This section addresses the extent and character of state funding for the humanities
using such limited data as are available. Two of the indicators presented here,
those dealing with the revenues of state humanities councils and the condition of
state library agencies, provide direct measures of state support for the humanities.
The first of these, Indicator IV-3,
State Humanities Council Revenues, treats the revenues these agencies accrue.
Although the bulk of the councils’ revenues comes from the federal government, data
about humanities council monies are included in this section because the councils
are one of the major state-level funders of humanities activities. This indicator
describes only the amounts of council revenues, not the ways in which the councils
allocate their revenues, because a national summary of council expenditures on different
activity types is not currently available from the
National Endowment for the Humanities
(NEH) or any other organization (however, for data regarding the percentages of
state humanities councils providing various types of programming, see Indicator
V-13,
State Humanities Council Programs.) The second direct measure of state investment
in the humanities, Indicator IV-4,
State Library Agencies, also focuses on revenue levels, though it provides
some information on funding allocations as well.
While state support for humanities departments of the nation’s public colleges and
universities represents an important investment in humanities education and scholarship,
the amount of state funds dedicated specifically to such departments is not currently
known. Thus, the third indicator in this section, Indicator IV-5, State Funding for Higher Education,
can provide only a general overview, supplying data on total state tax appropriations
for postsecondary institutions. Insofar as these data show levels of state commitment
to higher education, they do begin to suggest the conditions under which humanities
departments must compete with other fields for state funding.
Currently, how much additional funding is being channeled by states toward the humanities
is also unknown. State humanities dollars are distributed through a wide variety
of channels, including not only state humanities councils, libraries, and universities
but also such entities as state archives, economic development offices, tourism
boards, historical agencies, and museums. In the absence of any national database
concerning all these kinds of conduits for state funding of the humanities, the
Humanities Indicators presents data on monies appropriated to and passing through
arts agencies (Indicator IV-6,
State Arts Agencies) because the arts and the humanities may face similar
funding pressures. Including data on arts agencies is also appropriate because an
analysis by the Humanities Indicators suggests that a nonnegligible percentage of
their funding goes to support activities and institutions that fall within the humanities
as that term is used by the Indicators. (For an inventory of the disciplines and
activities treated as part of the “humanities” for purposes of the Indicators, see
Statement
of the Scope of the “Humanities.”)
|
Indicator IV-3
|
State Humanities Council Revenues
|
|
|
Created by Congress in the early 1970s, the
state humanities councils
are independent, not-for-profit entities that support humanities programs and community-based
activities in the 50 states, as well as the District of Columbia and the jurisdictions
of American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
The 56 councils are governed by volunteer boards composed of humanities scholars
and members of the general public, and are funded mainly by the federal government.
(For data on the number and revenues of the nation’s not-for-profit humanities organizations,
which include state humanities councils as well as museums, reading promotion groups,
ethnic and cultural awareness organizations, and many others, see Indicator IV-9,
Revenues
of Not-for-Profit Humanities Organizations.)
The NEH provides each of the councils with an annual supporting grant through its
Federal/State Partnership program. The funds are allocated according to a legislatively
mandated formula, which directs $200,000 to every council, with the remainder of
the appropriated monies being distributed in the following manner:
|
44% is allocated equally among councils that serve a population of 200,000 or more;
|
|
|
22% is allocated to all councils according to population; and
|
|
|
34% is allocated to the councils at the discretion of the NEH Chairman.
|
Councils also receive discretionary (nonformula) funding from the NEH. Thus, for
example, a portion of the NEH’s appropriation for
We the People
(a special initiative that directs monies to activities that explore significant
themes or events in American history) is distributed to the state councils. In addition,
councils receive funding from the NEH in the form of matching grants and are eligible
to apply for funding under the NEH’s competitive grant programs.
While federal funding constitutes the bulk of most councils’ revenues, a minority
of councils receives a substantial portion of their total funding from state legislatures.
Some councils have also been successful in raising significant amounts of funding
from both corporations and individuals. (For more information about the sources
of council revenues, see the Federation of State Humanities Councils’
Annual Income Survey.)
The official source for data regarding council incomes is Internal Revenue Service
Form 990, which these organizations, as public charities with revenues in excess
of $25,000, must submit annually. In the fiscal year (FY) ending in 2005, the 50
state humanities councils and the council for the District of Columbia reported
a total of $61.2 million in revenues, which represents a 14% increase over 1994
levels (Figure IV-3a). (1994 is the first year for which data from Form 990
were available for these councils; information for the 1994-2004 period is presented
at five-year intervals because Form 990 data compiled in this way are available
only from a private provider at non-negligible cost; the five jurisdictional councils
are not included because data were not available for all years.) But as funding
grew, so did population, with the result that per capita revenues remained quite
constant, hovering in the vicinity of 20 cents per U.S. resident (and overseas military
service member) over the entire period.
Figure IV-3b presents total and per capita revenues for each of the state
councils and the District of Columbia for FY 2005. In that year, the range in per
capita funding levels was striking. California reported revenues amounting to 5
cents per capita, while Maine, South Dakota, and Wyoming reported revenues of over
$1 per state resident. The median per capita revenue level was 31 cents in 2005.
|
Indicator IV-4
|
State Library Agencies
|
|
|
The official purpose of a state library agency is to extend and develop public library
services throughout that state. These agencies are also authorized to receive and
distribute funding under the
Library Services and Technology Act, the major vehicle by which the federal government
provides monies to states to support library services within their borders. Beyond
these similarities, state agencies vary both with respect to their location within
state government and in terms of the services they provide to libraries, government,
and the general public. For example, in 2008, ten agencies
served as the archives for their state
1. Elsewhere, state archives are run by other agencies; in California,
for instance, they are a division of the Office of the Secretary of State and are
operated with monies from that office’s budget. Thus, the data presented here on
the fiscal condition of library agencies do not capture the full extent of state
investment in library services, but they are the best available measure of the monies
directed by states toward the preservation and development of library resources.
State funding represents the bulk of library agency revenue, constituting 81–86%
of total revenues over fiscal years 1994–2008 (Figure IV-4a). Between
the mid-1990s and 2001 these agencies’ total revenues increased 35%. Beginning in
2002, however, this trend was reversed, and by 2008 contractions of agency budgets
in the intervening years had brought revenues down to $1.2 billion, 14% less than
the 2001 high. Trends in per capita revenues were similar: a peak in 2001 followed
by a fairly steady decline (Figure IV-4b). Although total 2008 revenues were
above the 1994 level, population growth resulted in a 2008 per capita spending level
(just under $4) that was almost identical to that observed a decade-and-a-half earlier.
Since the majority of library agency funding came from state coffers, the variation
in funding levels was attributable mostly to changing state budget priorities.
Figure IV-4c tracks the amount of state library agency funding spent on financial
assistance to libraries2.
In each year over the course of the 1994–2008 period, the majority of agency
revenues, 64–70%, was spent on such assistance. As total agency budgets first
rose and then declined, so did the level of funding made available to libraries.
In 2008, approximately $809 million in state library agency revenues went to assist
libraries and library cooperatives, down from the 2001 high of $975 million, but
$151 million more than in 1994. Per capita expenditure rose 36% from 1994 to 2001
but by 2008 had returned to an amount ($2.68) similar to that spent in the mid-1990s.
Note
1 Henderson, E., Miller, K., Farrell, M., Brock, F., Dorinski, S., Freeman,
M., Frid, L., Hardesty, L., Music, C., O’Shea, P., Sheckells, C. State Library
Agencies Survey: Fiscal Year 2008, IMLS-2010–StLA-01 (Washington, DC: Institute
of Museum and Library Services, 2009), 13 fig. 12.
2 Although funding was made available to both public and private libraries,
the vast majority of these monies went to public institutions.
|
Indicator IV-5
|
State Funding for Higher Education
|
|
|
Currently, no data concerning states’ commitment to the humanities departments of
the nation’s postsecondary institutions exist. This indicator can thus describe
only state appropriations for higher education generally. In so doing, however,
it does suggest the conditions under which humanities departments on the campuses
of public colleges and universities must compete with other fields for funding.
The data presented here for the 1965–2009 time frame come from the Illinois State
University’s Center for the Study of Education Policy’s annual
Grapevine Survey
of state tax appropriations for higher education. These data reveal that state expenditures
rose almost every year between 1965 and 1990 (Figure IV-5a). Then, after
a short period of decline, expenditures began rising again, so that by 2002 states
were spending a record $82.3 billion (in 2009 dollars) on postsecondary education.
State spending then dropped 11% between the peak year of 2002 and 2005. This was
the largest three-year decline (in both absolute and percentage terms) ever recorded
by the Grapevine Survey. Appropriations increased each year between 2005 and 2008,
but the year 2009 saw a slight decline in spending, one that may become more pronounced
as states rescind appropriations in response to the global economic recession and
the large budget shortfalls the recession has created in many states.
Such national figures, however, mask substantial differences in the levels of individual
states’ monetary commitments to higher education (Figure IV-5b). While states
dedicated, on average, just under 12% of their total revenues for this purpose in
2005, the proportion of state funds expended ranged from 3% for Vermont to over
22% for North Dakota.
|
Indicator IV-6
|
State Arts Agencies
|
|
|
When the Congress established the
National Endowment for the Arts
(NEA) in 1965, it required the agency to direct a portion of its funding to any
state that established an agency to promote the arts. Today every state has such
an arts agency, and, although the NEA continues to fund them, the bulk of these
agencies’ revenues comes from state legislatures (in contrast to state humanities
councils, which are funded largely by federal dollars; see Indicator IV-3, State Humanities Council Revenues).
Arts agency data are presented here because they offer a proxy for data on state
humanities funding, which are not currently collected on a regular or comprehensive
basis. These arts agency data are also of interest because some funding is used
to subsidize activities that fall well within the scope of the humanities as that
term is used by the Humanities Indicators Project. (See Statement of the Scope of the “Humanities”
for Purposes of the Humanities Indicators.) For example, an examination of
the grants made by New York’s state arts agency revealed that in FY 2006 approximately
$5.2 million out of a total budget of $43 million supported literature and museum
projects. In addition to the substantial monies distributed by the New York agency
under these two general headings, numerous other grants went to fund activities
that were clearly humanistic in their orientation, such as a presentation of material
from Sufi texts accompanied by traditional music from the Indus Valley.
As Figure IV-6 reveals, the history of arts agency funding has been one of
long stretches of steady growth followed by shorter periods of sharp decline. The
first of these declines began in the early 1990s after 15 years of near constant
growth. Between 1990 and 1993, funding levels decreased by 34%, from $435.3 million
(in 2005 dollars) to $285.2 million. While the period between 1993 and 2001 saw
another surge in funding—and one that brought state spending on the arts to
record levels—three subsequent years of deep budget cuts quickly brought funding
back down to its 1993 level. The last several years have seen increases in state
appropriations to arts agencies. In 2007, these appropriations amounted to $340.9
million, an increase of 160% from 1974 but approximately 31% ($156 million) below
the 2001 high.
|