,411,838

Michigan 845,712 610,585 776,194 567,448 860,382 1,474,889 1,070,240 6,205,450

Minnesota 770,343 404,720 608,407 340,262 1,076,113 741,099 390,937 4,331,881

Mississippi 137,754 18,464 133,208 10,151 68,888 31,149 104,567 504,182

Missouri 221,166 895,834 371,717 285,929 625,013 460,286 1,133,224 3,993,170

Montana 341,749 276,071 252,434 28,923 564,788 0 298,582 1,762,548

Nebraska 282,673 462,517 317,916 21,962 155,541 417,752 218,371 1,876,733

Nevada 281,971 10,996 14,456 169,547 9,648 248,978 0 735,595

New Hampshire 149,642 270,804 355,442 212,632 308,382 191,976 64,364 1,553,243

New Jersey 37,584 308,256 14,635 713,391 33,068 64,237 183,828 1,355,000

New Mexico 375,085 569,605 360,509 563,177 522,541 210,047 577,888 3,178,852

New York 2,528,964 3,413,021 3,536,777 2,886,932 3,990,843 5,301,152 3,774,212 25,431,901

North Carolina 734,546 546,138 1,073,554 587,994 363,712 883,159 701,353 4,890,456

North Dakota 2,078 15,743 108,025 32,603 69,721 2,400 0 230,570

Ohio 786,482 855,897 718,334 303,182 1,407,582 687,232 702,975 5,461,685

Oklahoma 165,749 506,998 206,530 207,530 333,667 384,902 99,488 1,904,863

Oregon 164,675 191,733 583,074 662,134 58,324 326,355 42,900 2,029,196

Pennsylvania 2,016,218 1,619,123 916,840 1,191,065 1,664,912 1,188,568 1,877,594 10,474,319

Rhode Island 159,307 7,251 270,922 25,703 197,042 27,881 30,327 718,433

South Carolina 396,757 144,586 133,376 116,977 124,258 227,639 257,841 1,401,435

South Dakota 58,155 138,371 137,354 6,897 175,042 73,311 219,105 808,234

Tennessee 653,165 403,035 211 ,153 463,526 769,830 1,197,601 290,939 3,989,249

Texas 1,178,256 1,301,637 666,695 1,201,787 1,202,536 619,670 373,087 6,543,668

Utah 348,965 3,381 331,582 170,460 408,209 356,100 706,270 2,324,967

Vermont 281,212 438,515 183,020 135,104 166,894 234,377 571,790 2,010,912

Virginia 731,662 787,483 1,043,674 275,742 699,265 690,659 674,868 4,903,352

Washington 339,024 1,447,759 279,511 848,144 813,279 639,930 446,264 4,813,912

West Virginia 35,719 5,401 39,260 81,371 34,904 265,493 233,529 695,677

Wisconsin 544,585 707,278 579,134 443,414 660,936 349,205 1,120,330 4,404,882

Wyoming 131,707 25,816 18,614 253,057 319,152 14,488 309,679 1,072,514

U.S. Total 26,751,817 27,745,329 29,210,781 23,757,897 34,022,898 32,117,409 31,505,420 205,111,551

Source: Urban Institute analysis of IMLS data, 2008. Note: All amounts are expressed in constant 2006 dollars.

APPENDIX C: Federal Funding to Museums, by State
99

Table AC.2. Institute of Museum and Library Services Grants to Museums, Per Capita, FY 2000–2006

Per 100 Population ($ 2006)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total 2000–06

Alabama 6.2 3.2 4.5 1.8 4.2 0.7 4.8 25.4

Alaska 22.2 6.8 80.3 27.5 4.4 86.3 22.3 249.7

Arizona 13.1 8.8 8.0 8.9 3.0 20.3 4.2 66.3

Arkansas 5.1 3.6 5.7 2.4 2.8 0.5 2.7 22.9

California 5.3 4.1 8.0 2.1 6.7 10.8 7.1 44.2

Colorado 8.8 25.7 17.6 6.1 22.2 14.0 14.5 108.9

Connecticut 14.3 5.1 24.7 14.2 39.8 28.1 27.2 153.4

Delaware 0.7 22.7 29.0 10.2 20.1 9.1 8.7 100.5

District of Columbia 59.5 102.1 121.0 94.7 36.3 22.7 477.5 914.0

Florida 9.8 5.0 4.4 6.5 3.7 6.0 2.8 38.2

Georgia 2.7 2.8 1.6 1.1 3.5 2.0 6.0 19.8

Hawaii 23.0 6.0 5.3 9.0 0.7 6.0 3.5 53.5

Idaho 1.7 3.3 3.0 7.4 2.5 0.2 4.2 22.2

Illinois 14.0 8.0 19.7 16.3 13.7 22.0 11 .5 105.1

Indiana 6.7 0.2 3.6 3.2 12.3 1.2 6.0 33.1

Iowa 12.0 12.9 13.9 4.2 10.6 4.3 12.6 70.6

Kansas 6.6 9.9 21.3 1.9 17.7 0.8 11 .5 69.6

Kentucky 6.1 21.4 6.2 2.8 13.7 4.3 3.3 57.8

Louisiana 4.0 4.9 8.1 5.4 20.4 0.4 13.1 56.4

Maine 11 .2 51.5 104.5 60.5 46.3 21.3 32.2 327.4

Maryland 13.7 5.8 9.6 7.3 6.8 8.9 7.5 59.6

Massachusetts 27.1 34.8 17.2 40.4 60.4 29.6 30.4 239.9

Michigan 8.5 6.1 7.7 5.6 8.5 14.6 10.6 61.7

Minnesota 15.6 8.1 12.1 6.7 21.1 14.5 7.6 85.7

Mississippi 4.8 0.6 4.7 0.4 2.4 1.1 3.6 17.5

Missouri 3.9 15.9 6.5 5.0 10.9 7.9 19.4 69.6

Montana 37.8 30.5 27.7 3.2 61.0 0.0 31.6 191.8

Nebraska 16.5 26.9 18.4 1.3 8.9 23.8 12.3 108.1

Nevada 14.0 0.5 0.7 7.6 0.4 10.3 0.0 33.5

New Hampshire 12.1 21.5 27.9 16.5 23.8 14.7 4.9 121.4

New Jersey 0.4 3.6 0.2 8.3 0.4 0.7 2.1 15.7

New Mexico 20.6 31.1 19.4 30.0 27.5 10.9 29.6 169.1

New York 13.3 17.9 18.5 15.0 20.7 27.4 19.5 132.3

North Carolina 9.1 6.7 12.9 7.0 4.3 10.2 7.9 58.0

North Dakota 0.3 2.5 17.0 5.2 11 .0 0.4 0.0 36.3

Ohio 6.9 7.5 6.3 2.7 12.3 6.0 6.1 47.8

Oklahoma 4.8 14.6 5.9 5.9 9.5 10.9 2.8 54.4

Oregon 4.8 5.5 16.5 18.6 1.6 9.0 1.2 57.2

Pennsylvania 16.4 13.2 7.4 9.6 13.5 9.6 15.1 84.8

Rhode Island 15.2 0.7 25.4 2.4 18.3 2.6 2.8 67.3

South Carolina 9.9 3.6 3.3 2.8 3.0 5.4 6.0 33.8

South Dakota 7.7 18.3 18.1 0.9 22.7 9.5 28.0 105.1

Tennessee 11 .5 7.0 3.6 7.9 13.1 20.1 4.8 68.1

Texas 5.6 6.1 3.1 5.4 5.3 2.7 1.6 29.8

Utah 15.6 0.1 14.3 7.2 16.9 14.3 27.7 96.0

Vermont 46.1 71.5 29.7 21.8 26.9 37.7 91.6 325.4

Virginia 10.3 10.9 14.3 3.7 9.4 9.1 8.8 66.6

Washington 5.7 24.1 4.6 13.8 13.1 10.2 7.0 78.6

West Virginia 2.0 0.3 2.2 4.5 1.9 14.6 12.8 38.4

Wisconsin 10.1 13.1 10.6 8.1 12.0 6.3 20.2 80.5

Wyoming 26.7 5.2 3.7 50.5 63.1 2.8 60.1 212.2

U.S. Total 9.5 9.7 10.1 8.2 11.6 10.8 10.5 70.5

Source: Urban Institute analysis of IMLS data, 2008. Note: All amounts are expressed in constant 2006 dollars.
100

APPENDIX C: Federal Funding to Museums, by State

Table AC.3. National Science Foundation Grants to Museums, by State, FY 2000–2006

Total ($ 2006)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total 2000–06

Alabama 0 0 0 0 0 0 141,869 141,869

Alaska 356,763 9,343 0 54,761 0 624,918 873,404 1,919,189

Arizona 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Arkansas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

California 8,949,497 16,640,045 6,955,442 10,457,127 13,167,289 17,115,109 9,277,123 82,561,632

Colorado 106,302 35,330 162,490 0 936,888 904,854 307,525 2,453,389

Connecticut 0 0 0 646,057 662,375 0 640,760 1,949,192

Delaware 108,397 0 0 0 435,913 0 0 544,310

District of Columbia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Florida 351,426 419,065 298,082 1,121,067 2,573,439 2,521,193 558,270 7,842,543

Georgia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hawaii 0 433,664 341,154 141,500 843,705 162,269 0 1,922,293

Idaho 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Illinois 2,293,943 1,579,833 1,387,462 2,487,397 2,642,322 3,438,468 2,518,639 16,348,063

Indiana 1,163,978 179,103 0 0 0 0 0 1,343,081

Iowa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kansas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kentucky 61,202 59,509 340,221 0 1,363,307 0 302,695 2,126,934

Louisiana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Maine 0 0 33,538 0 0 0 0 33,538

Maryland 1,744,736 109,262 0 0 1,533,165 0 0 3,387,163

Massachusetts 1,202,331 2,027,021 3,804,610 3,880,259 3,716,485 6,775,723 5,098,584 26,505,013

Michigan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Minnesota 3,895,776 2,261,417 3,249,123 1,641,758 2,156,232 3,422,543 1,015,166 17,642,016

Mississippi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Missouri 178,887 227,505 460,112 0 957,123 560,877 505,314 2,889,818

Montana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nebraska 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nevada 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

New Hampshire 824,780 0 0 0 0 0 0 824,780

New Jersey 0 0 281,408 622,505 912,847 0 346,193 2,162,953

New Mexico 139,287 196,471 261,492 144,859 0 0 0 742,108

New York 3,032,203 8,734,598 7,661,623 6,132,676 5,293,266 9,762,261 6,860,152 47,476,779

North Carolina 308,285 318,234 290,181 333,119 1,239,091 141,871 94,356 2,725,137

North Dakota 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ohio 349,481 462,083 1,462,911 393,670 0 0 70,662 2,738,807

Oklahoma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oregon 71,950 813,738 2,178,202 2,390,528 1,212,333 0 0 6,666,751

Pennsylvania 1,583,258 3,692,252 1,795,456 3,528,259 2,191,608 2,848,802 1,687,392 17,327,026

Rhode Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

South Carolina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

South Dakota 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tennessee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Texas 0 687,571 1,351,631 1,801,327 1,389,510 841,504 2,669,572 8,741,114

Utah 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Vermont 1,416,418 176,511 609,290 181,949 681,742 1,457,163 0 4,523,074

Virginia 4,397,380 6,193,785 5,340,656 3,253,232 1,671,454 2,543,104 979,298 24,378,909

Washington 0 0 0 0 0 216,325 200,980 417,305

West Virginia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wisconsin 103,555 308,371 319,139 219,266 0 15,262 0 965,592

Wyoming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

U.S. Total 32,639,834 45,564,711 38,584,224 39,431,315 45,580,093 53,352,248 34,147,954 289,300,379

Source: Urban Institute analysis of National Science Foundation data, 2008. Note: All amounts are expressed in 

constant 2006 dollars.

Note: Institutions used to normalize funding include natural history and natural science museums, science and technology museums, botanical gardens and arboretums, and zoos and aquariums.
101

Table AC.4. National Science Foundation Grants to Museums, Per Capita, FY 2000–2006

Per 100 Population ($ 2006)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total 2000–06

Alabama 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 3.1

Alaska 56.9 1.5 0.0 8.5 0.0 94.2 130.3 291.4

Arizona 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Arkansas 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

California 26.3 48.2 19.9 29.5 36.7 47.3 25.4 233.3

Colorado 2.5 0.8 3.6 0.0 20.4 19.4 6.5 53.1

Connecticut 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.6 19.0 0.0 18.3 55.8

Delaware 13.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 52.6 0.0 0.0 66.4

District of Columbia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Florida 2.2 2.6 1.8 6.6 14.8 14.2 3.1 45.2

Georgia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Hawaii 0.0 35.5 27.7 11 .4 67.0 12.7 0.0 154.3

Idaho 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Illinois 18.4 12.6 11.0 19.7 20.8 26.9 19.6 129.1

Indiana 19.1 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.0

Iowa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Kansas 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Kentucky 1.5 1.5 8.3 0.0 32.9 0.0 7.2 51.4

Louisiana 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Maine 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6

Maryland 32.8 2.0 0.0 0.0 27.6 0.0 0.0 62.5

Massachusetts 18.9 31.6 59.2 60.3 57.7 105.3 79.2 412.2

Michigan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Minnesota 79.0 45.4 64.7 32.5 42.3 66.8 19.6 350.2

Mississippi 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Missouri 3.2 4.0 8.1 0.0 16.6 9.7 8.6 50.3

Montana 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Nebraska 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Nevada 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

New Hampshire 66.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 66.5

New Jersey 0.0 0.0 3.3 7.2 10.5 0.0 4.0 25.0

New Mexico 7.6 10.7 14.1 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.2

New York 16.0 45.7 40.0 31.9 27.4 50.5 35.5 247.1

North Carolina 3.8 3.9 3.5 4.0 14.5 1.6 1.1 32.4

North Dakota 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ohio 3.1 4.1 12.8 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 24.0

Oklahoma 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Oregon 2.1 23.4 61.8 67.1 33.8 0.0 0.0 188.2

Pennsylvania 12.9 30.0 14.6 28.6 17.7 23.0 13.6 140.3

Rhode Island 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

South Carolina 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

South Dakota 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Tennessee 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Texas 0.0 3.2 6.2 8.1 6.2 3.7 11 .4 38.8

Utah 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Vermont 232.2 28.8 98.9 29.4 109.8 234.1 0.0 733.2

Virginia 61.9 86.1 73.3 44.1 22.4 33.6 12.8 334.2

Washington 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 3.1 6.6

West Virginia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Wisconsin 1.9 5.7 5.9 4.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 17.8

Wyoming 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

U.S. Total 11 .6 16.0 13.4 13.6 15.5 18.0 11.4 99.4

Source: Urban Institute analysis of National Science Foundation data, 2008. Note: All amounts are expressed in 

constant 2006 dollars.

Note: Institutions used to normalize funding include natural history and natural science museums, science and technology museums, botanical gardens and arboretums, and zoos and aquariums.
102

Table AC.5. National Endowment for the Arts Grants to Museums, by State, FY 2000–2006

Total ($ 2006)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total 2000–06

Alabama 76,098 46,672 66,117 65,739 51,227 87,742 128,000 521,594

Alaska 0 0 0 16,435 0 0 30,000 46,435

Arizona 0 45,534 0 0 101,387 0 70,000 216,921

Arkansas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

California 577,171 430,862 549,665 828,313 540,019 668,903 615,000 4,209,933

Colorado 11 7,073 11,383 50,428 109,565 32,017 0 10,000 330,467

Connecticut 66,732 85,375 52,669 0 186,765 25,806 175,000 592,348

Delaware 35,122 25,043 11 ,206 0 21,345 61,935 62,000 216,652

District of Columbia 149,151 113,834 71,720 177,496 133,084 320,000 150,000 1,115,284

Florida 40,976 28,458 11 ,206 49,304 53,362 58,839 60,000 302,145

Georgia 193,171 153,676 212,918 186,261 85,379 182,710 300,000 1,314,114

Hawaii 0 0 11 ,206 82,174 0 0 0 93,380

Idaho 0 34,150 0 0 10,672 15,484 0 60,306

Illinois 380,488 365,407 437,043 471,130 225,719 178,581 248,000 2,306,368

Indiana 11 ,707 34,150 0 10,957 0 15,484 10,000 82,298

Iowa 35,122 34,150 50,428 21,913 42,689 72,258 50,000 306,561

Kansas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kentucky 17,561 34,150 14,568 32,870 12,807 36,129 35,000 183,085

Louisiana 40,976 17,075 28,016 10,957 10,672 10,323 50,000 168,018

Maine 0 0 52,669 0 45,891 23,329 45,000 166,889

Maryland 76,098 102,451 49,307 54,783 42,689 67,097 45,000 437,424

Massachusetts 134,634 155,953 128,872 198,313 150,480 815,484 591,500 2,175,235

Michigan 0 85,375 73,961 348,417 101,387 77,419 250,000 936,560

Minnesota 0 0 28,016 78,887 0 61,935 10,000 178,838

Mississippi 0 0 30,257 0 60,832 0 65,000 156,089

Missouri 76,098 122,258 63,875 145,722 192,102 87,742 25,000 712,796

Montana 23,415 0 51,549 0 25,614 25,806 75,000 201,383

Nebraska 0 0 0 0 10,672 10,323 0 20,995

Nevada 11 ,707 0 31,377 0 0 0 10,000 53,085

New Hampshire 49,171 0 0 0 0 0 0 49,171

New Jersey 70,244 125,217 11,206 109,565 58,698 20,645 65,000 460,576

New Mexico 16,390 58,055 63,875 35,061 64,034 201,290 90,000 528,706

New York 522,146 1,075,731 856,156 1,109,348 1,028,277 1,378,581 1,139,700 7,109,939

North Carolina 16,976 193,518 100,856 74,504 121,664 138,364 55,000 700,882

North Dakota 10,829 56,917 0 21,913 32,017 56,774 25,000 203,450

Ohio 69,073 73,992 244,296 76,696 11 4,194 36,129 270,250 884,629

Oklahoma 10,537 193,518 0 21,913 10,672 67,097 0 303,737

Oregon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pennsylvania 340,098 204,901 448,249 246,522 294,556 206,452 343,000 2,083,777

Rhode Island 9,366 5,692 11 ,206 0 0 0 0 26,264

South Carolina 17,561 0 22,412 0 0 0 0 39,973

South Dakota 0 11 ,383 0 0 0 0 0 11 ,383

Tennessee 84,878 125,217 30,257 32,870 239,060 10,323 10,000 532,604

Texas 14,049 170,751 168,093 144,626 283,884 547,097 227,000 1,555,500

Utah 0 0 0 26,296 0 0 0 26,296

Vermont 0 11 ,383 0 0 10,672 0 0 22,056

Virginia 7,610 76,269 5,603 71,217 21,345 10,323 10,000 202,366

Washington 282,146 86,514 112,062 63,548 106,723 101,677 100,000 852,671

West Virginia 0 11 ,383 0 0 0 0 0 11 ,383

Wisconsin 58,537 17,075 0 69,026 10,672 10,323 30,000 195,633

Wyoming 0 22,767 0 0 0 67,097 0 89,864

U.S. Total 3,642,907 4,446,242 4,151,346 4,992,339 4,533,279 5,755,499 5,474,450 32,996,063

Source: Urban Institute analysis of National Endowment for the Arts data, 2008. Note: All amounts are expressed in 

constant 2006 dollars.

Note: Institutions used to normalize grant totals include all art museums (NTEE code A51).

APPENDIX C: Federal Funding to Museums, by State
103

Table AC.6. National Endowment for the Arts Grants to Museums, Per Capita, FY 2000–2006

Per 100 Population ($ 2006)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total 2000–06

Alabama 1.7 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.1 1.9 2.8 11 .5

Alaska 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 4.5 7.0

Arizona 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.1 3.8

Arkansas 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

California 1.7 1.2 1.6 2.3 1.5 1.9 1.7 11.9

Colorado 2.7 0.3 1.1 2.4 0.7 0.0 0.2 7.4

Connecticut 2.0 2.5 1.5 0.0 5.3 0.7 5.0 17.0

Delaware 4.5 3.1 1.4 0.0 2.6 7.4 7.3 26.2

District of Columbia 26.1 19.7 12.4 30.7 23.0 55.0 25.8 192.7

Florida 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.8

Georgia 2.3 1.8 2.5 2.1 1.0 2.0 3.2 14.9

Hawaii 0.0 0.0 0.9 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5

Idaho 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.1 0.0 4.4

Illinois 3.1 2.9 3.5 3.7 1.8 1.4 1.9 18.3

Indiana 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 1.3

Iowa 1.2 1.2 1.7 0.7 1.4 2.4 1.7 10.4

Kansas 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Kentucky 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.3 0.9 0.8 4.4

Louisiana 0.9 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.2 3.8

Maine 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 3.5 1.8 3.4 12.7

Maryland 1.4 1.9 0.9 1.0 0.8 1.2 0.8 8.0

Massachusetts 2.1 2.4 2.0 3.1 2.3 12.7 9.2 33.8

Michigan 0.0 0.9 0.7 3.5 1.0 0.8 2.5 9.3

Minnesota 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.6 0.0 1.2 0.2 3.5

Mississippi 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 2.1 0.0 2.2 5.4

Missouri 1.4 2.2 1.1 2.6 3.3 1.5 0.4 12.5

Montana 2.6 0.0 5.7 0.0 2.8 2.8 7.9 21.7

Nebraska 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 1.2

Nevada 0.6 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 2.4

New Hampshire 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0

New Jersey 0.8 1.5 0.1 1.3 0.7 0.2 0.7 5.4

New Mexico 0.9 3.2 3.4 1.9 3.4 10.5 4.6 27.8

New York 2.7 5.6 4.5 5.8 5.3 7.1 5.9 37.0

North Carolina 0.2 2.4 1.2 0.9 1.4 1.6 0.6 8.3

North Dakota 1.7 8.9 0.0 3.5 5.0 8.9 3.9 32.0

Ohio 0.6 0.6 2.1 0.7 1.0 0.3 2.4 7.7

Oklahoma 0.3 5.6 0.0 0.6 0.3 1.9 0.0 8.7

Oregon 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Pennsylvania 2.8 1.7 3.6 2.0 2.4 1.7 2.8 16.9

Rhode Island 0.9 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5

South Carolina 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

South Dakota 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5

Tennessee 1.5 2.2 0.5 0.6 4.1 0.2 0.2 9.2

Texas 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.7 1.3 2.4 1.0 6.9

Utah 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1

Vermont 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 3.6

Virginia 0.1 1.1 0.1 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 2.8

Washington 4.8 1.4 1.8 1.0 1.7 1.6 1.6 14.0

West Virginia 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6

Wisconsin 1.1 0.3 0.0 1.3 0.2 0.2 0.5 3.6

Wyoming 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.2 0.0 17.8

U.S. Total 1.3 1.6 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.9 1.8 11.3

Source: Urban Institute analysis of National Endowment for the Arts data, 2008. Note: All amounts are expressed in 

constant 2006 dollars.
104

Table AC.7. National Endowment for the Humanities Grants to Museums, by State, FY 2000–2006

Total ($ 2006)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total 2000–06

Alabama 29,268 10,060 11,195 243,192 53,338 5,161 0 352,214

Alaska 35,122 52,364 348,619 763,901 543,627 41,290 45,000 1,829,923

Arizona 47,981 933,199 25,082 308,705 15,992 0 93,790 1,424,750

Arkansas 0 0 0 0 66,702 0 4,982 71,684

California 1,053,142 375,119 2,005,438 3,365,415 1,486,264 1,555,097 326,218 10,166,693

Colorado 27,118 307,352 22,178 111,757 24,858 60,387 388,554 942,203

Connecticut 225,817 1,149,517 32,812 0 1,722,060 71,143 18,543 3,219,892

Delaware 0 284,585 5,603 151,200 180,619 0 284,551 906,558

District of Columbia 295,047 784,999 33,585 65,733 220,375 1,238,754 393,120 3,031,612

Florida 56,809 9,904 571,518 1,127,903 58,698 61,935 712,030 2,598,796

Georgia 11 ,707 0 16,545 0 639,824 15,484 679,920 1,363,480

Hawaii 0 11 ,383 11,206 10,957 42,689 275,097 0 351,332

Idaho 10,409 11,379 5,603 0 0 5,161 0 32,552

Illinois 946,796 663,081 403,349 1,076,478 117,335 376,732 390,956 3,974,727

Indiana 22,628 0 11 ,206 394,435 0 251,561 280,000 959,830

Iowa 367,785 11 ,286 5,076 10,957 325,506 229,796 55,000 1,005,405

Kansas 0 5,416 0 0 57,011 0 0 62,428

Kentucky 5,854 5,692 126,979 0 5,336 0 9,989 153,849

Louisiana 7,885 6,864 0 547,826 0 0 30,000 592,575

Maine 134,382 136,452 26,646 509,603 909,234 10,323 858,530 2,585,170

Maryland 267,579 439,792 595,452 1,106,609 234,620 120,258 159,776 2,924,086

Massachusetts 1,928,046 1,723,502 78,668 136,957 1,133,039 213,793 2,008,582 7,222,587

Michigan 367,630 482,721 476,954 1,051,059 710,440 46,452 283,000 3,418,255

Minnesota 41,505 626,948 62,439 0 876,941 302,865 787,153 2,697,849

Mississippi 11 ,707 512,253 156,887 0 205,965 0 319,997 1,206,809

Missouri 48,131 134,527 4,841 2,738,456 548,790 680,885 19,584 4,175,213

Montana 17,561 85,375 21,673 136,957 5,336 25,795 5,000 297,697

Nebraska 0 0 5,603 602,609 0 0 0 608,212

Nevada 49,729 11 ,346 0 0 0 0 0 61,075

New Hampshire 267,842 165,628 644,345 10,957 5,289 5,161 13,701 1,112,923

New Jersey 0 11 ,383 67,084 0 48,025 293,161 329,871 749,525

New Mexico 5,854 694,827 1,173,814 123,979 106,658 5,161 709,000 2,819,292

New York 2,811,242 1,069,605 1,147,636 4,033,264 3,113,438 2,405,572 1,011,986 15,592,743

North Carolina 368,981 136,601 2,858 328,696 547,383 184,025 23,680 1,592,222

North Dakota 36,665 17,075 0 0 0 0 0 53,740

Ohio 999,024 705,822 62,309 65,739 373,531 61,935 345,674 2,614,034

Oklahoma 93,552 10,017 309,081 0 5,336 123,871 12,790 554,648

Oregon 7,919 57,945 11 ,147 0 10,672 0 8,713 96,396

Pennsylvania 376,642 11 4,239 1,251,348 876,522 589,058 2,072,025 37,225 5,317,059

Rhode Island 590,972 0 19,807 10,957 5,336 0 3,533 630,605

South Carolina 3,080 0 0 0 5,303 0 9,956 18,339

South Dakota 0 5,692 50,868 0 5,336 5,161 4,880 71,938

Tennessee 0 21,742 0 51,097 244,183 25,806 13,196 356,024

Texas 89,831 878,142 767,433 43,826 643,380 41,290 13,405 2,477,307

Utah 0 17,075 0 0 3,093 0 14,857 35,025

Vermont 9,525 25,614 234,620 0 10,672 24,258 849,034 1,153,724

Virginia 52,863 1,565,787 425,699 887,478 1,504,796 524,467 324,995 5,286,085

Washington 320,651 7,413 340,669 219,130 320,169 15,484 84,999 1,308,515

West Virginia 4,683 0 0 10,957 0 10,323 0 25,962

Wisconsin 10,528 627,040 135,592 0 62,639 51,613 360,126 1,247,538

Wyoming 23,360 11 ,383 33,619 0 16,008 10,323 9,927 104,620

U.S. Total 12,088,011 14,918,144 11,743,085 21,139,741 17,804,908 11,447,606 12,335,823 101,477,317

Source: Urban Institute analysis of National Endowment for the Humanities data, 2008. All amounts are expressed in 

constant 2006 dollars.

Notes: Institutions used to normalize funding include art museums, children’s museums, history museums, and historical societies. Grant data are reported for the year of approval, not the year in which funds were distributed. Grants 

distributed across multiple years will appear only in the year authorized by NEH.

APPENDIX C: Federal Funding to Museums, by State
105

Table AC.8. National Endowment for the Humanities Grants to Museums, Per Capita, FY 2000–2006

Per 100 Population ($ 2006)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total 2000–06

Alabama 0.7 0.2 0.3 5.4 1.2 0.1 0.0 7.8

Alaska 5.6 8.3 54.4 11 7.9 82.8 6.2 6.7 281.9

Arizona 0.9 17.6 0.5 5.5 0.3 0.0 1.5 26.3

Arkansas 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.2 2.6

California 3.1 1.1 5.7 9.5 4.1 4.3 0.9 28.7

Colorado 0.6 6.9 0.5 2.5 0.5 1.3 8.2 20.5

Connecticut 6.6 33.5 0.9 0.0 49.3 2.0 0.5 92.9

Delaware 0.0 35.8 0.7 18.5 21.8 0.0 33.3 11 0.1

District of Columbia 51.7 136.0 5.8 11 .4 38.0 212.8 67.6 523.3

Florida 0.4 0.1 3.4 6.6 0.3 0.3 3.9 15.1

Georgia 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 7.2 0.2 7.3 14.9

Hawaii 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 3.4 21.6 0.0 27.7

Idaho 0.8 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 2.4

Illinois 7.6 5.3 3.2 8.5 0.9 3.0 3.0 31.5

Indiana 0.4 0.0 0.2 6.4 0.0 4.0 4.4 15.4

Iowa 12.6 0.4 0.2 0.4 11 .0 7.7 1.8 34.1

Kansas 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 2.3

Kentucky 0.1 0.1 3.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 3.8

Louisiana 0.2 0.2 0.0 12.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 13.3

Maine 10.5 10.6 2.1 39.0 69.2 0.8 65.0 197.1

Maryland 5.0 8.2 10.9 20.1 4.2 2.2 2.8 53.5

Massachusetts 30.3 26.9 1.2 2.1 17.6 3.3 31.2 112.7

Michigan 3.7 4.8 4.8 10.4 7.0 0.5 2.8 34.0

Minnesota 0.8 12.6 1.2 0.0 17.2 5.9 15.2 53.0

Mississippi 0.4 17.9 5.5 0.0 7.1 0.0 11 .0 41.9

Missouri 0.9 2.4 0.1 47.9 9.5 11 .7 0.3 72.9

Montana 1.9 9.4 2.4 14.9 0.6 2.8 0.5 32.5

Nebraska 0.0 0.0 0.3 34.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.0

Nevada 2.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0

New Hampshire 21.6 13.2 50.6 0.9 0.4 0.4 1.0 88.0

New Jersey 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.6 3.4 3.8 8.6

New Mexico 0.3 37.9 63.3 6.6 5.6 0.3 36.3 150.3

New York 14.8 5.6 6.0 21.0 16.1 12.5 5.2 81.2

North Carolina 4.6 1.7 0.0 3.9 6.4 2.1 0.3 19.0

North Dakota 5.7 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.4

Ohio 8.8 6.2 0.5 0.6 3.3 0.5 3.0 22.9

Oklahoma 2.7 0.3 8.9 0.0 0.2 3.5 0.4 15.9

Oregon 0.2 1.7 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 2.7

Pennsylvania 3.1 0.9 10.2 7.1 4.8 16.7 0.3 43.0

Rhode Island 56.2 0.0 1.9 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.3 59.9

South Carolina 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.4

South Dakota 0.0 0.8 6.7 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.6 9.4

Tennessee 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.9 4.1 0.4 0.2 6.1

Texas 0.4 4.1 3.5 0.2 2.9 0.2 0.1 11.4

Utah 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.6 1.5

Vermont 1.6 4.2 38.1 0.0 1.7 3.9 136.1 185.5

Virginia 0.7 21.8 5.8 12.0 20.1 6.9 4.3 71.7

Washington 5.4 0.1 5.6 3.6 5.2 0.2 1.3 21.5

West Virginia 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.4

Wisconsin 0.2 11 .6 2.5 0.0 1.1 0.9 6.5 22.8

Wyoming 4.7 2.3 6.7 0.0 3.2 2.0 1.9 20.9

U.S. Total 4.3 5.2 4.1 7.3 6.1 3.9 4.1 34.9

Source: Urban Institute analysis of National Endowment for the Humanities data, 2008. All amounts are expressed in 

constant 2006 dollars.

Notes: Institutions used to normalize funding include art museums, children’s museums, history museums, and 

historical societies. Grant data are reported for the year of approval, not the year in which funds were distributed. 

Grants distributed across multiple years will appear only in the year authorized by NEH.
106

Table AC.9. Number of Grants to Museums from IMLS, NSF, NEA, and NEH, by State, FY 2000–2006

IMLS NSF NEH NEA

Total 2000–06 Total 2000–06 Total 2000–06 Total 2000–06

Alabama 36 1 11 17

Alaska 31 5 13 3

Arizona 47 0 17 6

Arkansas 21 0 2 0

California 246 55 61 101

Colorado 80 7 28 7

Connecticut 87 3 22 18

Delaware 17 2 9 8

District of Columbia 37 0 23 19

Florida 136 13 30 17

Georgia 50 0 12 10

Hawaii 19 5 6 2

Idaho 23 0 6 3

Illinois 134 18 26 33

Indiana 46 2 10 5

Iowa 45 0 14 8

Kansas 52 0 2 0

Kentucky 49 5 7 9

Louisiana 35 0 6 10

Maine 63 1 24 5

Maryland 82 3 25 14

Massachusetts 186 15 75 34

Michigan 89 0 24 15

Minnesota 69 7 25 5

Mississippi 20 0 7 4

Missouri 66 6 20 17

Montana 32 0 16 9

Nebraska 47 0 2 2

Nevada 18 0 10 3

New Hampshire 54 1 21 2

New Jersey 36 4 13 13

New Mexico 55 4 20 18

New York 348 35 141 146

North Carolina 100 9 19 25

North Dakota 14 0 7 7

Ohio 104 9 35 20

Oklahoma 58 0 14 8

Oregon 50 6 8 0

Pennsylvania 191 26 38 45

Rhode Island 23 0 8 3

South Carolina 27 0 3 4

South Dakota 29 0 6 1

Tennessee 60 0 12 13

Texas 129 13 35 50

Utah 38 0 5 1

Vermont 33 6 24 2

Virginia 11 8 12 28 10

Washington 69 2 16 23

West Virginia 15 0 3 1

Wisconsin 74 5 15 11

Wyoming 22 0 16 4

U.S. Total 3,523 280 1,023 793

Source: Urban Institute analysis of administrative records from IMLS, NSF, NEH, and NEA, 2008.

APPENDIX C: Federal Funding to Museums, by State
107

Table AC.10. Number of Earmarks to States by Fiscal Year, FY 2001–2006

Number of Earmarks per State

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total 2001–06

* 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Alaska 3 3 8 7 6 0 27

Alabama 3 6 5 8 6 4 32

Arkansas 0 0 0 1 2 0 3

Arizona 1 1 0 2 4 1 9

California 11 17 22 17 20 14 101

Colorado 1 1 3 3 1 2 11

Connecticut 3 5 3 3 8 5 27

District of Columbia 4 5 10 7 10 5 41

Delaware 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

Florida 2 3 3 10 12 5 35

Georgia 6 3 10 5 9 3 36

Hawaii 2 5 2 2 2 1 14

Iowa 4 5 8 6 7 2 32

Idaho 1 1 2 4 2 0 10

Illinois 5 4 9 8 11 10 47

Indiana 0 1 0 1 1 1 4

Kansas 2 0 1 1 2 0 6

Kentucky 4 3 3 4 5 0 19

Louisiana 2 2 3 0 4 1 12

Massachusetts 6 3 5 1 5 2 22

Maryland 4 0 3 4 2 1 14

Maine 1 3 3 0 2 2 11

Michigan 2 3 1 7 5 4 22

Minnesota 1 0 3 2 1 1 8

Missouri 4 2 4 5 6 5 26

Mississippi 3 2 2 4 5 4 20

Montana 1 1 0 1 1 3 7

North Carolina 3 4 5 3 8 7 30

North Dakota 1 3 1 0 0 0 5

Nebraska 1 0 0 1 2 3 7

New Hampshire 1 0 0 1 4 1 7

New Jersey 6 0 0 0 6 2 14

New Mexico 1 0 3 2 0 2 8

Nevada 0 0 1 1 1 0 3

New York 16 23 22 15 23 8 107

Ohio 2 10 11 13 19 3 58

Oklahoma 0 0 4 5 2 2 13

Oregon 3 3 3 2 2 1 14

Pennsylvania 13 17 24 21 31 6 11 2

Rhode Island 3 4 2 4 1 0 14

South Carolina 2 2 0 3 1 1 9

South Dakota 0 1 1 1 2 1 6

Tennessee 2 3 3 6 10 2 26

Texas 3 2 8 7 11 2 33

Utah 2 0 2 1 1 4 10

Virginia 5 7 10 12 14 9 57

Vermont 4 6 1 0 1 1 13

Washington 4 3 6 5 6 4 28

Wisconsin 2 3 2 1 2 0 10

West Virginia 5 4 4 3 4 4 24

Wyoming 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

Total 156 174 227 220 291 140 1,208

* Combined earmark to HI and AK. Source: Urban Institute analysis of Citizens Against Government Waste data, 2008.
108

Table AC.11. Total Federal Dollars to Museums, Per Capita, FY 2006

Per 100 Population ($ 2006)

IMLS NSF NEA NEH Earmark

Alabama 4.8 3.1 2.8 0.0 78.3

Alaska 22.3 130.3 4.5 6.7 0

Arizona 4.2 0 1.1 1.5 0

Arkansas 2.7 0 0 0.2 0

California 7.1 25.4 1.7 0.9 21.1

Colorado 14.5 6.5 0.2 8.2 5.3

Connecticut 27.2 18.3 5 0.5 134.1

Delaware 8.7 0 7.3 33.3 0

District of Columbia 477.5 0 25.8 67.6 252.8

Florida 2.8 3.1 0.3 3.9 7.2

Georgia 6 0 3.2 7.3 7.2

Hawaii 3.5 0 0 0.0 0

Idaho 4.2 0 0 0.0 0

Illinois 11 .5 19.6 1.9 3.0 22.4

Indiana 6 0 0.2 4.4 40.9

Iowa 12.6 0 1.7 1.8 12.2

Kansas 11 .5 0 0 0.0 0

Kentucky 3.3 7.2 0.8 0.2 0

Louisiana 13.1 0 1.2 0.7 11 .7

Maine 32.2 0 3.4 65.0 30.3

Maryland 7.5 0 0.8 2.8 3.6

Massachusetts 30.4 79.2 9.2 31.2 3.9

Michigan 10.6 0 2.5 2.8 18.3

Minnesota 7.6 19.6 0.2 15.2 4.8

Mississippi 3.6 0 2.2 11 .0 101.4

Missouri 19.4 8.6 0.4 0.3 11 9

Montana 31.6 0 7.9 0.5 47.6

Nebraska 12.3 0 0 0.0 296.3

Nevada 0 0 0.4 0.0 0

New Hampshire 4.9 0 0 1.0 114.1

New Jersey 2.1 4 0.7 3.8 3.9

New Mexico 29.6 0 4.6 36.3 10.2

New York 19.5 35.5 5.9 5.2 14.6

North Carolina 7.9 1.1 0.6 0.3 22.9

North Dakota 0 0 3.9 0.0 0

Ohio 6.1 0.6 2.4 3.0 9.4

Oklahoma 2.8 0 0 0.4 11 .7

Oregon 1.2 0 0 0.2 10.8

Pennsylvania 15.1 13.6 2.8 0.3 14.5

Rhode Island 2.8 0 0 0.3 0

South Carolina 6 0 0 0.2 4.6

South Dakota 28 0 0 0.6 25.6

Tennessee 4.8 0 0.2 0.2 5

Texas 1.6 11.4 1 0.1 2.3

Utah 27.7 0 0 0.6 70.6

Vermont 91.6 0 0 136.1 0

Virginia 8.8 12.8 0.1 4.3 16.4

Washington 7 3.1 1.6 1.3 26.6

West Virginia 12.8 0 0 0.0 227.7

Wisconsin 20.2 0 0.5 6.5 0

Wyoming 60.1 0 0 1.9 68

U.S. Total 10.5 11.4 1.8 4.1 21.9

Source: Urban Institute analysis of administrative data provided by IMLS, NSF, NEA, NEH, and analysis of Citizens 

Against Government Waste data, 2008.

Note: All amounts are expressed in constant 2006 dollars.

APPENDIX C: Federal Funding to Museums by States
109

Research Method for Gathering State Profiles

State profiles were produced using information gathered through background research of agency 

Web sites and publicly available budget information; site visits to agencies, associations, and museums in each of the states; as well as in-depth interviews with approximately nine public arts administrators, museum professionals, and cultural policymakers in each of the states. In the interviews, 

the investigators asked about the kinds of mechanisms used to deliver state dollars to museums, 

whether and how the state’s public cultural agencies work together, and how many dollars they 

control. The investigators also interviewed national funders and leaders of national service organizations to understand how federal- and state-level systems for distributing resources to museums 

function. (See appendix E for a complete list of those interviewed.) 

After gathering data on state systems of support for the cultural sector, the Urban Institute 

investigators quantified the dollars delivered through the systems in eight states: Illinois, Maine, 

Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington.76

Each profile includes the following information:

an analysis of general attitudes toward museums, their public roles, and the effectiveness 

and appropriateness of government funding in supporting museums in their public roles;

a breakdown of support received by museums in the state from IMLS, NEA, NEH, NSF, and 

federal earmarks;

a portrait of the state structure for delivering cultural services, including museum services, 

to the public and for supporting museums so that they can deliver museum services; and

an accounting of total dollars in this structure and of the state’s share of these dollars.

Each state’s public cultural sector includes some or all of these state agencies: 

The State Arts Agency

The State Humanities Council

The State Historic Preservation Office

The State Museum/Museum Commission

Public museums

The State Library

The State Archive

Any umbrella cultural agency

Any special agencies/offices

76 The financial data collection process that occurred in this study at the state level is illustrative of the lack of 

coordination and systematization across state agencies in terms of financial record-keeping and reporting. State-level 

budgetary information on cultural spending ranged from being readily and freely available in some agencies to being 

difficult to disentangle from budget documents and complex record-keeping methods, to simply not being accounted for 

at all. Urban Institute researchers made every effort to gather as much information as possible on financial data at the 

state level in spite of these challenges and express their gratitude to the agencies for the work required to provide this 

information.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Appendix D. State Profiles
110

The profiles are presented in three groups: large, medium, and small. Because population size 

is highly—though not directly—correlated with the size of the museum sector and because state 

expenditures are scaled to fit population size, it is important to keep differences in size in mind 

when comparing the eight states. Size classifications refer to both the population of the state and 

its total general fund expenditures in FY 2006. Large states in this study are Illinois, Pennsylvania, 

and Michigan. Medium-size states are Virginia, Massachusetts, and Washington. Small states are 

New Mexico and Maine. 

Large States—Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan

ILLINOIS

Although the public view of museums in Illinois is dominated by a cluster of internationally 

renowned institutions in and around Chicago, a significant number of large local and regional 

museums can be found across the state. The museum community in the state argues forcefully for 

the public value of their institutions, highlighting them as vital community supports for both education and tourism. Respondents highlighted a number of innovative education and access projects as 

being a direct result of public support. Those projects included partnerships with schools to provide 

updated information technology, teacher training to incorporate Illinois museum Web resources into 

the classrooms, and cooperative agreements with local libraries to provide patrons with free access 

passes to local museums. 

While members of the museum community see public support as important to their institutions, 

there appears to be a significant dividing line between museums located on public land and those 

that are not. In Illinois, the relationship between public lands and museums dates back to the 

Columbian Exhibition of 1893. By all accounts, state and city support for the campus of museums 

that developed close to Chicago dates back to that time. This historic relationship appears to have 

shaped the way the state sees and supports museums. For example, for some funding programs, 

the term “public museum” is used describe any museum on government land, regardless of 

whether the institution’s formal governance structure is tied to state or local governments. 

I. Federal funding for museums in Illinois

Illinois institutions are highly competitive in terms of their ability to secure federal funding. Table 

AD.1 lists the amount of funding that Illinois museums received from federal agencies between 

2000 and 2006. For each of the four federal agencies, Illinois ranked seventh or better in terms 

of total dollars received over the seven years. Illinois ranks fourth in the country in terms of total 

federal dollars funding museums in the state.

Appendix D. State Profiles
111

Table AD.1. Federal Support for Museums by Source, FY 2000–2006: Illinois

Illinois 2000–2006 Rank

IMLS $13,299,258 4

NSF $16,348,063 7

NEH $3,974,727 7

NEA $2,306,368 3

Total $35,928,416 4

Source: Urban Institute analysis of IMLS, NSF, NEH, and NEA data, 2008.

Illinois received $23,927,376 in total federal earmarks from 2001 to 2006, ranking fifth in the 

country for the total amount of earmark support received during this period.

II. State-level capacities

The public cultural sector in Illinois is structured around several large, independent agencies. Table 

AD.2 lists these agencies, along with their state allocations and total revenues in FY 2007. The total 

of their combined budgets was more than $125 million, or just about $9.75 per capita. The proportion of dollars contributed by the state was more than $116 million, or just over $9 per capita.

The Historic Preservation Agency runs the Abraham Lincoln Museum and Library, which had a 

budget of more than $14 million in FY 2007. The Lincoln Museum and Library is supported through 

a private foundation that gave $746,203, as well as documents and artifacts worth $25 million 

in FY 2007. In FY 2007, the Historic Preservation Agency reportedly administered an additional 

$16,491,825 in funds earmarked for capital improvements to museums. The Arts Council budget 

reflects $6,229,700 in line items administered to cultural institutions, including museums.

Table AD.2. Illinois Cultural Agency Budgets: Total Budget and State Appropriation, FY 2007

Agency Total Budget FY 2007 State Appropriation FY 2007 Difference $ Difference %

Arts Council $19,582,300 $18,807,300 $775,000 3.96%

Historic Preservation Agency $31,962,103 $31,215,900 $746,203 2.30%

State Museum $5,202,607 $5,202,607 0 0

State Library $61,897,077 $56,060,091 $5,836,986 9.40%

State Archive $3,967,100 $3,967,100 0 0

Humanities Council $2,490,8401 $992,0002 $1,498,840 60.20%

Total $125,102,027 $116,244,998 $8,857,029 7.10%

Source: Urban Institute analysis of data provided by individual agencies except 1 where total budget was retrieved from 

IRS Form 990 and appropriation reported by the Illinois Arts Council, 2008.

2The Illinois Humanities Council received $992,000 in state appropriations that were passed through the Illinois Arts 

Council.
112

Until recently, the only agency to provide dedicated support to museums was the Illinois State 

Museum, through the Public Museum Capital and Operating Grants program. Other cultural agencies provide funding for museum services in cases where programming, collections, or buildings 

are relevant to the agency mission. An early Illinois State Museum grant program for museums, 

reported to have operated from the mid-1970s until the late 1980s, provided operating support to 

museums across the state. 

In the mid-1990s, a new funding program called the Public Museum Grant program was 

developed to provide both operating and capital support for public museums in the state. The program was administered jointly by the Illinois State Museum and the Illinois Department of Natural 

Resources, and was active between 1999 and 2004. From FY 1999 to FY 2002, $10 million was 

allocated annually from the Capital Development Bond Fund for the Capital Grant Program. Over 

the program’s history, $76 million in grant funds were awarded to 94 museums throughout Illinois 

to develop new and updated exhibits, expand facilities, renovate and restore buildings, and make 

infrastructure improvements.

In 1987, special grants were created when the state legislature approved off-track betting 

(OTB) in Illinois. Since that time, the state has shared nearly $3 million of OTB revenue with about 

a dozen Illinois park districts. Museums that are on park land applied for these funds, and some 

came to rely on them as a regular source of operating revenue. However, in 2004, in the wake of 

the state’s $2.3 billion budget gap, Governor Rod Blagojevich and lawmakers transferred funds 

to the general revenue. Grants were distributed from the general fund that year, but stopped after 

2004. 

Illinois may be unique in that one local source is the single largest source of public dollars 

for museums in the state. The Chicago Park District (CPD), an independent tax authority, reports 

annual operating revenues in excess of $390 million. Every year, the CPD distributes a portion of 

these funds to the 10 museums that form the Museums in the Park consortium and the Chicago 

Zoo. In FY 2008, CPD will distribute more than $39 million in operating support to these 11 institutions in the proportions shown in Figure AD.1. 

Appendix D. State Profiles
113

Figure AD.1. 2008 Museum, Aquarium, and Zoo Budget Detail

Source: Chicago Park District, 2008.

Museums in Illinois appear to have well-developed advocacy and fund-building capacities. 

Several museum directors talked openly about traveling to Springfield and Washington to talk to 

representatives and talked as well about the importance of securing good lobbyists. Two different 

respondents linked the development of the capital grants program with the lobbying activity of 

Chicago museums. According to respondents, the Public Museum Grants program grew out of the 

governor’s desire to stem the tide of museum capital grant requests, which were steadily increasing after the Shedd Aquarium’s addition was built with the help of a state budget appropriation in 

1991. 

PENNSYLVANIA

In Pennsylvania, museums are taken for granted as an important part of the state’s identity and as 

central both to the nation’s history and heritage and to the history of museum development in the 

United States. Philadelphia boasts the country’s first zoo and first public library, and has among 

the oldest and most renowned of the country’s art museums, science museums, and historical 

societies. Pittsburgh’s Carnegie institutions have served as national models. Respondents appeared 

to view Pennsylvania museums as both entitled to state and federal government support and as 

fully capable of leveraging that support through political connections and with the support of 

philanthropists. 

John G. Shedd 

Aquarium

12% Art Institute of 

Chicago

17%

Field Museum of 

Natural History

17%

Lincoln Park Zoo

14%

Museum of Science 

and Industry

17%

Chicago History 

Museum

5% Peggy Notebaert 

Nature Museum

3%

Adler Planetarium

5%

DuSable Museum

3%

Mexican Fine Arts 

Museum

3%

Museum of 

Contemporary Art

4%

Other

15%
114

I. Federal funding for museums in Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania institutions are highly competitive in terms of their ability to secure federal funding. 

Table AD.3 lists the amount of funding Pennsylvania museums received from federal agencies 

between 2000 and 2006. For each of the four federal agencies, Pennsylvania ranked sixth or 

better in terms of total dollars received over the seven years. Pennsylvania ranks fifth in the country 

in terms of total federal dollars funding museums in the state.

Table AD.3. Federal Support for Museums by Source, FY 2000–-2006: Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania 2000–2006 Rank

IMLS $10,474,319 5

NSF $17,327,026 6

NEH $5,317,059 4

NEA $2,083,777 5

Total $35,202,181 5

Source: Urban Institute analysis of IMLS, NSF, NEH, and NEA data, 2008.

In addition to being competitive in terms of state grants, Pennsylvania received $24,390,313 

in total earmarks from the years 2001 to 2006, ranking fourth in the country for the total amount 

of earmark support received during this period.

II. State-level capacities

When considered broadly, the public cultural sector in Pennsylvania consists of several distinct 

parts. The Historical and Museums Commission is an autonomous state agency. The Council on 

the Arts is budgeted through the state’s executive offices. The State Library is budgeted through 

the Department of Education. The Office of Economic and Community Development houses programs that support zoos and cultural expositions and exhibitions. The Pennsylvania Humanities 

Council receives significant funding from the state. Table AD.4 lists these public cultural entities in 

Pennsylvania, along with their state appropriations and total revenues in FY 2007. The total of their 

combined budgets is almost $122 million, approximately $10 per capita. The proportion of these 

dollars contributed by the state is less than $103 million, or $8.25 per capita.

Appendix D. State Profiles
115

Table AD.4. Pennsylvania Cultural Agency Budgets: Total Budget and State Appropriation, FY 2007

Agency Total Budget FY 2007

State Appropriation 

FY 2007 Difference $ Difference %

Historical and 

Museums Commission $59,491,000 $49,720,0001 $9,771,000 16.40%

Council on the Arts $17,339,700 $15,225,000 $2,114,700 12.20%

State Library $29,365,494 $23,290,0002 $6,075,494 20.70%

Cultural Exhibitions 

and Expositions $11 ,725,000 $11,725,000 0 0

Accredited Zoos $2,250,000 $2,250,000 0 0

Pennsylvania 

Humanities Council $1,589,000 $460,800 $1,128,200 71.00%

Total $121,760,194 $102,670,800 $19,089,394 15.70%

Source: Urban Institute analysis, Pennsylvania Historical and Museums Commission, State Executive Office, Department of Education, Office of Economic and Community Development, Pennsylvania Humanities Council, 2008.

1Includes regular appropriation and museum earmarks that are passed through the agency (see Table AD.6).

2Includes regular appropriation and additional state funds for programs and services.

The state support directed toward museums in Pennsylvania flows through both the Council 

on the Arts and the Historical and Museums Commission (HMC). The Council on the Arts provides 

general operating support (GOS) to cultural institutions, including art museums. HMC runs the 

State History Museum and is the only state agency that directly delivers museum services. HMC 

also is the sole agency with a program of dedicated funding for museums. The agency delivers 

noncompetitive GOS to county historical societies and competitive GOS to any museum type. The 

maximum award for historical society GOS is $10,000. The maximum award for museum GOS is 

$150,000. Table AD.5 shows state allocations to the HMC’s Museum Assistance Grants Program 

for the years 1999 to 2008. In addition, HMC administers line items to museums. Table AD.6 lists 

state line items passed through the HMC to museums in FY 2007. The Council on the Arts and the 

Humanities Act provide funding for museum services in cases where programming, collections, or 

buildings are relevant to agency mission.

Table AD.5. Pennsylvania Historical and Museums Commission Museum Assistance 

Grants Program Budget, FY 1999–2008

FY Amount FY Amount

1999 $4,400,000 2004 $6,000,000 

2000 $4,450,000 2005 $5,100,000 

2001 $4,450,000 2006 $4,100,000 

2002 $4,400,000 2007 $4,100,000 

2003 $4,600,000 2008 $3,800,000 

Source: Pennsylvania Historical and Museums Commission, 2008.
116

Table AD.6. Pennsylvania Historical and Museums Commission Line Items, FY 2007

Entity Amount FY 2007

Historical Education and Museum Assistance $3,385,000 

Regional History Centers $600,000 

University of Pennsylvania Museum $254,000 

Carnegie Museum of Natural History $254,000 

Carnegie Science Center $254,000 

Franklin Institute Science Museum $769,000 

Academy of Natural Sciences $471,000 

African American Museum in Philadelphia $359,000 

Everhart Museum $46,000 

Mercer Museum $196,000 

Whitaker Center for Science and the Arts $141,000 

Total $5,987,000 

Source: Pennsylvania Historical and Museums Commission, 2008.

Pennsylvania has a low level of public cultural sector integration. Public cultural agencies are 

not coordinated and do not share cultural planning. Funding streams are not concentrated in cultural agencies but are spread across many departments and offices of state government. Respondents commented that the two largest public cultural sector agencies—the Historical and Museums 

Commission and the Council on the Arts—do not coordinate their efforts. Lack of communication 

between these two agencies can be seen as an expression of the tension between local institutions such as county historical societies, which are substantially supported by the public sector, 

and large, high-profile, urban institutions supported by philanthropy and the private, nonprofit 

sector. Interview respondents suggest that the large, urban institutions with knowledgeable, wellconnected board members and supporters wield much of the political power that leverages state 

dollars that go to museums. The HMC programs, which balance these earmarks and line items with 

dollars that are spread more equitably across the state, are portrayed as politically necessary rather 

than cooperatively gained and communally planned funding programs. 

MICHIGAN

Discussions about government support for museums in Michigan are muted in the face of the 

state’s dire economic circumstances. Cultural sector leaders remember 1991, when, in an unprecedented move, then-Governor Engler eliminated state funding for the Michigan Arts Council (it was 

soon reinstated). Museums and other cultural institutions in Detroit have begun to advocate for government GOS, citing the economic development potential of the cultural sector. But respondents 

did not seem optimistic about the potency of these arguments. Respondents were explicit in saying 

that state dollars might not reach Michigan museums at all but for the influence of wealthy, wellconnected advocates who support not only the state’s museums but also the political campaigns of 

state legislators. 

Appendix D. State Profiles
117

I. Federal funding for museums in Michigan

Michigan institutions are competitive in terms of their ability to secure federal funding. Table AD.7 

lists the amount of federal funding that Michigan museums received from federal agencies between 

2000 and 2006, along with the state’s rank compared to other states in the country. Although 

Michigan museums did not receive any NSF dollars over this period, significantly impacting their 

overall rank, the state’s museums rank 9th or better in terms of number of dollars received from 

IMLS, NEH, and NEA. Michigan ranks 13th in the country in terms of the total amount of federal 

grants to museums in the state. 

Table AD.7. Federal Support for Museums by Source, FY 2000–2006: Michigan

Michigan 2000–2006 Rank

IMLS $6,205,450 8

NSF* $0 30

NEH $3,418,255 8

NEA $936,560 9

Total $10,560,265 13

Source: Urban Institute analysis of IMLS, NSF, NEH and NEA data, 2008.

*NSF did not fund all states.

Michigan received $8,001,801 in total federal earmarks from the years 2001 to 2006, ranking 

23rd in the country for the total amount of earmarks received during this period.

II. State-level capacities

In Michigan, public cultural agencies are organized under the Michigan Department of History, Arts 

and Libraries (MHAL), an umbrella agency established in 2002. Table AD.8 lists the agencies that 

make up MHAL, along with their state appropriations and total revenues in FY 2007. Also included 

is the Michigan Humanities Council, a 501(c)(3) private nonprofit organization that is not part of 

MHAL. The total of their combined budgets is almost $52 million, or just over $5 per capita. The 

proportion of these dollars contributed by the state is almost $39 million, or almost $4 per capita. 

MHAL’s Cultural Economic Development program will have a line item in the state budget for the 

first time in FY 2009. 

The Michigan Historical Center includes the state’s Historical Preservation Office, State 

Archives, and the State Historical Museum System, which comprises 11 public museums and 

historic sites. The Michigan Council for Arts and Cultural Affairs (MCACA) provides GOS to Michigan cultural institutions, including museums, through its Anchor Organizations program. A review of 

grants awarded by MCACA in 2008 shows that museums received just over $2.6 million. 
118

Table AD.8. Michigan Department of History, Arts and Libraries and Michigan Humanities Council: 

Total Budgets and State Appropriations, FY 2007

Agency Total Budget FY 2007

State Appropriation 

FY 2007 Difference $ Difference %

Department 

Operations* $6,473,000 $6,426,900 $46,100 0.70%

Council for Arts and 

Cultural Affairs $7,161,400 $6,461,400 $700,000 9.80%

Mackinac State Park 

Commission $3,357,900 $1,482,200 $1,875,700 55.90%

Historical Center $8,342,600 $5,063,000 $3,279,600 39.30%

Michigan Humanities 

Council $1,400,000 $131,900 $1,268,100 90.60%

Michigan Library $24,974,400 $19,255,100 $5,719,300 22.90%

Total $51,709,300 $38,820,500 $12,888,800 24.90%

Source: Urban Institute analysis, Michigan Department of History, Arts and Libraries, 2008.

*Includes a $166,400 appropriation for the Michigan Film Office. 

In 2005, the State Historical Center administered a small grants program of $100,000 in 

dedicated funding for local historical societies. Applicants could apply for support of seven types 

of museum service. There were 144 applications received, requesting more than $905,000. The 

Historical Center reports that funding all of the projects deemed worthy of support would have cost 

more than $240,000. Table AD.9 shows the number of projects funded and total dollars awarded 

in each of seven categories.

Table AD.9. Michigan Historical Center FY 2005 State and Local Historical Society Grants

Project Type Number Awarded Project Type Total

Collections Management and Development 4 $21,025 

Bricks and Mortar 4 $34,000 

Exhibit and Education Project 4 $14,985 

Regional/Collaborative Project 1 $4,000 

Marketing 2 $11 ,900 

Consultant and Planning Services 2 $10,000 

Professional Development 9 $4,090 

Totals 26 $100,000 

Source: Michigan Historical Center, 2008.

Although the public cultural sector in Michigan is formally integrated within MHAL, the agency 

was regarded as ineffective. Respondents portrayed a sector in which each of the departments 

operates independently. This lack of integration was suggested to be the result of distrust and the 

lack of a shared culture among the institutions. Respondents did express a great deal of support 

for the Michigan Museums Association, which provides professional development opportunities for 

museum professionals and volunteers around the state. 

Appendix D. State Profiles
119

Medium-Size States—Virginia, Massachusetts, Washington

VIRGINIA

Discussions of government support for museums in Virginia center on the role of museums in preserving the state’s history, which is central to its identity, and in educating young people through 

work with schools. Generally, respondents consider the state supportive of museums. However, 

several respondents agreed that the state lacks a consistent system for distributing dollars to museums and that support is determined on the basis of political influence.

I. Federal funding for museums in Virginia

Virginia institutions are quite competitive in terms of their ability to secure federal funding. Table 

AD.10 lists the amount of funding Virginia museums received from federal agencies between 2000 

and 2006. Museums in Virginia fared much better gaining dollars from NSF and NEH than from 

IMLS and NEA. Virginia ranked sixth in the country in terms of total federal dollars funding museums in the state between 2000 and 2006.

Table AD.10. Federal Support for Museums by Source, FY 2000–2006: Virginia

Virginia 2000–2006 Rank

IMLS $4,903,352 13

NSF $24,378,909 4

NEH $5,286,085 5

NEA $202,366 27

Total $34,770,712 6

Source: Urban Institute analysis of IMLS, NSF, NEH, and NEA data, 2008.

Virginia received $20,929,882 in total federal earmarks from 2001 to 2006, ranking seventh 

in the country for the amount of earmark support received during this period.

II. State-level capacities

The public cultural sector in Virginia is made up of state agencies; public museums; and private, 

nonprofit organizations. Table AD.11 lists these public cultural agencies and museums, along with 

their state appropriations and total revenues in FY 2007. In FY 2007, their combined cultural budgets totaled more than $111 million, or about $14.50 per capita. The proportion of these dollars 

contributed by the state was more than $72 million, or almost $9.50 per capita.

The commonwealth of Virginia provides direct support to seven public museums and sites. Five 

of these museums fall under the Secretariat of Education: the Jamestown-Yorktown Foundation, 

Frontier Culture Museum, Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, Science Museum of Virginia, and Gunston 

Hall Plantation. Two other public museums fall under the Secretariat of Natural Resources: the 

Museum of Natural History and the Chippokes Plantation Farm Museum. In recent years, the state 

required that these public museums raise 40% of their operating budget from private sources. 
120

(Nonstate share appears lower in the calculations because we have included both regular appropriations and dollars drawn from a central fund.)

Table AD.11. Virginia Cultural Agency Budgets: Total Budget and State Appropriation, FY 2007

Agency

Total Budget 

FY 2007

State Appropriation 

FY 20072 Difference $ Difference %

Commission for the Arts $5,649,527 $4,873,428* $776,099 13.70%

Department of Historic Resources $6,182,681 $4,288,726 $1,893,955 30.60%

VA Foundation for the Humanities $4,372,680 $1,532,653 $2,840,027 64.90%

The Library of Virginia1 $41,272,180 $31,365,691 $9,906,489 24.20%

Chippokes Plantation Farm Foundation $229,270 $162,176 $67,094 29.30%

Museum of Fine Arts $16,935,000 $8,196,000* $8,739,000 51.60%

Frontier Culture Museum $2,114,776 $1,696,196 $418,580 19.80%

Gunston Hall $1,800,000 $636,438 $1,163,562 64.60%

Museum of Natural History $3,696,000 $2,994,000* $702,000 19%

Science Museum $10,193,000 $5,500,620* $4,692,380 46%

Jamestown Yorktown Foundation $18,851,498 $11,013,295 $7,838,203 41.60%

Total $111 ,296,612 $172,268,124 $39,037,389 35.10%

Source: Urban Institute analysis of data obtained from individual agencies except where noted, 2008.

*Includes general fund appropriations and additional funds drawn from a central appropriation.

1Source: Virginia Office of Planning and Budget. 

2Reflects dollars from general appropriations only except where noted.

The year 2007 was the 400th anniversary of the landing at Jamestown. Jamestown had a FY 

2007 budget of $9,357,519, of which $2,104,278 or 22.5% were state dollars. If those dollars are included, the combined agency budgets total more than $120 million, or about $16 per 

capita. The proportion of these dollars contributed by the state is about $74.5 million, or about 

$9.75 per capita.

Additionally, capital allocations were made to museums (see Table AD.12). Informants in 

Virginia suggested that these capital allocations are not typical, so we have not calculated state 

shares with these amounts included, but have listed them because they reflect true FY 2007 

state expenditures.

Table AD.12. Capital Allocations to Virginia Cultural Agencies: FY 2007

Museum Allocation

Museum of Fine Arts $106,537,000 

Frontier Culture Museum $306,000 

Science Museum $880,000 

Source: Museum of Fine Arts, Frontier Culture Museum, and Science Museum, 2008.

Appendix D. State Profiles
121

The Department of Historic Resources provides grants for the preservation of historic sites and 

museums located at historic sites. The Virginia Commission on the Arts provides GOS to art museums (see Table AD.13). The commission also provides program support to any type of museum 

that is mounting an art exhibition. Reportedly, approximately 65% of the Commission’s grants go to 

museum GOS.

Table AD.13. Virginia Commission on the Arts, Funding to Museums, FY 2001–2008

Year Amount Number of grants

2001 $635,412 61

2002 $700,531 80

2003 $740,452 72

2004 $409,187 64

2005 $505,822 80

2006 $656,727 80

2007 $850,253 87

2008 $1,124,482 93

Source: Virginia Commission on the Arts, 2008.

Most of the state support directed toward private, nonprofit, and local public museums in 

Virginia flows through the state budget appropriations process. In 2000, the Virginia assembly 

conducted a study of General Assembly appropriations over successive years. Between 1990 and 

2000, more than $200 million was distributed to nonstate agencies via line item allocations. 

Annual amounts appropriated fluctuated between zero and $62 million. For two of the last three 

years, no allocations were made to nonstate agencies because of state budget difficulties. The 

nonstate agency allocations are administered by the Department of Historic Resources and are contingent upon submission of an application specifying whether the funds will support capital costs 

or operations. Though there are no published reports of the number of applications submitted, one 

interviewee estimated the number of submissions for state budget earmarks to be approximately 

200 per budget cycle. 

Virginia’s public cultural sector is fragmented. Public cultural agencies are not coordinated, nor 

do they participate in shared cultural planning. Funding for cultural agencies is spread across very 

different offices within state government and in different locations across the state. Respondents 

identified the major source of public money as state appropriations, which were described as volatile at best. Stakeholders in the museum community tried to move away from the earmark process 

to a competitive, juried system, but their efforts were defeated. 

MASSACHUSETTS

Respondents suggested that in Massachusetts there is a long-standing belief that philanthropists 

should pay for (and control) cultural institutions, including museums. When Boston’s city govern-
122

ment came to be controlled primarily by members of Boston’s immigrant communities, the city 

distanced itself from its cultural institutions, and their supporters turned to the state, the federal 

government, and East Coast philanthropists. Further, state government support to the cultural 

sector in Massachusetts has been subject to severe cuts. The state government sets a ceiling on 

property taxes, and city and town governments are not empowered to levy local income or sales 

taxes. Even in Boston—the commonwealth’s largest city and home to internationally renowned 

museums—regular municipal-level support for cultural institutions was perceived to be negligible 

or nonexistent. State support does exist, of course. As several respondents pointed out, the Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art (Mass MOCA) was developed with several substantial state 

earmarks. But the relation between museums and government is perceived as strained.

I. Federal funding for museums in Massachusetts

Massachusetts institutions are highly competitive in terms of their ability to secure federal funding. 

Table AD.14 lists the amount of funding Massachusetts museums received from federal agencies 

between 2000 and 2006. For each of the four federal agencies, Massachusetts ranked fourth 

or better in terms of total dollars received over the seven years. Massachusetts ranks third in the 

country in terms of total federal dollars funding museums in the state. 

Table AD.14. Federal Support for Museums by Source, FY 2000–2006: Massachusetts

Massachusetts 2000–2006 Rank

IMLS $15,411,838 3

NSF $26,505,013 3

NEH $7,222,587 3

NEA $2,175,235 4

Total $51,314,673 3

Source: Urban Institute analysis of IMLS, NSF, NEH, and NEA data, 2008.

Massachusetts received $8,826,651 in total federal earmarks from 2001 to 2006, ranking 

22nd in the country for the total amount of earmarks received during this period. Respondents 

informed us that Massachusetts museums have received additional earmarks, but these earmarks 

are not necessarily identified as museum projects (for example, some have been identified as 

transportation projects). Such earmarks were not, therefore, identified in the research and are not 

included in these totals.

II. State-level capacities

The public cultural sector in Massachusetts is highly integrated within two deeply segmented agencies: the Massachusetts Cultural Council (MCC) and the Secretary of the Commonwealth, which 

governs the Commonwealth Museum, Historical Commission, Archives, and Library. Table AD.15 

lists state public cultural agencies and entities in Massachusetts, along with their state appropriaAppendix D. State Profiles
123

tions and total revenues in FY 2007. The total of their combined budgets was $21.5 million, or 

just over $3 per capita. The proportion of these dollars contributed by the state was close to $16 

million, or not quite $2.50 per capita.

The Commonwealth Museum and the Trailside Museum are public museums. (The Trailside 

Museum receives annual appropriations passed through the Department of Conservation and Recreation.) The Massachusetts Cultural Council provides a program of dedicated GOS to more than 

460 cultural organizations, including museums. 

Table AD.15. Massachusetts Cultural Agencies: Total Budgets and State Appropriations, FY 2007

Agency

Total Budget 

FY 2007

State Appropriation 

FY 2007 Difference $ Difference %

Historical Commission $1,703,493 $991,125* $712,368 41.80%

Commonwealth Museum $4,012,792 $2,712,792 $1,300,00 32.40%

Massachusetts Cultural Council1 $13,418,112 $11,393,520 $2,024,592 15.10%

Trailside Museum $578,253 $375,000 $203,253 35.10%

State Library $1,275,000 $1,220,000 $55,000 4.30%

Archives $539,562 $539,562* 0 0

Total $21,527,212 $15,701,312 $5,825,800 27.10%

Source: Urban Institute analysis of data provided by individual agency except * where data was obtained from the 

Secretary of the Commonwealth Office, 2008.

1 In FY 2007, MCC passed the Massachusetts Foundation for the Humanities (a 501(c)(3) private nonprofit organization) $1,118,000 in state revenues, 74.6% of its total FY 2007 budget of $1,498,000.

Museums receive support from MCC in several ways. They can receive GOS across MCC’s discipline-based programs—not only in history, visual arts, and science but also in the multidisciplinary 

and presenting programs. GOS awards are decided by peer review panel. Unlike the typical state 

arts council, MCC funds all of the types of museums that are eligible for IMLS funding. Organizations can receive three years of GOS from MCC and then must reapply. MCC also streams revenue 

to local cultural councils in 329 of the commonwealth’s 351 cities and towns. Local cultural 

councils provide project support available to museums. Small museums reportedly are more likely 

to have access to these local dollars. Respondents believed that the 2007 state budget included 

earmarks to museums, but we could not find evidence of them in available state budget documents. Earmarks are passed through MCC. 

Finally, MCC manages the Massachusetts Cultural Facilities Fund (MCFF), which provides capital grants to cultural institutions, including museums. MCFF is budgeted through the Massachusetts Development Finance Agency (MassDevelopment). Appropriations to MCFF were reported to 

be $13 million in FY 2006, $12 million in FY 2007, and $7 million in FY 2008. A review of grants 

given by MCFF in 2007 shows that approximately $3 million was given to museum projects. 

Revenue for MCC is generated through the state lottery. However, advocates in the state are at 

pains to point out that these lottery dollars are not dedicated revenue. In 2002, outgoing Governor 

Jane Swift unilaterally cut the MCC budget by 62%. Since then, some elements of the cultural 
124

community have coalesced around the advocacy organization Massachusetts Advocates for the 

Arts, Science, and Humanities, and increases to the MCC budget have been leveraged based on 

arguments about the economic development value of the arts and culture. However, respondents 

claimed that even now the museum community has been at best a reluctant partner in those 

efforts. Although MCC budgets have increased over the years since the cut, and public dollars to 

the cultural sector have increased with the initiation of the Massachusetts Cultural Facilities Fund, 

respondents suggested that the cultural sector in Massachusetts continues to feel embattled. 

Respondents overwhelmingly identified the support of Sen. Ted Kennedy at the federal level as 

essential to the health and well-being of the state’s cultural institutions. 

WASHINGTON

Discussions about government support for museums in Washington focus on the public benefit 

provided by museums and on government’s role in developing that benefit. State government 

has invested significantly in building cultural infrastructure through large- and small-scale capital 

projects, making culture and recreation a focus of revitalization and tourism. Seattle boasts an 

internationally recognized new central public library building, which opened in 2004 and was paid 

for in part by a $296.4 million city bond measure passed by popular vote. In 2007, the Seattle 

Art Museum opened the $85 million Olympic Sculpture Park in addition to a major expansion of 

its downtown building. Tacoma has established major new museum buildings, including the State 

History Museum (1996), Museum of Glass (2002), and Tacoma Art Museum (2003). In 2007 

Governor Chris Gregoire signed a bill authorizing a new $111 million Heritage Center to house the 

State Archives, State Library, and exhibit space for the State History Museum. Revenues for the 

Heritage Center will be provided by a new one-time $5 fee for initial domestic corporate filings, a 

$2 surcharge for recording instruments with the county auditor, and private funding. All of these 

capital projects involved substantial levels of public sector support beyond funding, such as granting easements, donating surplus property, or fostering interagency cooperation. Some respondents 

suggested that there is a serious asymmetry between the amounts being invested in building facilities and the money available for general operating and program support to pay for these facilities to 

provide museum services. 

I. Federal funding for museums in Washington

Washington institutions can be characterized as fairly competitive in terms of their ability to secure 

federal funding. Funding from individual federal agencies to Washington museums is listed in Table 

AD.16, along with the state’s rank compared to other states in the country. The state has been 

notably more competitive in securing IMLS and NEA grant dollars than in securing NEH and NSF 

grant dollars. Washington ranks 20th in the country in terms of the total amount of federal grants 

funding museums in the state. 

Appendix D. State Profiles
125

Table AD.16. Federal Support for Museums by Source, FY 2000–2006: Washington

Washington 2000–2006 Rank

IMLS $4,813,912 15

NSF $417,305 27

NEH $1,308,515 22

NEA $852,671 11

Total $7,392,403 20

Source: Urban Institute analysis of IMLS, NSF, NEH, and NEA data, 2008.

Washington received $10,075,274 in total federal earmarks from 2001 to 2006, ranking 17th 

in the country for the total amount of earmarks received during this period.

II. State-level capacities

The public cultural sector in Washington includes both public agencies and nonprofit organizations that receive most of their funding from the state. Table AD.17 lists Washington public culture 

agencies and organizations, along with their state appropriations and total revenues in FY 2007. In 

FY 2007, the combined budgets of these agencies and programs totaled more than $42 million, or 

approximately $6.50 per capita. The proportion of these dollars contributed by the state was just 

over $33 million, or $5 per capita.

Table AD.17. Washington Cultural Agencies: Total Budgets and State Appropriations, FY 2007

Agency

Total Budget 

FY 2007

State Appropriation 

FY 2007 Difference $ Difference %

State Arts Commission $5,364,393 $4,609,7591 $754,634 14.10%

Humanities Washington2 $1,075,507 $49,800 $1,025,707 95.40%

Office of Archaeology and Preservation $6,732,568 $6,013,4513 $719,177 10.70%

Eastern Washington Historical Society $3,490,155 $2,006,343 $1,483,812 42.50%

Washington State Historical Society $4,960,414 $3,265,992 $1,694,422 34.20%

State Library $9,437,930 $6,083,240 $3,354,609 35.50%

State Archives $10,963,634 $10,953,634 0 0

State Oral History Program $339,983 $172,023 $167,960 49.40%

Total $42,364,584 $33,154,242 $9,210,342 21.70%

Source: Urban Institute analysis of data provided by individual agencies, 2008.

1

Includes $2,253,595 received from other state agencies to manage the Art in Public Places Program, a percentage for 

art program. 

2This represents the first allocation of state dollars ever received by Humanities Washington, a 501(c)(3) private, 

nonprofit organization. 

3Includes a two-year earmark from the state capital fund for the rehabilitation of county courthouses.

The Washington State History Museum and State Capital Museum are public museums run by 

the Washington State Historical Society (WSHS). FY 2007 budgets for these museums are shown 
126

in Table AD.18. The Eastern Washington State Historical Society also runs a museum. Both historical societies are 501(c)(3) private, nonprofit organizations that receive the majority of their funding 

from the state. WSHS also administers museum technical support and small grants to heritagerelated museums through its Heritage Outreach program. This is the only state program that 

provides dedicated support to museums. Other cultural agencies fund museum services in cases 

where programming, collections, or buildings are relevant to agency mission. 

Table AD.18. Washington Historical Society: Program Budgets and State Appropriations, FY 2007

Agency

Total Budget 

FY 2007

State Appropriation 

FY 2007 Difference $ Difference %

State History Museum $2,279,000 $1,11 3,744 $1,165,256 51.10%

State Capitol Museum $322,100 $320,100 $2,000 0.60%

*Heritage Outreach $1,060,000 not available not available not available

Source: Urban Institute analysis, Washington State Historical Society, 2008.

*Includes multiple statewide outreach programs. The Historical Society was unable to provide a breakdown of funds to 

this program. 

Two state-funded capital grants programs serve museums and other cultural institutions: the 

Historical Society administers the Heritage Capital Grants Program (HCGP) and the Department of 

Community, Trade and Economic Development, Office of Community Development administers the 

Building for the Arts program. FY 2001–2008 appropriations for the Building for the Arts program 

are shown in Table AD.19. Budgets for HCGP were not available, but were reported to have risen to 

around $10 million in FY 2007. A rough estimate of FY 2007 state expenditure that includes dollars in these programs would total approximately $55,154,242, or more than $8.50 per capita.

Table AD.19. Building for the Arts State Two-Year Appropriations, FY 2001–2008

Year 2001–2002 2003–2004 2005–2006 2007–2008

Budget $4,100,000 $4,468,000 $6,000,000 $12,000,000 

Source: Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, Office of Community Development, 

2008.

The King County cultural development agency 4Culture provides GOS to cultural institutions, 

including museums, in Seattle and King counties. Lodging taxes provide the majority of dollars in 

4Culture’s GOS program. 

Washington has a low level of public cultural sector integration. Individual agencies are strong 

and well connected to institutions and organizations within their discipline. Advocacy and coordination within each discipline appear quite robust. But the sector is structured in a way that clearly 

divides the arts from humanities and preservation from library services. Heritage, both cultural 

and natural, is incorporated deeply into Washington’s public sector. A Washington State Heritage 

Caucus meets weekly during the legislative session. The Washington Museum Association is active 

Appendix D. State Profiles
127

in policy at the state level and provides advocacy training and information to its members (who 

work primarily in heritage and history). The idea of preserving and promoting heritage provides 

a foundation for cooperation between agencies responsible for preservation, recreation, natural 

resources, and economic development, as well as creating avenues for all types of museums to 

garner resources from these agencies. The arts also have well-developed advocacy and fund-building capacities. Key nonprofit organizations include the Arts Fund, Artist Trust, Washington State 

Arts Alliance, and Allied Arts. 

Small States—New Mexico, Maine

NEW MEXICO

Interview respondents in New Mexico regard museums as a part of the public sector and are 

proud of their government’s history of robust support for museums. Museums are acknowledged 

as having a central role in the cultural sector and as being essential to the sector’s impact on the 

state’s economy and identity. New Mexico supports nine prominent public museums as well as a 

number of state historic monuments and sites. Respondents suggested that the diverse and stable 

public museum infrastructure in New Mexico provides important and well-understood benefits to 

the public. When cultural assets are donated to the state, there is a clear pathway and source of 

support for their incorporation into the public sector. The respondents gave examples of valuable 

archeological objects, conservation-worthy landholdings, and historical collections and buildings 

that would have been sold into the private sector had they not been easily absorbed into the public 

cultural sector. 

I. Federal funding for museums in New Mexico

New Mexico institutions have an average level of competitiveness in terms of their ability to secure 

federal funding. Funding from individual federal agencies to New Mexico museums is listed in Table 

AD.20, along with the state’s rank compared to other states in the country. New Mexico has fared 

better at securing NEA and NEH dollars than either IMLS or NSF dollars. The state ranks 21st in 

the country in terms of the total amount of federal grants funding museums in the state. 

Table AD.20. Federal Support for Museums by Source, FY 2000–2006: New Mexico

New Mexico 2000–2006 Rank

IMLS $3,178,852 23

NSF $742,108 25

NEH $2,819,292 12

NEA $528,706 16

Total $7,268,959 21

Source: Urban Institute analysis of IMLS, NSF, NEH, and NEA data, 2008.

New Mexico ranked only 46th in the country for the total amount of federal earmarks received 

during the years 2001 to 2006, receiving $1,837,301 in total earmarks during this period.
128

II. State-level capacities

The New Mexico Office of Cultural Affairs (OCA) comprises the public cultural sector in New 

Mexico, leading cultural planning in the state, operating cultural institutions across the broad spectrum of the sector, and controlling the substantial proportion of state money entering the public 

and nonprofit cultural sector. Table AD.21 lists the divisions that make up OCA, along with their 

state allocations and total revenues in FY 2007. In that year, OCA’s total budget was almost $41

million, or approximately $21 per capita. The proportion of these dollars contributed by the state is 

just over $29 million, or approximately $15 per capita. 

OCA divisions that deliver museum services include 10 entities: the six museums and institutions in the Museum of New Mexico (MNM) system, as well as the Museum of Natural History, 

the Museum of Space History, the Farm and Ranch Museum, and the National Hispanic Cultural 

Center. In addition, the Museum Resources Division funds such museum services as conservation 

and education. Funds allocated to public museums cover the great majority of their GOS needs. 

Other divisions, such as the Arts Division and the Historic Preservation Division, provide funding 

for museum services in cases where programming, collection care, or capital improvements are 

relevant to agency mission. 

Table AD.21. New Mexico Cultural Agencies: Total Budgets and State Allocations, FY 2007

Agency

Total Budget 

FY 2007

State Allocation 

FY 2007 Difference $ Difference %

(MNM) Museum of Fine Art $1,588,500 $1,167,100 $421,400 26.50%

(MNM) State History Museum $1,765,500 $1,412,800 $352,700 20.00%

(MNM) Museum of International Folk Art $1,717,900 $1,219,100 $498,800 29.00%

(MNM) Museum of Indian Arts and Culture $1,694,500 $1,211,500 $483,000 28.50%

(MNM) Office of Archaeological Studies $2,644,400 $50,000 $2,594,400 98.11%

(MNM) State Monuments $2,380,500 $2,158,200 $222,300 9.30%

Museum of Natural History $3,747,100 $2,971,500 $775,600 20.70%

Museum of Space History $1,933,200 $1,456,400 $476,800 24.10%

Farm and Ranch Museum $1,917,600 $1,822,600 $95,000 5.00%

National Hispanic Cultural Center $3,118,000 $2,778,000 $340,000 10.90%

State Library $5,430,800 $3,713,800 $1,717,000 31.60%

Program Support1 $4,086,000 $3,672,800 $413,200 10.10%

Museum Resources Division2 $4,114,400 $3,075,400 $1,039,000 25.30%

Arts Division3 $2,186,100 $1,596,200 $589,900 27.00%

Historic Preservation Division $2,356,400 $802,000 $1,554,400 66.00%

Total $40,680,900 $29,107,900 $11,573,500 28.40%

Source: Urban Institute analysis, New Mexico Office of Cultural Affairs, 2008.

1 Includes the Office of the Secretary, Administrative Services and a nonrecurring $100,000 allocation to the Film 

Commission.

2 Includes the Museum of New Mexico Press and the Administrative Services Division for the Museum of New Mexico 

(State Monuments, State History Museum, Museum of Fine Arts, Museum of International Folk Art, Museum of Indian 

Arts and Culture).

3 Includes the Music Commission allocation of $175,000.

Appendix D. State Profiles
129

New Mexico has a nondonations clause. This means that state agencies, including OCA, cannot 

directly grant money to any nonprofit organization. Nonprofit museums do receive state monies, 

typically for capital improvements, which may be passed through OCA. Nonprofits also are given 

state contracts, which are line items in the OCA budget. In FY 2007, the New Mexico Humanities 

Council (a 501(c)(3) organization) received state funding through OCA in the amount of $144,600, 

20.3% of its total FY 2007 budget of $713,810.

The public cultural sector in New Mexico is highly integrated. Its Office of Cultural Affairs is 

a cabinet-level, centralized agency that leads and coordinates cultural planning and articulates, 

broadcasts, and develops the role of culture in the state’s economic and community development 

efforts. The great majority of state dollars that go to museums and other cultural institutions and 

organizations flow through OCA. Allocations to divisions within OCA are made by the secretary of 

OCA. The OCA budget includes annual capital requests, which are coordinated and submitted by 

the secretary. OCA also administers state funds earmarked to its divisions. 

There are potential drawbacks of such a strong and centralized public cultural sector. Some 

respondents suggested that opportunities to exhibit novel or challenging interpretations of New 

Mexican identity and history are lessened because public museums are so dominant and are deeply 

enmeshed with the tourist economy. Respondents also reported that there are occasional complaints about the admission fees that public museums charge. Respondents suggested that public 

dollars do not appear to crowd out private dollars in New Mexico. Rather, private sector resources 

are freed up to support a range of other museums because state support covers the basic needs of 

public museums.

New Mexico’s political leaders, including both Governor Bill Richardson and members of 

the state legislature, were portrayed as highly supportive of cultural agencies and institutions. 

Respondents characterized New Mexico as a place where politicians, community leaders, and the 

public acknowledge the vital role of culture as it contributes both to the multiethnic identity of the 

state and to the tourism economy. This attitude is reflected in the fact that OCA is a cabinet-level 

state government agency that has consistently robust funding. OCA and its secretary are highly 

respected, visible, and powerful, and the agency and its leadership have stabilized substantial 

public sector funding for GOS to museums within the public sector as well as increasing state support to all kinds of cultural institutions in New Mexico.

MAINE

Maine interview respondents considered government support for museums to be deeply relevant 

to the growth and well-being of the state. Museums are acknowledged as a vital component of the 

cultural sector and are prominent in the state’s tourism economy. Museums also are considered 

to be pivotal assets in communities. Respondents consistently reported that museums are an 

important part of economic and community development because they provide critical anchors for 

downtown revitalization. Respondents suggested that the influential Discovery Research program 

has been important in developing this understanding of the benefits of museums to communi-
130

ties. Discovery Research, a program in which communities survey their local cultural assets, was 

first a collaboration of the Chamber of Commerce and the Arts Council in Bangor, with resources 

delivered through the Northern Maine Development District. The program is currently housed at the 

Maine State Arts Commission and has been active in 34 communities around the state. 

I. Federal funding for museums in Maine

Maine institutions have an average level of competitiveness in terms of their ability to secure federal funding. Table AD.22 lists the amount of funding Maine museums received from federal agencies between 2000 and 2006, along with the state’s rank compared to other states in the country. 

Maine has had better success securing funding from IMLS and NEH than it has from NSF or NEA. 

Maine ranks 22nd in the country in terms of the total amount of federal grants to museums in the 

state. 

Table AD.22. Federal Support for Museums by Source, 2000–2006: Maine

Maine 2000–2006 Rank

IMLS $4,265,581 18

NSF $33,538 29

NEH $2,585,170 16

NEA $166,889 33

Total $7,051,178 22

Source: Urban Institute analysis of IMLS, NSF, NEH, and NEA data, 2008.

In addition, Maine received $5,212,104 in total federal earmarks between the years 2001 and 

2006, ranking 32nd in the country for the total amount of earmarks received during this period.

II. State-level capacities

The public cultural sector in Maine includes public agencies and nonprofit organizations that 

receive ongoing funding from the state. These agencies and organizations all belong to an umbrella 

agency, the Maine Cultural Affairs Council. Table AD.23 lists the eight agencies and organizations 

that make up Maine’s public cultural sector, along with their state allocations and total revenues in 

FY 2007. The total of their combined budgets is more than $14 million, or approximately $11 per 

capita. The proportion of these dollars contributed by the state is just less than $7.8 million, or 

almost $6 per capita. 

The Maine State Museum and the Maine Historical Society both operate museums and are the 

only public cultural agencies that deliver museum services in the state. The Maine State Museum 

is the sole cultural agency with a program of dedicated funding for museums in the state. This 

program provides small project grants to museums. Other cultural agencies provide funding for 

museum services in cases where programming, collection care, or capital improvements are relevant to agency mission.

Appendix D. State Profiles
131

Table AD.23. Maine Cultural Agencies: Total Budgets and State Allocations, FY 2007

Agency

Total Budget 

FY 2007

State Allocation 

FY 2007 Difference $ Difference %

Maine State Museum $1,847,387 $1,585,967 $216,420 11.70%

*Maine Historical Society $2,181,371 $94,000 $2,087,371 95.70%

Maine Arts Commission $1,585, 621 $778,535 $807,086 50.90%

Maine Historic Preservation Commission $1,265,415 $305,419 $959,996 75.90%

Maine Humanities Council $1,800,000 $183,000 $1,617,000 89.80%

Maine Cultural Affairs Council $1,032,018 $496,828 $535,190 51.90%

*Maine State Archives $984,000 $862,000 $122,000 12.40%

Maine State Library $5,245,613 $3,459,319 $1,786,294 34.10%

Total $14,355,804 $7,765,068 $8,131,357 56.60%

Source: Urban Institute analysis of data provided by the State of Maine, except *data obtained directly from agency, 

2008.

The public cultural sector in Maine is integrated in important ways through the Maine Cultural 

Affairs Council. The Council was established in 1999 to coordinate cultural planning and to administer funds to the cultural agencies through the New Century Community Program (NCCP). This 

program provides a regular forum for commissioners and executive directors of the eight cultural 

entities to meet, plan, and advocate for cultural activities and infrastructure in the state. Respondents suggested that the career executive directors account for much of NCCP’s strength and 

effectiveness. Several executive directors have held their positions for 20 years or longer. Although 

the Cultural Affairs Council does not control a significant amount of state funding, nor do the state 

dollars that go to cultural agencies flow through the Council, it does effectively coordinate cultural 

planning and distribute shared resources among the public cultural agencies and organizations. 

NCCP provides the funds that go into the Maine State Museum’s dedicated grant-making to 

museums. While funding for the eight public cultural agencies was reported to be stable and fairly 

robust, funding for NCCP has been uneven. The program does hold a permanent line in the state’s 

budget, but it has not been funded every year (see Table AD.24). The program was first funded by 

a bond issue, and currently draws its resources from those original bond issue funds and from the 

state’s general revenue. A proposed bond issue for capital improvements to cultural facilities was 

tabled in 2006 and then passed in 2007. With these dollars in place, capital support for museums will begin to flow through both the State Museum (for history museums, historical societies, 

and heritage) and the Arts Commission (for art museums). Table AD.24 shows state allocations to 

NCCP and annual allocations from NCCP funds to the Maine State Museum for the years 1999 to 

2007.
132

Table AD.24. New Century Community Program Allocation and Annual Allocations to Maine State 

Museum, 1999–2007

Year NCCP allocation State Museum NCCP allocation

1999 $3,200,000 n/a

2000 $1,000,000 $194,600 

2001 $200,000 0

2002 0 $21,677 

2003 0 $23,313 

2004 0 0

2005 0

[$100,000 spent by all seven 

agencies as a group]

2006 0 $13,571

2007 0 $49,500 

Source: State of Maine and Maine State Museum, 2008.

Maine exhibits a high level of productive cooperation and positive sentiment within the public 

cultural sector, which has strong relationships with legislators and high levels of expertise and stability among its cultural sector leadership. The current governor, John Baldacci, and the first lady, 

Karen Baldacci, were portrayed as being highly supportive of cultural agencies and institutions. The 

Cultural Affairs Council is perceived as highly effective, with strong connections to and advocates 

among legislators. Distribution of the Council’s funds provided through NCCP was considered to be 

very fair. Respondents agreed that agencies had benefited greatly by joining in this alliance, which 

enables public cultural sector agencies and organizations to advocate and plan together.

Appendix D. State Profiles
133

Illinois

Tanya S. Anthony - Director, Office of Budget and Management, Chicago Park District, Chicago, IL

Ted A. Beattie - President and CEO, Shedd Aquarium, Chicago, IL

Michelle Bibbs - Director of Cultural Grants, Chicago Cultural Affairs Department, Chicago, IL

Karen E. Everingham - Executive Director, Illinois Association of Museums, Springfield, IL

Steve Hughes - Chief Financial Officer, Chicago Park District, Chicago, IL

Melinda Molloy - Treasurer, Chicago Park District, Chicago, IL

David R. Mosena - President and CEO, Museum of Science and Industry, Chicago, IL

Rebecca Page - Executive Assistant, Museums in the Park, Chicago, IL

Jim Richerson - Director, Lakeview Museum of Arts and Sciences, Peoria, IL

Kate Schureman - Vice President of Planning and Government Affairs, Lakeview Museum of Arts 

and Sciences, Peoria, IL 

Carlos Tortolero - President, National Museum of Mexican Art, Chicago, IL

Karen Witter - Associate Museum Director, Illinois State Museum, Springfield, IL 

Maine

Ned Allen - President, Bridgton Historical Society; Immediate Past President, Maine Archives and 

Museums, Augusta, ME

Steve Bromage - Assistant Director, Maine Historical Society, Portland, ME

Paul Brunetti - Assistant to the Commissioner, Maine Department of Economic and Community 

Development, Augusta, ME

Richard D’Abate - Executive Director, Maine Historical Society, Portland, ME

Maureen Heffernan - Executive Director, Coastal Maine Botanical Gardens, Boothbay, ME

JR Phillips - Director, Maine State Museum, Augusta, ME

Donna McNeil - Director, Maine Arts Commission, Augusta, ME

John Roman - President, Maine Cultural Affairs Council, Augusta, ME

Alden Wilson - Former Director, Maine Arts Commission, Augusta, ME

Olly Wilder - Former President and CEO, Center for Maine Contemporary Art, Rockport, ME 

Massachusetts

Paul Bessire - Deputy Director for External Relations, Institute of Contemporary Art, Boston, MA

Laura Canter - Executive Vice President, Finance Programs, MassDevelopment, Boston, MA

Louis Casagrande - Executive Director, Boston Children’s Museum, Boston, MA

Bob Culver - President and CEO, MassDevelopment, Boston, MA

Dan Hunter - Executive Director, Massachusetts Advocates for the Arts, Sciences, 

and Humanities, Boston, MA

Bill McAvoy - Director, Institutional Relations, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, MA

Ann McQueen - Co-Chair and Programs Director, The Boston Foundation, Boston, MA

Jane Preston - Director of Programs, New England Foundation for the Arts, Boston, MA

Appendix E: Interview Participants
134

Dee Schneidman - Research Manager, New England Foundation for the Arts, Boston, MA

Kristen Wawruck - Government and Foundation Relations Manager, Institute of Contemporary Art, 

Boston, MA

Mina Wright - Director of Grants Program, Massachusetts Cultural Council 

Michigan

Anan Ameri - Director, Arab American National Museum, Dearborn, MI

Sandra Clark - Director, Michigan Historical Museum, Lansing, MI

Mel Drumm - Executive Director, Hands-on Museum, Ann Arbor, MI

Bonnie Ekdahl - Director, Ziibiwing Center, Mount Pleasant, MI

Teresa Goforth - Executive Director, Michigan Museum Association, Lansing, MI

Steven K. Hamp - Civic Leader, Chair, Michigan New Economy Initiative

Debbie Mikula - Former Chief Operating Officer, ArtServe Michigan, Wixom, MI

Debra Polich - President and CEO, Art Train, Ann Arbor, MI

Judith Ann Rapanos - Chair, Michigan Humanities Council, Lansing, MI

Tim Shickles - Director, Sloan Museum, Flint, MI 

New Mexico

Stuart A. Ashman - Cabinet Secretary, New Mexico Department of Cultural Affairs, Santa Fe, NM

Selena Connealy - Secretary, New Mexico Museums Association, and Chief of Education, New Mexico 

Natural History and Science Museum, Albuquerque, NM

Eduardo Díaz - Executive Director, Hispanic Cultural Center, Albuquerque, NM

William Field - Director, Spanish Colonial Arts Society, Santa Fe, NM

John Grimes - Director, Institute of American Indian Arts Museum, Santa Fe, NM

Tey Nunn - Visual Arts Director, Hispanic Cultural Center, Albuquerque, NM

Sabrina Pratt - Executive Director, Santa Fe City Arts Commission, Santa Fe, NM

Elena Sweeney - Deputy Secretary for Finance and Administration, New Mexico Department of Cultural Affairs, Santa Fe, NM

Shelby Tisdale - Director, Museum of Indian Arts and Culture, Santa Fe, NM 

Pennsylvania

Peggy Amsterdam - Director, Greater Philadelphia Cultural Alliance, Philadelphia, PA

Nicholas Crosson - Research Analyst, Greater Philadelphia Cultural Alliance, Philadelphia, PA

Scott Doyle - Grants Administrator, Pennsylvania Historical and Museums Commission, Harrisburg, PA

Barbara Franco - Executive Director, Pennsylvania Historical and Museums Commission, Harrisburg, PA

Philip Horn- Director, Pennsylvania Council on the Arts, Harrisburg, PA

Karen A. Lewis - Executive Director, Avenue of the Arts, Inc., Philadelphia, PA

Janet MacGregor - Deputy Director, Pennsylvania Federation of Museums, Harrisburg, PA

June O’Neill - Fund Manager, The Philadelphia Cultural Fund, Philadelphia, PA

Brian Rogers - Deputy Executive Director, Pennsylvania Council on the Arts, Harrisburg, PA

Appendix E: Interview Participants
135

Virginia

Ann Andrus - State Grants Coordinator, Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond, VA

Peggy J. Baggett - Executive Director, Virginia Commission for the Arts, Richmond, VA

Margo Carlock - Executive Director, Virginia Association of Museums, Richmond, VA

Beverly T. Fitzpatrick - Virginia Museum of Transportation, Roanoke, VA

G. Larry Moffett - Interim President, Arts Council of Richmond, Richmond, VA

Marion Naar - President, Cape Charles Historical Society, Cape Charles, VA

Alexander Nyerges - Director, Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, Richmond, VA

S. Waite Rawls III - Executive Director, Museum of the Confederacy, Richmond, VA

Rob Vaughan - President, Virginia Foundation for Humanities, Charlottesville, VA

Washington

Ron Chew - Former Executive Director, Wing Luke Asian Museum, Seattle, WA

Tim Close - Director, Museum of Glass, Tacoma, WA

Mimi Gates - Director, Seattle Art Museum, Seattle, WA

Laura Hopkins - Head of Programs and Exhibition Support, Seattle Art Museum, Seattle, WA

David Nicandri - Director, Washington State Historical Society, Tacoma, WA

Steve Ragleb Smith - Professor, Evans School of Public Affairs, University of Washington, Seattle, WA

Marsha Rooney - Senior Curator of History, Northwest Museum of Arts and Culture; President, 

Washington Museum Association, Spokane, WA

Eric Taylor - Heritage Lead, 4Culture, Seattle, WA

Kris Tucker - Executive Director, Washington State Arts Commission, Olympia, WA

DC/National

Ford Bell - President, American Association of Museums, Washington, DC

Philip M. Katz - Assistant Director for Research, American Association of Museums, Washington, DC

Elizabeth E. Merritt - Founding Director, Center for the Future of Museums, American Association of 

Museums, Washington, DC

Terry Davis - President and CEO, American Association for State and Local History, Nashville, TN 

Al DeSena - Coordinator, Lifelong Learning Cluster (LLC), Division of Research on Learning in Formal 

and Informal Settings, National Science Foundation, Washington, DC

Janet Rice Elman - Executive Director, Association of Children’s Museums, Washington, DC

Andy Finch - Co-Director of Government Affairs, Association of Art Museum Directors, Washington, DC

Tom Lindsay - Deputy Chairman, National Endowment for the Humanities, Washington, DC

Thomas Phelps - Director of Public Programs, National Endowment for the Humanities, Washington, DC

Sean Smith - Director of Government and Public Relations, Association of Science and Technology 

Centers, Washington, DC

Bonnie VanDorn - Executive Director, Association of Science and Technology Centers, Washington, DC
136

March 10, 2008, at the Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio

National Museum and Library Services Board Member

Jeffrey H. Patchen

President and CEO

Children’s Museum of Indianapolis

Indianapolis, Indiana

Speakers

APPENDIX F: PARTICIPANTS AT THE PUBLIC HEARINGS 

CONVENED IN MARCH 2008

David Chesebrough

President and CEO

COSI

Columbus, Ohio

John Fraser

Director, Public Research and Evaluation

Wildlife Conservation Society Institute

Bronx, New York

Bruce Harkey

Executive Director

Franklin Park Conservatory

Columbus, Ohio

Julie Henahan

Executive Director

Ohio Arts Council

Columbus, Ohio

William K. Laidlaw, Jr.

Executive Director and CEO

Ohio Historical Society

Columbus, Ohio

Donald W. Murphy

President and CEO

The National Underground Railroad Freedom 

Center

Cincinnati, Ohio

Patricia Murphy

Executive Director

Oberlin Heritage Center

Oberlin, Ohio

Alicia Oddi

Grants and Services Director

Greater Columbus Arts Council

Columbus, Ohio
137

March 12, 2008, at the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas City, Missouri

National Museum and Library Services Board Members

Christina Orr-Cahall

Director

Norton Museum of Art

West Palm Beach, Florida

Harry Robinson, Jr.

President and CEO

African American Museum

Dallas, Texas

Speakers

Sharon Sanders Brooks

Councilwoman, District 3

Kansas City, Missouri

Greg Carroll 

Executive Director 

The American Jazz Museum 

Kansas City, Missouri 

Gregory M. Glore 

Community Volunteer 

Kansas City, Missouri 

Christopher Leitch 

Director 

Kansas City Museum at Corinthian Hall 

Kansas City, Missouri 

Fred Logan

Chairman

Arts Council of Metropolitan Kansas City

Kansas City, Missouri

Mindi Love 

Director 

Johnson County Museum

Shawnee, Kansas 

Mary Kennedy McCabe

Executive Director

Mid-America Arts Alliance

Kansas City, Missouri

Robert D. Regnier 

President, Bank of Blue Valley 

Chair, Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce 

Kansas City, Missouri 

Kate Viens 

Executive Director 

New England Museum Association 

Arlington, Massachusetts 

Marc Wilson 

Menefee D. and Mary Louis Blackwell 

Director and CEO 

The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art 

Kansas City, Missouri 
138

March 14, 2008, at the Oakland Museum of California, Oakland, California

National Museum and Library Services Board Members

Katherine M. B. Berger

Trustee

Berger Collection Educational Trust 

Berryville, Virginia

Kevin Starr

State Librarian Emeritus of California

San Francisco, California

Speakers

APPENDIX F: PARTICIPANTS AT THE PUBLIC HEARINGS 

CONVENED IN MARCH 2008

Barbara Ando

Associate Director

Lawrence Hall of Science

University of California

Berkeley, California

Dennis Bartels

Executive Director

Exploratorium

San Francisco, California

David Crosson

Executive Director

California Historical Society

San Francisco, California

Lori Fogarty

Director

Oakland Museum of California

Oakland, California

Phil Kohlmetz

Executive Director

Western Railway Museum

Suisan City, California

Ralph Lewin

Executive Director

California Council for the Humanities

San Francisco, California

William Moreno

Executive Director

Claremont Museum of Art

Claremont, California

Kevin Starr

State Librarian Emeritus of California

San Francisco, California

Richard Winefield

Executive Director

Bay Area Discovery Museum

Sausalito, California

Sheryl Wong

Chairman

Board of Trustees

Oakland Museum of California Foundation

Piedmont, California
139

Each of IMLS’s museum grant programs is connected to the mandates to assist, encourage, 

and support museum services. Table AG.1 lists IMLS support to museums by program between 

2000 and 2006. Since 2000, the amount of money distributed by the agency has increased 

by $9,681,000. The Museums for America program saw a $1,635,000 increase; the Conservation Project Support saw a $462,000 increase; and the National Leadership program saw a 

$4,870,000 increase. Two programs, the Museum Assessment Program and the Conservation 

Assessment Program, saw a slight decrease between 2000 and 2006. The remaining increase of 

$2,735,000 was realized through three new programs: 21st Century Museum Professionals, Native 

Alaskan/Native Hawaiian Museum Services, and Museum Grants for African American History and 

Culture. As an institution-focused agency, rather than a discipline-focused agency like NEA, NEH, 

and NSF, IMLS directs support to a wider range of museums. It also delivers more grants to museums than the other three agencies combined.

Table AG.1. IMLS Support to Museums by Program for Years 2000–2006, in thousands of dollars

Program Name 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Museums for America1 15,517 15,483 15,482 15,381 16,342 16,864 17,152

Museum Assessment Program 450 449 450 447 447 446 442

21st Century Museum Professionals2 NA NA NA NA NA 992 982

Conservation Project Support 2,310 2,305 2,310 2,792 2,782 2,788 2,772

Conservation Assessment Program 820 818 820 815 815 813 807

Native American/Native Hawaiian 

Museum Services Program NA NA NA NA NA 843 911

National Leadership Grants to Museums 3,050 3,542 5,167 5,663 6,891 7,539 7,920

Museum Grants for African American 

History and Culture NA NA NA NA NA NA 842

Total 22,147 22,597 24,229 25,098 27,277 30,285 31,828

Note: All amounts are expressed in constant 2006 dollars.

Source: Institute of Museum and Library Services, 2008.

1The Museums for America Program has previously been known as “General Operating Support” and “Learning Opportunities Grants.”

2Prior to FY 2005, funding for the 21st Century Museum Professionals Program was included in the National Leadership Grants. 

The National Science Foundation supports strong science education at all levels. As such, NSF 

grant-making differs from that of IMLS in both the number and size of awards. Between 2000 and 

2006, NSF made 280 grants to museums in 28 states. Over these years, NSF grants to museums 

were made by two offices and seven directorates (see Table AG.2). The median amount for grants 

distributed over this period was $209,343, and grants ranged in amounts from $3,000 (a one-time 

grant to New York City’s American Museum of Natural History in 2000) to $11,256,444 (awarded 

to the Exploratorium in San Francisco over six years).

Appendix G: Additional Tables: IMLS and NSF Grants by 

Program Area, Earmark Appropriation by Subcommittee
140

Table AG.2. Distribution of Obligated NSF Grant Money by NSF Directorate, 2000–2006

Directorate Dollars %

Education and Human Resources $200,000,000 69.0%

Biology $53,916,242 18.6%

Geosciences $10,988,431 3.8%

Mathematical and Physical Sciences $8,956,936 3.1%

Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences $5,784,080 2.0%

Computer and Information Sciences and Engineering $3,918,280 1.4%

Engineering $3,280,560 1.1%

Office of Polar Programs $2,768,195 1.0%

Office of Director $173,512 0.1%

Total $289,786,236 100%

Source: National Science Foundation, 2008.

Table AG.3 below provides the distribution of federal earmarks to museums discussed in 

Section VII of the report. From FY 2001–FY 2006, 1,214 earmarks were distributed to museums 

through 12 federal appropriation subcommittees, with 92% appropriated through the Labor, Health 

and Human Services and Education; Housing and Urban Development; Transportation; and Interior 

Subcommittees. 

Table AG.3 Number of Appropriations by Subcommittee, 2001-2006

Subcommittee No. of Appropriations

Labor, Health and Human Services and Education 544

Housing and Urban Development 361

Transportation 11 5

Interior 98

Energy 31

Commerce 30

Defense 12

District of Columbia 10

Agriculture 6

Legislative Branch 3

Treasury 3

Military Construction and Veterans Affairs 1

Total 1,214

Source: Urban Institute analysis of Citizens Against Government Waste data, 2008.

Appendix G: Additional Tables: IMLS and NSF Grants by 

Program Area, Earmark Appropriation by Subcommittee
141

Appendix H: Museum Public Finance Survey

About the Survey Format

The survey is divided into three main sections. The first section asks for general information about 

your institution - its size, focus area, governance and visitor information. In the second section, 

you’ll find a series of questions about your museum’s budget over the last fiscal year. For this section, it may be helpful to refer to figures contained in your institution’s year end financial report or 

IRS Form 990. The final section focuses on public funding practices at the local, state and federal 

levels and the extent to which your organization has been helped by these sources of support. 

Most of the questions in this survey are simple Yes/No or multiple choice format. The finance 

section (section two) asks for more detailed information regarding your institution’s budget 

over the last fiscal year. You may need to consult your institution’s most recent annual report/

financial statement or IRS Form 990 (if your institution is a non-profit organization) in order to 

complete this section. 

Because some survey questions logically follow from others, there are a number of skip patterns in the survey. Directions for the ‘skips’ can be found next to the appropriate answer.

We ask that you please try not to leave any questions blank. If there are questions that you 

cannot answer or that seem unclear to you, feel free to contact the survey director at (202) 

261-5821 for clarification. 

Survey Terms and Concepts

We have tried to avoid using jargon in the survey. However, there are a few terms that may 

require a bit more explanation. In those cases you will find the key term highlighted with blue 

letters. Definitions for these terms are provided in the glossary in the back of the survey. 

For questions that ask for a number or dollar amount, please provide your best estimate. 

Remember, these figures will constitute a national profile, so even a rough estimate is useful. 

We realize than some of you may work for several institutions. However, we ask that you complete the questionnaire for the SINGLE institution identified in the first part of the survey. 

If you are responding as one entity within a parent institution, please fill out the survey only for 

your institution not other entities within in your parent institution. 

Assurance of Confidentiality

All studies conducted by the Urban Institute are subject to Institutional Review Board (IRB) review. 

The Urban Institute’s IRB is the group designated to approve, monitor, and review behavioral 

research involving humans with the aim to protect the rights and welfare of the subjects. As part 

of the review we have pledged to keep your individual responses, whether submitted online or on 

paper, completely confidential. Only the aggregate data will be reported; your individual responses 

will never be published or identified by The Urban Institute or the Institute of Museum and Library 

Services (IMLS). 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
142

Your name will not be associated in any way with the information collected about you or with the 

research findings from this study. The researchers will not share information about you unless 

required by law or unless you give written permission. 

For More Information 

For questions about the survey or for technical assistance with online submissions, contact Carlos 

Manjarrez at 202-261-5821, or cmanjarr@ui.urban.org.

Section 1. Institutional Information

This first series of questions will provide us with general information about your museum’s location, 

staffing size, governance structure and visitorship.

1. What is the name of your institution? 

2. Please enter the following address information for your institution:

Street address: 

City: 

State: Zip: 

Web address/URL: 

3. Please check one of the following that BEST describes your institution. Please select only one. 

 Aquarium

Arboretum/botanical garden

Art museum

Children’s/Youth Museum

Historic House/Site

History museum

Historical society

Natural history museum















Nature center

Planetarium

Science/Technology Center/Museum

Zoo

Other (please specify): 











4. Which of the following BEST describes your institution’s governing authority? Please select only one. 

College, university or other academic entity (proceed to quest. 4a)

Non-profit, non-governmental organization or foundation (skip to quest. 5)

Corporate or for-profit organization (skip to quest. 5)

Federal government (skip to quest. 5)

State government (skip to quest. 5)

Local government (county or municipal) (skip to quest. 5)

Tribal government (skip to quest. 5)

Other (please specify): 

















Appendix H: Museum Public Finance Survey
143

4a. If your institution is governed by a college, university or other academic entity, which of the following academic entities MOST CLOSELY describes your governing authority? Please select only one. 

 Private college or university

 State college or university

 City, county or other municipal college or university

 Other (please specify): 

5. Please indicate the number of PAID...

Please enter the 

number below. 

No Staff Positions 

in this Category I Don’t Know

FULL TIME positions as of 

October 1, 2007?  

PART TIME positions as of 

October 1, 2007?  

6. Please enter the number of visitors you served last year in each of the following categories? 

Please enter your best guess in the estimated number box below. If your institutions had no visitors 

for a given category select “None”. 

Estimated Number None

Not applicable/No 

such service I Don’t Know

On site   

Off site (e.g. traveling 

exhibitions, bookmobiles, 

educational programs)   

Electronic (e.g. visits 

to Web site, electronic 

distribution lists, electronic 

discussion groups)   

7. Does your institution have a general admission fee for: 

For each row, please choose one answer from the options provided. If you select “Yes”, list the standard admission fee in the space provided. 

Yes No Suggested Only I Don’t Know

Standard, 

non-member 

admission fee.

adults?     $ .

children under 12?     $ .

senior citizens?     $ .

students?     $ .

8. Does your institution own collections (living or non-living) or manage such collections belonging 

to others on an ongoing basis?

Yes 

No












144

Appendix H: Museum Public Finance Survey

SURVEY TIP: The next section will ask about your institution’s finances for the last fiscal year. 

You may want to have the last year’s financial statement on hand in order to complete this section 

quickly.

Section 2. Financial Information

The questions below address your institution’s budget. Please provide as much detailed information 

as possible as it will help us develop national estimates of public support for museums across the 

country.

9. What is the most recently completed fiscal year for your institution? 

 2006

 2007

 Other:

10. Please indicate your institution’s total operating income and expenses for the most recent fiscal 

year? 

Enter the total dollar amount for the most recently completed fiscal year. I Don’t Know

Operating income $ . 

Operating expenses $ . 

11 . Please separate your total operating income for the most recently completed fiscal year into the 

following categories: 

For each row, insert the total dollar amount for most recently completed fiscal year. If none of your 

operating expenses for the last fiscal year came from this source, enter a “0” in the box and click 

the button on the right. 

$ for most recent FY No operating expenses from this source.

Total funds from private sources... $ . 

Total funds from earned income...... $ . 

Total funds from investment income used 

for operational expense... $ . 

Total funds from government sources... $ . 

12a. If an amount was given in the government sources section of question 11, please separate the 

“government sources” funds received by the level of government providing the support: 

For each row, insert the percentage of government source funding received in the last fiscal year. 

PLEASE NOTE: THE NUMBERS IN THE COLUMN MUST ADD TO 100. If no money was received 

from a given source, enter “0”. 






145

SURVEY TIP: The numbers in the column above should sum to 100 in order for the information to 

be recorded accurately. This will allow us to calculate the proportion of government funds obtained 

from different levels of government. Thank you for your help and attention to detail.

% from source (Column 

sum must equal 100) 

Percent of government source funding from federal government 

Percent of government source funding from state government 

Percent of government source funding from local government 

Percent of government source funding from tribal government 

13. Please indicate your institution’s total non-operating income and expenses for the most recent 

fiscal year?

Enter the total dollar amount for the most recently completed fiscal year. I Don’t Know

Non-operating income $ . 

Non-operating expenses $ . 

14. Please list your total capital expenditures for the most recently completed fiscal year.

Capital expenditures for last 

fiscal year None

Enter the total dollar amount in the box provided. If your 

institution had NO capital expenditures in the last fiscal year enter 

a ‘ 0’ in the box and click “None”. $ .



15. Does your institution own the building(s) in which it operates?

Yes (skip to 16)

No

I Don’t Know (skip to 16)

15a. If you answered No to question 15, does the parent organization own the building?

Yes

No

Not applicable (no parent)

I Don’t Know

16. Are you currently engaged in a capital campaign?

Yes

No

I Don’t Know




















146

Section 3. Public Funding Mechanisms

The questions in the next section cover a wide range of support mechanisms for museums from 

local government (city, county and township) sources. A similar set of questions will be asked 

regarding state government support.

17. Does your local government (city, county, or township) provide direct financial support to museums in your community through a competitive grant process?

Yes (proceed to 17a)

No (skip to 17d)

I Don’t Know (skip to 17d)

17a. Which of the following institutional needs do your local government programs or funding initiatives support? Check all that apply. 

Unrestricted funds for museums to use at their discretion

Restricted funds for museum-related activities (collections care, exhibits, research, educational programming)

Restricted funds for management and general expenses (administrative, maintenance, other 

non-programmatic operating expenses)

Restricted funds for capital improvements/expenditures or new construction

Restricted funds for acquisition

Other: 

17b. What type of local government support do you think is most important for institutions like 

yours? Please select one. 

Unrestricted funds for museums to use at their discretion

Restricted funds for museum-related activities (collections care, exhibits, research, educational programming)

Restricted funds for management and general expenses (administrative, maintenance, other 

non-programmatic operating expenses)

Restricted funds for capital improvements/expenditures or new construction

Restricted funds for acquisition

Other: 

17c. Has your institution applied for support from local government (city, county, township) through 

a competitive grant process in the last three years?

Yes (proceed to 17c1)

No (skip to 17d)

I Don’t Know (skip to 17d)





































Appendix H: Museum Public Finance Survey
147

17c1. How many times has your institution applied for support from local government sources 

through a competitive grant process in the last three years? Please select only one. 

1 Time

2 Times

3 Times

4 Times

5 Times

6–10 Times

11–15 Times

More than 15 Times

17c2. To which local government agencies did your institution apply for support in the last three 

years? Check all that apply. 

Local Humanities Council

Local Department of Tourism/Conventions

Local Arts Agency

City/County/Regional Transportation Authority

Local School System

Local Economic/Community Development Office

Local Library or Library System

Local Parks Department

Other: 

17c3. Did your institution receive support from a local government agency through a competitive 

grant process in the last three years? 

Yes (proceed to 17c3_1)

No (skip to 17d)

I Don’t Know (skip to 17d)

17d. Does your local government use tourism taxes to provide direct support to museums and other 

cultural institutions in your community? 

Yes

No

I Don’t Know

17e. Does your local government use property tax or general fund monies to provide direct support 

for museums and other cultural institutions in your community? 

Yes

No

I Don’t Know




















































148

Appendix H: Museum Public Finance Survey

17f. Does your local government use general sales, retail and amusement taxes to provide direct 

support to museums and other cultural institutions in your community? 

Yes

No

I Don’t Know

18. Does your institution receive regular (annual or semi-annual), non-competitive support from any 

local government sources? 

Yes (proceed to 18a)

No (skip to 19)

I Don’t Know (skip to 19)

18a. What type of non-competitive support does your institution receive from your local government? Check all that apply. If you select “other”, please describe the non-competitive support in 

the field provided. 

Direct financial support

Lease of property

Other: 

19. Has your institution received in-kind contributions from local government in the last 3 fiscal 

years? 

Yes (proceed to 19a)

No (skip to 20)

I Don’t Know (skip to 20)

19a. If your institution has received in-kind support, lease describe the MOST significant form of 

in-kind support your institution has received from local government source in the last three years.

 

19b. What was the value of this in-kind support?

Estimated value

Value Not 

Assessed I Don’t Know

Please estimate the value of in-kind support over a 

year’s time: $ .  

20. Has your institution EVER received a donation of property from local government? 

Yes (proceed to 20a)

No (skip to 21)

I Don’t Know (skip to 21)






























149

20a. What was the value of largest donation of property? 

Estimated value

Value Not 

Assessed I Don’t Know

Please estimate the value of property donation 

here: $ .  

20b. During which fiscal year was this property donated? FY 

21. Does your local government have low interest loan programs for...

Yes No I Don’t Know

museum programming?   

museum operations?   

capital expenditures?   

22. What is the MOST significant challenge your institution faces in applying for local government 

support? Please select only one.

Application process is too cumbersome/time consuming 

Local grant monies are too restrictive

Reporting/evaluation demands are too high given the grant amounts

Required funding match is difficult to obtain

Other: 

23. What opportunities does local government support present your institution that other funding 

sources do not? 

 

In the following section we ask about funding from STATE GOVERNMENT. You will note that some 

of the questions are patterned after the questions asked in the local government support section. 

Pairing the questions in this way will help us make more direct comparisons across the different 

levels of government.

24. Does your state government provide direct financial support to museums in your state through 

a competitive grant process? 

Yes (proceed to 24a)

No (skip to 25) 

I Don’t Know (skip to 25)
















150

24a. Which of the following institutional needs do your state government programs or funding initiatives support? Check all that apply. 

 Unrestricted funds for museums to use at their discretion

Restricted funds for museum-related activities (collections care, exhibits, research, educational programming)

Restricted funds for management and general expenses (administrative, maintenance, other 

non-programmatic operating expenses)

Restricted funds for capital improvements/expenditures or new construction

Restricted funds for acquisition

 Other: 

24b. What type of state government support do you think is most important for institutions like 

yours? Please select one. 

 Unrestricted funds for museums to use at their discretion

Restricted funds for museum-related activities (collections care, exhibits, research, educational programming)

Restricted funds for management and general expenses (administrative, maintenance, other 

non-programmatic operating expenses)

Restricted funds for capital improvements/expenditures or new construction

Restricted funds for acquisition

 Other: 

24c. Has your institution applied for support from state government through a competitive grant 

process in the last three years? 

Yes (proceed to 24c1)

No (skip to 25)

I Don’t Know (skip to 25)

24c1. How many times has your institution applied for support from state government sources 

through a competitive process in the last three years? 

Please chose one.

1 Time

2 Times

3 Times

4 Times

5 Times

6–10 Times

11–15 Times

More than 15 Times















































Appendix H: Museum Public Finance Survey
151

24c2. To which state government agencies did your institution apply for support in the last three 

years? Chose all that apply.

State Humanities Council

State-Level Department of Tourism

State Arts Agency

State-level Transportation Authority

State Education Office

State Economic/Community Development Authority

State Library

State Parks Department

Other: 

24c3. Did your institution receive support from a state government agency through a competitive 

grant process in the last three years? 

Yes (proceed to 24c3_1)

No (skip to 25)

I Don’t Know (skip to 25)

24c3_1. If your institution did receive support from state government in the last three years via a 

competitive grant process, which of the following state government agencies awarded your institution a competitive grant? Check all that apply. 

 State Humanities Council

 State-Level Department of Tourism

 State Arts Agency

 State-level Transportation Authority

 State Education Office

 State Economic/Community Development Authority

 State Library

 State Parks Department

 Other: 

25. Does your state government use tourism taxes to provide direct support to museums and other 

cultural institutions in your community? 

 Yes

 No

 I Don’t Know

26. Does your state government use property tax or general fund monies to provide direct support 

for museums and other cultural institutions in your community? 

Yes

No

I Don’t Know






















































152

28. Does your institution receive regular (annual or semi-annual), non-competitive support from any 

state-level government sources? 

Yes (proceed to 28a)

No (skip to 29)

I Don’t Know (skip to 29)

28a. What type of non-competitive support does your institutions receive from your state government? Check all that apply. If you select “other”, please describe the non-competitive support in 

the field provided. 

 Direct financial support

Lease of property

Other: 

29. Has your institution received in kind contributions from state government source in the last 3 

fiscal years? 

Yes (proceed to 29a)

No (skip to 30)

I Don’t Know (skip to 30)

29a. Please describe the MOST significant in kind support your institution has received from state 

government sources in the last three years. 

 

29b. What was the value of this in-kind support?

Estimated value

Value Not 

Assessed I Don’t Know

Please estimate the value of in-kind support over a 

year’s time: $ .  

30. Has your institution EVER received a donation of property from state government? 

Yes (proceed to 30a)

No (skip to 31)

I Don’t Know (skip to 31)

30a. What was the value of LARGEST donation of property? 

Estimated value

Value Not 

Assessed I Don’t Know

Please estimate the value of property donation 

here: $ .  

























Appendix H: Museum Public Finance Survey
153

30b. During which fiscal year was this property donated? FY 

31. Does your state government have low interest loan programs for...

Yes No I Don’t Know

museum programming?   

museum operations?   

capital expenditures?   

32. What is the MOST significant challenge your institution faces in applying for state government support? Please select only one. 

 Application process is too cumbersome/time consuming 

Local grant monies are too restrictive

Reporting/evaluation demands are too high given the grant amounts

Required funding match is difficult to obtain

Other: 

33. What opportunities does state government support present your institution that other funding 

sources do not? 

 

34. Are direct state budget earmarks an option available to museums in your state? Please choose one.

Yes (proceed to 34a)

No (skip to 35)

I Don’t Know (skip to 35)

34a. If state budget earmarks are an option in your state, has your institution EVER tried to secure 

an earmark from the state government? 

Yes (proceed to 34a1)

No (skip to 35)

I Don’t Know (skip to 35) 

34a1. For which of the following need areas did your institution seek earmarked funds from your 

state government? Check all that apply. 

Physical improvements (capital construction/renovation)

Conservation of collections

Educational programs

Outreach

Other: 
































154

34a2. Did your institution EVER RECEIVE an earmark from state government? 

Yes

No

I Don’t Know

34a3. Did your institution try to secure an earmark from the state government in the LAST YEAR? 

Yes

No

I Don’t Know

The questions below address public funding from the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. This is the final 

series of questions in the public funding section, which is the last section of the survey. Thanks for 

hanging in there.

35. Has your institution EVER applied for support from federal government sources through a 

competitive grant process? 

Yes (proceed to 35a)

No (skip to 36)

I Don’t Know (skip to 36)

35a. If your institution has EVER applied for support from a federal government source, to which 

federal government agencies did your museum apply? Check all that apply. 

 Institute of Museum and Library Services

 National Endowment for the Arts

 National Endowment for the Humanities

 Department of Education

 Department of Transportation (National Historic Bridges Program, etc.)

 National Science Foundation 

 Department of Interior (National Park Service, etc.)

 Department of Housing and Urban Development

 Other: 

35b. How many times has your institution applied for support from federal government sources 

through a competitive grant process in the last three years? Please select only one. 

 Zero (haven’t applied in last 3 years)

1 time

2 times

3 times

4 times

5 times

6–10 times

11–15 times

More than 15 times























































Appendix H: Museum Public Finance Survey
155

35c. Has your institution EVER received support from a federal government agency through a 

competitive grant process? Please select only one. 

 Yes (proceed to 35c1) 

 No (skip to 36)

 I Don’t Know (skip to 36)

35c1. From which agency (or agencies) did your museum receive competitive grant support? 

Check all that apply. 

Institute of Museum and Library Services

National Endowment for the Arts

National Endowment for the Humanities

Department of Education

Department of Transportation (National Historic Bridges Program, etc.)

National Science Foundation 

Department of Interior (National Park Service, etc.)

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Other: 

36. What is the MOST significant challenge your institution faces in applying for federal government support? 

Application process is too cumbersome/time consuming 

Local grant monies are too restrictive

Reporting/evaluation demands are too high given the grant amounts

Required funding match is difficult to obtain

Other: 

37. What opportunities does federal government support present your institution that other funding 

sources do not? 

 

38. Has your institution EVER tried to secure an earmark from the federal government? 

 Yes (proceed to 38a)

 No (skip to 39)

 I Don’t Know (skip to 39)








































156

38a. For which of the following need areas did your institution seek earmarked funds from the 

federal government? Check all that apply. 

Physical improvements (capital construction/renovation)

Conservation of collections

Educational programs

Outreach

Other: 

38b. Did your institution try to secure a federal government earmark in: 

Yes No I Don’t Know

FY 2006   

FY 2007   

FY 2007   

38c. Did your institution EVER RECEIVE an earmark from the federal government? 

 Yes

 No

 I Don’t Know

39. We’ve provided the space below for any additional comments or suggestions you may have for 

IMLS or other federal funding agencies regarding support programs for American museums.

As we mentioned at the start of the survey, these responses are kept confidential and will not be 

attributed to individual institutions. 

 

Below we ask for contact information for the person responding to the survey. This information will 

be used only if we need to clarify a response. The Urban Institute will keep this information, like all 

the information you provided in this survey, completely confidential.

To be completed by lead person completing or coordinating the survey. 

Name of person completing the survey: 

Title: 

Phone number: 

Email address: 

Would you like us to send an e-mail to the address listed above when the final report is available 

for public release? 

Yes

No





















Appendix H: Museum Public Finance Survey
157

May we have permission to include the name of your institution on a published list of survey participants? Again, your survey responses will not be linked to your name; results will be reported only 

in aggregate. 

Yes

No

This concludes the Museum Public Finance survey. 

Thank you once again for taking the time to participate in this study.

Please return your survey by January 31, 2008 to: 

Museum Public Finance Survey 

The Metro Center

The Urban Institute 

2100 M Street NW

Washington, DC 20037

or fax to: 202-872-9322

About the Institute of Museum and Library Services

The Institute of Museum and Library Services is the primary source of federal support for the 

nation’s 122,000 libraries and 17,500 museums. The Institute’s mission is to create strong libraries and museums that connect people to information and ideas. The Institute works at the national 

level and in coordination with state and local organizations to sustain heritage, culture, and knowledge; enhance learning and innovation; and support professional development. To learn more about 

the Institute, please visit www.imls.gov. For more information, including grant applications, contact 

IMLS at 1800 M Street, NW, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20036-5802, phone 202-653-4657 or 

e-mail imlsinfo@imls.gov.

About the Urban Institute

The Urban Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan policy research and educational organization established in Washington, D.C., in 1968. Its staff investigates the social, economic, and governance 

problems confronting the nation and evaluates the public and private means to alleviate them. 

Through work that ranges from broad conceptual studies to administrative and technical assistance, Institute researchers contribute to the stock of knowledge available to guide decision-making 

in the public interest. To learn more about the Urban Institute, please visit www.urban.org. For 

information on the Museum Finance Study, contact Carlos Manjarrez, The Urban Institute, 2100 M 

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037, 202-833-7200, cmanjarr@ui.urban.org, or www.urban.org.




158

Museum Public Finance Survey Glossary

Capital expenditure – money spent on purchasing or construction of buildings or other major fixed 

assets. Capital expenditures are subject to depreciation.

Earmark – refers to legislative provisions that direct funds to be spent on specific projects (or 

directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees).

Earned income – money earned by providing goods or services where the amount paid is comparable to the actual value of goods and services. This includes admissions revenue, food and museum 

store sales, building rental, fairs and festivals, etc. The following types of revenue do not qualify as 

earned income: undesignated, unrestricted or general operating grants; contributions from individuals; bequests; and sponsorships of special events.

General sales, retail and amusement taxes – include general sales tax increases that designate 

a portion of the revenue for museums and other cultural institutions; or amusement taxes, which 

target entertainment consumers and return the value of that tax to its related industry and/or special tax districts—such as cultural districts—which may tax goods and services in area at a specified level, usually for a fixed period of time.

Governing authority – the both with legal and fiduciary responsibility for the museum and for 

approving museum policy (for example, board of commissioners, board of directors, board of managers, board of regents, board of trustees, city council, commission).

Non-operating income and expenses – income and expenses related to temporary or permanently 

restricted funds, such as endowment contributions and pledges, all realized capital gains and 

losses that are rolled back into the principle, income from capital campaigns and capital expenditures.

Operating income and expenses – income generated by or expenditures supporting the museums 

general operations in a given fiscal year, including exhibitions, educations, conservation, collections 

management, collections acquisitions, research, training, development and administration. This 

includes any portion of income from the endowment that is applied to operating expenses in a 

given year. It does not include capital expenditures.

Parent organization – a larger organization within which a museum operates. Examples of a parent 

organizations are colleges or universities; tribal, municipal, state or federal government; corporate 

foundations.

Tourism tax – a municipal, non-property tax that is typically added to hotel/motel costs, retail 

alcohol purchase, rental vehicles and/or restaurant food sales.

*Special thanks are due to the American Association of Museums for glossary terms drawn from 

the 2006 Museum Financial Information report.

Appendix H: Museum Public Finance Survey
INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES

1800 M Street NW, 9th Floor 

Washington, DC 20036 

202-653-IMLS (4657) 

www.imls.gov

IMLS will provide visually impaired or learning-disabled individuals 

with an audio recording of this publication upon request.

Printed December 2008 in the United States of America

Credits

Produced by the IMLS Office of Policy, Planning, Research, and Communications, 

under the direction of Mamie Bittner, Deputy Director, and with consultation 

from Marsha Semmel, Deputy Director for Museum Services and Director 

for Strategic Partnerships

Project Team:

Celeste Colgan, Ph.D., Expert Consultant

Carole Rosenstein, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, University at Buffalo, 

Associated Scholar, Urban Institute, Co-Principal Investigator

Carlos Manjarrez, Associate Deputy Director of Research and Statistics, IMLS 

(formerly with Urban Institute), Co-Principal Investigator

Erica Pastore, Program Analyst, IMLS 

Kevin O’Connell, Congressional Affairs Officer, IMLS

Ellen Arnold, Visual Information Specialist, IMLS

Justin Reskin, Research Assistant, Urban Institute

Mark Wolley, Research Assistant, Urban Institute

Cover Photos:

Left: Students discuss artwork on a tour of the Norton Museum of Art in West 

Palm Beach, Florida. Courtesy of the Norton Museum of Art. 

Right: An underwater viewing gallery at the John G. Shedd Aquarium in Chicago, 

Illinois. Photo by Brenna Hernandez. Courtesy of the John G. Shedd Aquarium. 

Citation

Manjarrez, C., C. Rosenstein, C. Colgan, E. Pastore. (2008). Exhibiting Public Value: 

Museum Public Finance In the United States (IMLS-2008-RES-02). Institute of 

Museum and Library Services. Washington, DC

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data not available at time of printing.