A performance audit of the Commission on the Arts and Humanities

              STATE OF ARIZONA

OFFICE OF THE

AUDITOR GENERAL

A PERFORMANCE AUDIT

OF THE

COMMISSION ON THE ARTS AND HUMANITIES

DECEMBER 1981

A REPORT TO THE

ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE

REPORT 81 - 23

DOUGLAS R. NORTON. CPA

AUDITOR GENERAL

STATE OF ARIZONA

OFFICE OF THE

AUDITOR GENERAL

December 29, 1981

Members of the Arizona L e g i s l a t u r e

The Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Governor

M r . Dino DeConcini, Chairman

Commission on the A r t s and Humanities

Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance

Audit of the Commission on the A r t s and Humanities. This r e p o r t is i n

response t o a January 30, 1980, r e s o l u t i o n of the J o i n t L e g i s l a t i v e

Oversight Committee. The performance a u d i t was conducted as a p a r t of the

Sunset review s e t f o r t h i n A. R. S. $ § 41- 2351 through 41- 2379.

The blue pages present a summary of the r e p o r t ; a response from the

Chairman, M r . Dino DeConcini, is found on the yellow pages preceding the

appendices.

My s t a f f and I w i l l be pleased t o discuss o r c l a r i f y items i n the r e p o r t .

Respectfully submitted,

S t a f f : Gerald A. S i l v a

Linda J. Blessing

Steven Wallace

S y l v i a F o r t e

Martha Bradley

Sue Ann Waddell

Enclosure

~ ouglws R. Norton

Auditor General

1 1 1 WEST MONROE SUITE 600 0 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003 ( 602) 255- 4385

OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL

A PERFORMANCE AUDIT OF THE

COMMISSION ON THE ARTS AND HUMANITIES

A REPORT TO THE

ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE

REPORT 81- 23

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

SUNSET FACTORS

FINDINGS

FINDING I

The Arizona Commission on the Arts and Humanities is

needed if Arizona is to receive federal funding for

the arts. However, improvements are needed in the

Commission's grants award process to provide for

adequate input from grantees, potential grantees and

the general public.

CONCLUSION 2 5

RECOMMENDATIONS 2 5

FINDING I1 27

Commissioner attendance at quarterly meetings of the

Arizona Commission on the Arts and Humanities is

insufficient and results in untimely and inefficient

decision making.

CONCLUSION

RECOMMENDATIONS

OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION

WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I - Amount requested and amount funded to

arts organizations and individuals by the

Commission on the Arts and Humanities for

fiscal years 1980- 81 and 1981- 82

APPENDIX I1 - Arizona advisory councils, committees and

boards surveyed

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1

Summary of a c t u a l f u l l - t i m e equivalent p o s i t i o n s ,

sources of funds and expenditures f o r f i s c a l years

1977- 78 through 1980- 81, estimated amounts f o r

1981- 82 and the ACAH request f o r 1982- 83

TABLE 2

Summary of NEA g r a n t s t o Arizona organizations and

i n d i v i d u a l s during f i s c a l year 1980

TABLE 3

Comparison of NEA's f i s c a l year 1981- 82 operating budget

with f i s c a l year 1982- 83 budget recommendations of the

P r e s i d e n t , House o f R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s and the Senate

a s of October 27, 1981

TABLE 4

Page

3

Stages of the ACAH g r a n t s award process and the l e v e l of

public input allowed by ACAH at each stage

SUMMARY

The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance a u d i t of the

S t a t e of Arizona, Commission on the A r t s and Humanities i n response t o a

January 30, 1980, r e s o l u t i o n of the J o i n t L e g i s l a t i v e Oversight

Committee. This performance a u d i t was conducted a s a p a r t of the Sunset

review s e t f o r t h i n A. R. S. $ 541- 2351 through 41- 2379.

The Commission on the Arts and Humanities, e s t a b l i s h e d a s a permanent

S t a t e agency i n 1967, was created t o

"... stimulate and encourage throughout the s t a t e the

study and p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the performing a r t s , f i n e

a r t s , the humanities and public i n t e r e s t and

p a r t i c i p a t i o n t h e r e i n , " and t o " . . . encourage and assist

freedom of a r t i s t i c and scholarly expression e s s e n t i a l

f o r the well- being of the a r t s and humanities."

F i f t e e n Commission members a r e appointed by the Governor t o award g r a n t s ,

formulate policy and adopt r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the

enabling l e g i s l a t i o n . The Commission administers its current programs

with a s t a f f of 15.5. The Commission's operations include:

- Disbursement of f e d e r a l and s t a t e funds t o Arizona a r t s

organizations through a g r a n t s award process.

- Special p r o j e c t s such as " A r t i n Arizona Towns."

- Technical a s s i s t a n c e t o Arizona a r t s o r g a n i z a t i o n s r e q u e s t i n g

s t a f f s e r v i c e s .

- P u b l i c information programs designed t o develop and enhance

statewide c u l t u r a l and a r t i s t i c a c t i v i t i e s .

Our review of e x i s t i n g data indicated the need f o r continued s t a t e funding

of the Commission i f t h e L e g i s l a t u r e deems it appropriate f o r Arizona t o

continue receiving f e d e r a l funds; however, improvements a r e needed i n the

current operations. We recommend t h a t the g r a n t s award process be

modified t o provide f o r adequate input from g r a n t e e s , p o t e n t i a l g r a n t e e s

and the general public. I n conjunction with t h i s , we recommend t h a t t h e

ACAH e s t a b l i s h peer- panel review of g r a n t s a p p l i c a t i o n s and provide f o r a

more open g r a n t s review process. ( page 11)

Improvements are also needed i n Commission attendance a t quarterly

meetings. We recommend t h a t 1) the Commission make provisions i n its

bylaws regarding excessive member absenteeism, and 2) A. R. S. $ 41- 981 be

amended t o provide f o r removal of members with excessive absenteeism.

( page 27)

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

On September 29, 1965, Congress established the National Endowment f o r the

Arts ( NEA) and the National Endowment f o r the Humanities ( NEH) to

"... complement, a s s i s t , and add t o programs f o r the advancement of the

humanities and the a r t s by l o c a l , s t a t e , regional, and private agencies

and t h e i r organizations." This new law called, i n p a r t , f o r each s t a t e to

designate or provide f o r the establishment of a statewide agency to

receive and disburse funds from the National Endowment f o r the Arts. I n

response to t h i s Congressional action, the Arizona Commission on the Arts

and Humanities ( ACAH) was established a s a S t a t e Council by Governor

Samuel P. Goddard on January 24, 1966. One year l a t e r Senate B i l l 139,

which established the Arizona Commission on the A r t s and Humanities as a

permanent s t a t e agency, was passed by the 28th Legislature and signed by

Governor Jack Williams on March 13, 1967. Thus, the Commission became the

o f f i c i a l agency of the S t a t e of Arizona designated to receive and disburse

funds from the National Endowments for the A r t s and Humanities.

A s defined i n State law, the Commission was created t o "... stimulate and

encourage throughout the s t a t e the study and presentation of the

performing a r t s , f i n e a r t s , the humanities and public i n t e r e s t and

p a r t i c i p a t i o n therein," and t o "... encourage and a s s i s t freedom of

a r t i s t i c and scholgrly expression e s s e n t i a l f o r the well- being of the a r t s

and humanities."

Fifteen Commission members are appointed by the Governor to award grants,

formulate policy, and adopt rules and r e g u l a t i o n s c o n s i s t e n t with the

enabling l e g i s l a t i o n . The Commissioners serve terms of t h r e e y e a r s , and

according t o S t a t e law, are to be chosen f o r t h e i r demonstrated a b i l i t i e s ,

good judgment and wide experiences i n f i e l d s related to the a r t s and

humanities and are to be selected so as to ensure geographic

representation from a l l areas of the State.

The Commission on the Arts and Humanities operated s o l e l y with f e d e r a l and

l o c a l funds f o r the f i r s t t h r e e years of its existence. I n 1969 the

Arizona L e g i s l a t u r e a p p r o p r i a t e d f u n d s f o r Commission operations f o r the

f i r s t time; and i n 1977 the Arizona L e g i s l a t u r e appropriated S t a t e funds

f o r community a r t s programs. The following t a b l e is a summary of the

Commission's f u l l - t i m e equivalent p o s i t i o n s , sources of funds and

expenditures f o r f i s c a l years 1977- 78 through 1982- 83.

TABLE 1

Full- Time Equivalent ( FTE)

Positions:

General Fund

Arts & Humanities Fund

Sources of Funds:

General Fund

Arts & Humanities Fund*

SUMMARY OF ACTUAL FULL- TIME EQUIVALENT POSITIONS,

SOURCES OF FUNDS AND EXPENDITURES FOR FISCAL YEARS 1977- 78 THROUGH 1980- 81,

ESTIMATED AMOUNTS FOR 1981- 82 AND THE ACAH REQUEST FOR 1982- 83

Actual Actual Actual

1977- 78 1978- 79 1979- 80

Expenditures:

Personal services $ 149,700 $ 170,300 $ 193,300

Employee- related expenditures 29,000 33,100 37,400

Professional & o u t s i d e s e r v i c e s 86,000 117,300 147,700

Travel :

In S t a t e 13,500 14,500 18,700

Out of State 13,400 12,200 10,100

Other operating expenses 79,100 73,600 71,400

Equipment 10,500 800 1,200

Program g r a n t ~ / ~ jreoc t s 318,900 645,600 512,400

Refunds

Sources: State of Arizona Annual Budget: Legislative Staff Analysis and

Recommendations 1979- 80 through 1981- 82, and the ACAH Budget Request

Actual Estimated

1980- 81 1981- 82 -

Requested

1982- 83

" The Arts and Humanities Fund is a fund of public and p r i v a t e g r a n t s

and includes a l l federal funds.

Monies budgeted f o r the Arizona Commission on the Arts and Humanities from

a l l sources have grown t o over one m i l l i o n d o l l a r s i n the 1981- 82 f i s c a l

year.

I n a d d i t i o n t o the budget growth, the a c t i v i t i e s and s e r v i c e s of the

Corxnission have increased. I n the f i r s t year of its existence, the

Commission sponsored 32 e v e n t s , s e r v i n g a small a r t s constituency composed

of r e s i d e n t a r t i s t s , art o r g a n i z a t i o n s , c i t i z e n supporters of the a r t s and

community groups sponsoring a r t s events. A s Arizona and the a r t s

constituency population have grown, the Commission h a s i n c r e a s e d its

s e r v i c e s by developing programs i n seven areas-- arts s e r v i c e s , education,

community development, expansion a r t s , l i t e r a t u r e , performing a r t s and

v i s u a l a r t s . Listed below is a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n o f each program:

1. A r t s Services: A resource and public r e l a t i o n s program providing

s e r v i c e s t o a r t i s t s , a r t s organizations and the public.

Technical a s s i s t a n c e is a v a i l a b l e t o small arts organizations i n

areas such a s accounting, l a w , fund r a i s i n g , management and

p u b l i c i t y , and t o a r t i s t s on a l l b u s i n e s s - r e l a t e d a s p e c t s . I n

a d d i t i o n , v a r i o u s media contacts a r e maintained; s p e c i a l m a t e r i a l

such a s speeches, t e c h n i c a l information and r e p o r t s a r e prepared;

and a monthly newsletter is pubiished.

Education: A program providing o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r students and

teachers i n Arizona schools and l i b r a r i e s t o use the a c t i v i t i e s

of working- professional a r t i s t s through a r t i s t s ' r e s i d e n c i e s .

The nationwide " Artists i n Schools" program of the National

Endowment f o r the Arts is administered under t h i s program. The

r e s i d e n c i e s a s s i s t a r t education programs and provide an

opportunity f o r schools with limited a r t education curriculum the

chance t o improve t h e i r c u r r i c u l a .

3. Community Development: A program a s s i s t i n g r u r a l communities

with community arts planning. " The A r t i n Arizona Towns

P r o j e c t , " coordinated under t h i s program a r e a , brings performing

a r t i s t s t o outlying communities. In- residence a r t i s t s perform,

l e c t u r e and conduct workshops i n a v a r i e t y of community

s e t t i n g s . The r e s i d e n c i e s involve cooperation between l o c a l a r t s

organizations and community sponsors.

4. Expansion A r t s : A program a s s i s t i n g community- based a r t s

p r o j e c t s " expanding" t o include involvement of a l l c i t i z e n s ,

p a r t i c u l a r l y groups i s o l a t e d by geography, race, economics o r

inmobility.

5. L i t e r a t u r e : A program a s s i s t i n g small presses and p r o f e s s i o n a l ,

published w r i t e r s i n a d i v e r s i t y of contemporary l i t e r a t u r e

p r o j e c t s such a s r e s i d e n c i e s , workshops and readings. Under t h i s

program, poets work i n schools and communities.

6. Performing A r t s : A program supporting t h e a t e r , dance and music

a c t i v i t i e s . Technical a s s i s t a n c e and information i n a l l a s p e c t s

of the perfoming a r t s a r e provided.

Visual A r t s : A program serving a s a clearinghouse of information

t o a r t i s t s and the community. The program a s s i s t s museums,

community organizations and schools with t e c h n i c a l a s s i s t a n c e and

a c q u i s i t i o n s p r o j e c t s , workshops, catalogs and e x h i b i t i o n s . The

Traveling Exhibition program t o u r s e x h i b i t i o n s to small

communities without access t o museums and t o urban c e n t e r s t o

complement the S t a t e ' s museums. The " A r t i n Public Places"

program a s s i s t s i n encouraging art i n p u b l i c b u i l d i n g s i n

Arizona's c i t i e s and towns.

The Office of the Auditor General expresses g r a t i t u d e t o the Arizona

Commission on the Arts and Humanities and its s t a f f f o r t h e i r cooperation

and a s s i s t a n c e during the course of the a u d i t .

SUNSET FACTORS

I n accordance with A. R. S. 5841- 2751 through 41- 2779, nine f a c t o r s a r e

considered t o determine, i n p a r t , whether the Arizona Commission on the

Arts and Humanities should be continued o r terminated.

SUNSET FACTOR: OBJECTIVE AND PURPOSE

I N ESTABLISHING THE COMMISSION

The i n t e n t of the L e g i s l a t u r e i n e s t a b l i s h i n g the Arizona Commission on

the Arts and Humanities ( t h e commission) is s e t f o r t h i n A. R. S. $ 41- 982,

which p r e s c r i b e s t h a t t h e Commission s h a l l :

" 1. Stimulate and encourage throughout the s t a t e the

study and p r e s e n t a t i o n of the performing arts,

f i n e a r t s , the humanities and public i n t e r e s t and

p a r t i c i p a t i o n t h e r e i n .

" 2. Make such surveys of public and p r i v a t e

i n s t i t u t i o n s engaged w i t h i n t h e s t a t e i n a r t i s t i c

and c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s , a s may be deemed

advisable, and make recommendations concerning

appropriate methods t o encourage p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n

and a p p r e c i a t i o n of the a r t s and humanities t o

meet the l e g i t i m a t e needs and a s p e r a t i o n s of

persons i n a l l p a r t s of the s t a t e .

" 3. Take such s t e p s as may be necessary and

appropriate t o encourage public i n t e r e s t i n the

c u l t u r a l h e r i t a g e of our s t a t e and t o expand the

s t a t e ' s c u l t u r a l resources.

" 4. Encourage and a s s i s t freedom of a r t i s t i c and

scholarly expression e s s e n t i a l f o r the well- being

of the a r t s and humanities."

SUNSET FACTOR: THE DEGREE TO WHICH THE COBMISSION

HAS BEEN ABLE TO RESPOND TO THE NEEDS OF THE PUBLIC

AND THE EFFICIENCY WITH WHICH IT HAS OPERATED

The a b i l i t y of the Commission t o respond t o the needs of the public has

been impaired by

1) a lack of public input, p a r t i c i p a t i o n and n o t i f i c a t i o n regarding

the g r a n t s award process ( page 11) and

2) l i m i t a t i o n of a v a i l a b l e funding. See Appendix I.

I n a d d i t i o n , our a u d i t revealed t h a t r e g u l a r a t t e n d a n c e o f commissioners

a t t h e q u a r t e r l y Commission meetings can enhance the s t a f f ' s a b i l i t y t o

operate e f f i c i e n t l y . ( page 27)

SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE COMMISSION

HAS OPERATED WITHIN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

The Commission e f f o r t s t o reach a broad spectrum of the public a r e

r e f l e c t e d i n s p e c i a l programs such a s " Art i n P u b l i c P l a c e s , " " A r t i n

Arizona Towns," and " Artists i n Schools." I n a d d i t i o n , the c r i t e r i a

u t i l i z e d t o review each grant a p p l i c a t i o n includes " community involvenent"

and " populations t o be served."

Improvements a r e needed, however, t o i n c r e a s e p u b l i c i n p u t i n the g r a n t s

award process. S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e Commission 1) has limited public input

at c r u c i a l s t a g e s i n t h e g r a n t s award process, ( page 16) 2) h a s n o t

adequately communicated reasons f o r d e n i a l s of grant awards, a age 19)

and 3) has not provided f o r a meaningful appeal process. ( page 21)

SUBSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH RULES AND

REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY THE COMMISSION ARE

CONSISTENT WITH THE LEGISLATIVE MANDATE.

A. R. S. 541- 982, subsection B, paragraph 5 s p e c i f i e s t h a t the Commission

s h a l l adopt r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s . However, Commission members have

indicated t h a t they have not found a need to do so s i n c e t h e Commission

does not have regulatory a u t h o r i t y over the a r t industry. The Commission

has adopted bylaws and funding p o l i c i e s which apply t o the functioning of

the Commission.

SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE COMMISSION

- --

HAS ENCOURAGED INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC BEFORE

PROMULGATING ITS RULES AND REGULATIONS AND THE

EXTENT TO WHICH IT HAS INFORMED THE PUBLIC AS

TO ITS ACTIONS AND THEIR EXPECTED IMPACT ON THE PUBLIC

Although the Commission h a s n o t promulgated r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s , it has

encouraged p u b l i c i n p u t regarding program p o l i c i e s . Public meetings a r e

held f o r the s p e c i f i c purpose of obtaining input i n t o new a r t s programs.

Recently, the Commission surveyed the a r t s constituency f o r ideas on

g o a l s , o b j e c t i v e s and p o l i c i e s . The Commission does, however, need t o

improve p u b l i c i n p u t i n t o t h e g r a n t s award process. Our a u d i t revealed

t h a t n e i t h e r peer- panel review nor public input is u t i l i z e d a s p a r t of t h e

g r a n t s award process. ( page 16)

SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE

COMMISSION HAS BEEN ABLE TO INVESTIGATE

AND RESOLVE COMPLAINTS THAT ARE WITHIN

ITS JURISDICTION

Complaint i n v e s t i g a t i o n and r e s o l u t i o n a r e not within the Commission's

j u r i s d i c t i o n . Zcwever, the Commission has responded t o complaints

regarding the methods u t i l i z e d t o s e l e c t a r t i s t s f o r p r o j e c t s .

SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OR ANY OTHER APPLICABLE

AGENCY OF STATE GOVERNMENT HAS THE

AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE ACTIONS UNDER

ENABLING LEGISLATION

The Commission's enabling l e g i s l a t i o n does n o t d e f i n e v i o l a t i o n s o r

offenses. Therefore, t h e r e a r e no prosecutable a c t i o n s under the enabling

l e g i s l a t i o n .

SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE

COMMISSION HAS ADDRESSED DEFICIENCIES I N

THE ENABLING STATUTES IJHICH ? REVERT I T FROM

FULFILLING ITS STATUTORY MANDATE

Our audit did not reveal deficiencies which prevent the Commission from

f u l f i l l i n g its s t a t u t o r y mandate. However, the Commission has not

attempted to eliminate from the s t a t u t e s references to the humanities and

humanities- related a c t i v i t i e s , which the Commission has not p a r t i c i p a t e d

i n to date. ( page 33)

SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH CHANGSS

ARE NECESSARY I N THE LAWS OF THE COMMISSION

TO ADEQUATELY COMPLY WITH THE FACTORS

LISTED I N THIS SUBSECTION

The following changes are recommended:

1. Provisions be made f o r dealing with excessive absenteeism a t

Commission meetings. ( page 32)

2. Action be taken to delete references to the " humanities" i n the

Commission's enabling l e g i s l a t i o n . ( page 73)

FINDING I

THE ARIZONA CObfNISSION ON THE ARTS AND HUMANITIES IS NEEDED IF ARIZONA IS

TO BECEIVE FEDERAL FUNDIlIG FOR THE ARTS. HOWEVER, IMPROVEMENTS ARE NEEDED

I N THE COMMISSION'S GRANTS AWARD PROCESS TO PROVIDE FOR ADEQUATE INPUT

FROM GRANTEES, POTENTIAL GRANTEES AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

There is a need f o r continued s t a t e funding of the Arizona Commission on

the Arts an6 Humanities ( ACAH or the Commission) i n t h a t :

- The National Endowment f o r the A r t s ( NEA) r e q u i r e s the

establishment of a s t a t e agency to receive and disburse f e d e r a l

funds coming i n t o the s t a t e , and

- The nationwide proportion of s t a t e funding t o a r t s agencies

appears t o be i n c r e a s i n g , while NEA funding may be reduced.

However, improvements a r e needed i n t h e g r a n t s award process t o provide

f o r adequate input from ~ r a n t e e s , p o t e n t i a l grantees and the general

public. Our review of the g r a n t s award process revealed the following

d e f i c i e n c i e s :

- ACAH l i m i t s input from the a r t s constituency* and the general

public a t c r u c i a l s t a g e s i n the g r a n t s award process.

- Formal n o t i f i c a t i o n t o organizations whose requests f o r funding

have been denied lacks d e t a i l and is misleading.

- U n t i l November 2, 1981, no formal a p p e a l p r o c e s s w a s a v a i l a b l e t o

grantees o r p o t e n t i a l grantees. Further, the newly implemented

appeal process does not provide adequate recourse t o p o t e n t i a l

grantees who have been denied funding.

* " Arts constituency1' r e f e r s t o a r t s organizations o r i n d i v i d u a l s who

have applied or may apply t o ACAH f o r funding ( whether or n o t t h e y

have a c t u a l l y received funds from ACAH), thus having a d i r e c t i n t e r e s t

i n the decision- making process of ACAII.

S t a t e Agency Required To Receive

and Disburse NEA Funds

I n 1965, Congress created the NEA a s an arm of the National Foundation on

the A r t s and the Humanities. A t the time of its c r e a t i o n , over half of

the funds appropriated t o NEA were authorized s p e c i f i c a l l y " to enable each

of the s t a t e s . . . h a v i n a a S t a t e a r t s agencv t o receive an annual

grant.. .. " * ( ~ m ~ h a saidsd ed)

The p o r t i o n of NEA funds granted t o s t a t e arts agencies i n t h i s manner is

r e f e r r e d t o as the Basic S t a t e Operating Grant ( BSOG), and is granted t o

the s t a t e s f o r the purpose of regranting t o l o c a l a r t s organizations. The

requirement t h a t a s t a t e agency d i s t r i b u t e the BSOG funds has remained i n

e f f e c t t o the p r e s e n t . R e f e r r i n g t o the BSOG, 20 U. S. C. 9! 14(~)( 2) s t a t e s :

" ( 2 ) I n order t o receive a s s i s t a n c e under t h i s

subsection i n any f i s c a l year, a S t a t e s h a l l

submit an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r such g r a n t s ... and

accompany such a p p l i c a t i o n s with a plan which the

Chairman finds--

"( A) designates o r provides f o r the establishment of a

S t a t e agency... as t h e s o l e agency f o r the

a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the S t a t e plan;

"( 13) provides t h a t funds paid t o the S t a t e under t h i s

subsection w i l l be expended s o l e l y on p r o j e c t s and

productions approved by the S t a t e agency which

c a r r out one o r more of t h e o b j e c t i v e s of

[ NEA?. .. ." ( ~ m ~ h a saidsd ed)

Table 2 summarizes the d i s t r i b u t i o n of NEA funds i n Arizona f o r the 1980

f i s c a l year.

* Senate Reports: 89th Congress, 1st Session ( ~ a n u a r - 4- October 27,

1965), Vol. 1- 2, Report No. 300, page 7.

TABLE 2

SUMMARY OF NEA GRANTS TO ARIZONA ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS

DURING FISCAL YEAR 1980

NEA Grants to ACAH

- Basic S t a t e Operating

Grant ( BSOG)

- Other g r a n t s

Total Grants t o ACAH

NEA Grants t o Other Arizona

Organizations and I n d i v i d u a l s

Total NEA Grants t o Arizona

Organizations and I n d i v i d u a l s

Dollar

Number Amount

of Grants of Grants

Percent of

Total NEA

Dollars t o

Arizona

A s Table 2 demonstrates, ACAH received approximately 47 percent of a l l NEA

funds granted t o Arizona.

Elimination of S t a t e funding f o r ACAH would r e s u l t i n a l o s s of a t l e a s t

28 percent of a l l NEA funds received, since the BSOG funds must be

channeled through a s t a t e a r t s agency according t o f e d e r a l law.

According to the Executive Director of ACAH, an a d d i t i o n a l $ 75,500 i n NEA

funds granted t o ACAH under the " A r t i s t s i n Schools" program would a l s o be

l o s t , since ACAH serves a s the coordinator f o r t h i s program.

S t a t e Funding For the A r t s

Is Increasing Nationwide

A review of other s t a t e s ' a p p r o p r i a t i o n s t o t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e arts agencies

revealed a s i g n i f i c a n t increase i n s t a t e funds t o the a r t s over the past

t h r e e years. A survey by the Auditor General t o which 34 s t a t e s responded

disclosed t h a t over 50 percent of these s t a t e s increased t h e i r s t a t e

a p p r o p r i a t i o n s over the p r i o r year during f i s c a l years 1981 and/ or 1982.

S p e c i f i c a l l y :

- 20 s t a t e s , o r approximately 59 p e r c e n t o f the s t a t e s responding,

increased t h e i r a p p r o p r i a t i o n s f o r f i s c a l year 1980- 81. The

average increase i n funding over the p r i o r year was approximately

25 percent.

- 23 s t a t e s , o r approximately 68 percent of the s t a t e s responding,

increased t h e i r a p p r o p r i a t i o n s f o r f i s c a l year 1981- 82. The

average increase i n funding over the p r i o r year was approximately

71 percent.

S t a t e funding f o r ACAH has a l s o increased during f i s c a l years 1979- 80

through 1981- 82. The Commission's 1980- 81 general fund expenditures were

approximately e i g h t percent more than its 1979- 80 general fund

expenditures and its i981- 82 a p p r o p r i a t i o n was 80 percent more than its

1980- 81 general fund expenditures. According t o information provided by

the National Association of S t a t e A r t s Agencies ( NASAA), a comparison of

per c a p i t a s t a t e a p p r o p r i a t i o n s f o r f i s c a l year 1980- 81 revealed t h a t

Arizona ranked 48th among the 50 s t a t e s , with a s t a t e a p p r o p r i a t i o n of

approximately eleven c e n t s per c a p i t a .

Possible NEA Funding Reduction

According t o s e v e r a l f e d e r a l sources, NEA is a l i k e l y candidate f o r

s u b s t a n t i a l budget c u t s . While the f i n a l decision has not been made a t

the Congressional l e v e l , a s of October 1981 budget c u t s of d i f f e r i n g

amounts had been recommended by the P r e s i d e n t , the U. S. Senate and the

U. S. House of Representatives. Table 3 compares IJEA's f i s c a l year 1981- 82

operating budget with the f i s c a l year 1982- 83 recommendations from the

P r e s i d e n t , the House and the Senate.

TABLE 3

COi'. IPARISON OF NEA'S FISCAL YEAR 1981- 82 OPERATING BUDGET WITH

FISCAL YEAR 1982- 83 BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE

PRESIDENT, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATE

AS OF OCTOBER 27, 1981

Amount Percent of Current

( 1n Millions) NEA Opersting Budget

NEA's F i s c a l Year 1981- 82

Operating Budget $ 158.5

F i s c a l Year 1982- 83

Budget Recommendations:

- President 88

- U. S. House of Representatives 157

- U. S. Senate 119

A s Table 3 demonstrates, a s of October 27, 1981, proposed budgets f o r NEA

f o r the 1982- 83 f i s c a l year ranged from approximately 56 t o 95 percent of

its c u r r e n t operating budget.

Requirements For Public Input

And F a i r Decision Nakinn

A s s e t f o r t h i n A. R. S. $ 41- 982, a major r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of ACAH is t o grant

s t a t e and f e d e r a l funds t o o r g a n i z a t i o n s and i n d i v i d u a l s who a r e judged by

the Commission t o be f u r t h e r i n g its goal. Since t h e g r a n t i n g of public

funds is by nature a competitive process, it must be open to public

scrutiny and i n v e s t i g a t i o n .

The NEA r e q u i r e s t h a t the designated s t a t e a r t s agency provide f o r an open

and public g r a n t s award process, from the planning stage t o the f i n a l

awarding of funds. TJEA's c r i t e r i a f o r evaluating agency a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r

Basic S t a t e grant funds include:

" Plans submitted by s t a t e arts agencies ... must show

evidence of s u b s t a n t i a l e f f o r t s t o meet the following

c r i t e r i a : - " responsiveness t o needs i d e n t i f i e d through a

planning p r o c e s s i n v o l v i n g broad, r e p r e s e n t a t i v e

p a r t i c i p a t i o n ;

- " provision f o r public awareness of agency programs

and a c t i v i t i e s ; - " provision f o r p u b l i c a c c e s s t o agency programs

and a c t i v i t i e s ;

- " f a i r decision- making involving published

c r i t e r i a , peer review, and provision f o r informing

a p p l i c a n t s of reasons f o r decisions...."

P u b l i c I n p u t

Is Limited

Our review disclosed t h a t ACAH l i m i t s input from the arts constituency and

the g e n e r a l p u b l i c a t c r u c i a l s t a g e s i n the g r a n t s award process. While

input is s o l i c i t e d and u t i l i z e d a t the beginning of the ACAH funding

cycle, the Commission discourages p a r t i c i p a t i o n during the a c t u a l

decision- making stage.

According t o ACAH s t a f f , t h e g r a n t s award process has s e v e r a l s t a g e s , with

varying degrees of input allowed i n each. Table 4 lists and d e s c r i b e s t h e

s t a g e s of the g r a n t s award process, along with t h e i r importance t o the

arts constituency and the l e v e l of input allowed by the Commission and/ or

ACAH s t a f f a t each stage.

STAGES OF THE ACAH GRANTS AWARD PROCESS AND THE LEVEL OF PUBLIC INPUT ALLOWED BY ACAH AT EACH STAGE

Grsnts Award P r o c e s s S t a g e -- Description Importance t o Arts Constituency Level of I n ~ u At llowed bv ACAH

I. Program and Policy Planning - Determines guidelines the a r t s con- S p e c i a l p u b l i c meetings held i n 1978

Arriving a t broad agency goals s t i t u e n c y can follow when applying and 1979 f o r the purpose of obtaining

and funding p o l i c i e s . f o r funds from ACAH. constituency input i n t o Commission

decisions. Also, surveys a r e conducted

t o obtain public input i n t o the

Commission g o a l s , o b j e c t i v e s and

p o l i c i e s .

11. Preparation and Submission of Point at which the applicant may

Grant Applications - The a c t u a l request a s s i s t a n c e from ACAH s t a f f

preparation of a p p l i c a t i o n s by the i n preparing t h e i n d i v i d u a l p r o j e c t

i n d i v i d u a l p r o s p e c t i v e g r a n t e e s . and the application.

S t a f f Review of Submitted S p e c i f i e s a r e a s where a p o t e n t i a l

Applications - Preparation of " summary grantee may be weak and need t o

sheets" f o r each grant a p p l i c a t i o n improve before ACAH could approve

including s p e c i f i c s t r e n g t h s , t h i s o r any f u t u r e request f o r

problems and funding recorrimendations funding. Summary sheets and

f o r each grant request. a p p l i c a t i o n s then compiled i n t o

" grants books. "

I V . Comission Review of Grant A. Grants books submitted t o

Applications and Final Funding commissioners 2- 3 weeks before

Decisions - An annual " grants the annual g r a n t s meeting.

meeting" a t which time the Commissioners review t h e g r a n t s

Cornmission xriakes the f i n a l books and meetings a r e held

grant awards. between s t a f f and i n d i v i d u a l

commissioners ( upon request

of commissioner).

B. Open meeting ~ ~ h i cgrha ntees

may attend t o determine which

g r a n t s were f tinded, which were

r e j e c t e d , and the reasons f o r

the decisions.

Total input from a p p l i c a n t s .

ACAH s t a f f may contact a p p l i c a n t s t o

c l a r i f y information contained i n the

a p p l i c a t i o n . Information contained

i n summary s h e e t s and s t a f f

reco~ nmendations regarding funding

a r e not a v a i l a b l e t o the public at

t h i s time.

A. None - Grants books a r e

c o n f i d e n t i a l a t t h i s point. Grant

applicant is not informed of

s t a f f recommendations to

Commission.

B. Grants books a r e not made a v a i l a b l e

t o a p p l i c a n t s u n t i l g r a n t s

meeting. Grants meeting is open

to the public; however, ACAH's

p r a c t i c e is t h a t n e i t h e r t h e

constituency nor the general public

can speak f o r o r against a p r o j e c t

under c ~ n s i d e r a t i o n .

A s shown i n Table 4, the l e v e l of a r t s constituency and general public

input allowed by ACAH drops s i g n i f i c a n t l y as the decision- making process

progresses and f i n a l l y s o l i d i f i e s . Moreover, a t the culmination of the

g r a n t s award process - the g r a n t s meeting, where f i n a l funding decisions

a r e made - public p a r t i c i p a t i o n is l i m i t e d .

Peer- Panel Review Process

Is Becommended and Used

Bv Other S t a t e s and NEA

To provide f o r increased p u b l i c i n p u t i n the g r a n t s award process, NEA

recommends but does n o t r e q u i r e t h a t s t a t e arts agencies use a peer- panel

review process i n making grant award d e c i s i o n s . T h i s p r o c e s s provides f o r

panels of experts t o review grant requests f o r the purpose of assuring

objective input i n the determination of q u a l i t y . Our review revealed t h a t

the majority of s t a t e s u s e p e e r p a n e l s i n t h e i r grant award decisions.

I n p a r t i c u l a r , a survey of nine o t h e r western s t a t e s , which the ACAH

Chairman and Executive D i r e c t o r i n d i c a t e d were most comparable t o

Arizona," disclosed t h a t s i x use the panel process. I n a d d i t i o n , a

seventh s t a t e , while not u s i n g p e e r p a n e l s , a l l o w s a p p l i c a n t s t o review

s t a f f funding recommendations before grant award decisions a r e made.

It should be noted t h a t NEA has i d e n t i f i e d s i x s t a t e s which xere

considered t o have model g r a n t s award processes a s described i n t h e i r

Basic S t a t e Operating Grant ( DECG) zy> il:.-. tlcns. 211 nix st- xtes ". at : icre

selected by NEA u s e p e e r panels i n t h e i r awards process.

* The nine western s t a t e s surveyed were Colorado, Nontana, Nevada, Bew

Mexico, Oregon, Idaho, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.

F i n a l l y , NEA uses the panel- review system i n its g r a n t s award process. It

should be noted t h a t the P r e s i d e n t i a l Task Force on the Arts and

Hiimanities, i n its October 1981 Report t o the P r e s i d e n t , concluded:

" The Task Force endorses the continuation of t h i s

svstem which l e a v e s d e c i s i o n s about a r t i s t i c and

s c h o l a r l y merit t o the judgment of respected

p r o f e s s i o n a l s i n the a r t s . . . . P a n e l review has proved t o

be a f a i r and e f f e c t i v e system f o r grant- making ...."

( ~ m ~ h a saidsd ed. )

N o t i f i c a t i o n t o Denied Applicants

Is Misleading

ACAH formal n o t i f i c a t i o n t o a p p l i c a n t s who have been denied funding is a

form l e t t e r t h a t is sent a f t e r the Commission's g r a n t s award meeting.

This form l e t t e r i n d i c a t e s t h a t the cause f o r funding d e n i a l is lack of

a v a i l a b l e funds. Yet a review of the i n d i v i d u a l grant summary s h e e t s

prepared by ACAE s t a f f p r i o r t o the g r a n t s award meeting revealed t h a t a

s i z e a b l e number of funding d e n l a i s were based c; n : Jery s p e c i f i c problems

and weaknesses of the g r a n t a p p l i c a n t s . Grant d e n i a l s were frequently

based upon problems such as f i n a n c i a l d i f f i c u l t i e s of the organization or

use of a r t i s t s who a r e not a s well q u a l i f i e d a s o t h e r s .

ACAH s t a f f commented t h a t they v e r b a l l y review the a p p l i c a n t s ' problems

and weaknesses during the s t a f f evaluation process which r e s u l t s i n

funding recommendations t o the Commission. However, the grant summary

s h e e t s d e t a i l i n g t h e a p p l i c a n t s ' weaknesses a r e made a v a i l a b l e t o the

a p p l i c a n t s and t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c only during the two days of g r a n t s award

meetings. Thus, t h i s information is not provided e a r l y enough i n the

g r a n t s award process t o allow a p p l i c a n t s t o c o r r e c t any i n a c c u r a c i e s o r

omissions p r i o r t o the f i n a l award decisions. According t o ACAH s t a f f , t o

make t h e g r a n t summary s h e e t s a v a i l a b l e p r i o r t o the g r a n t s award meeting

might give the appearance t h a t the s t a f f was prejudging t h e g r a n t

a p p l i c a t i o n s . Our observations of ACAH's August 28 and 29, 1981, g r a n t s

award meeting indicated t h a t the few grant a p p l i c a n t s and o t h e r

i n d i v i d u a l s atteriding may not have been aware t h a t the grant summary

sheets were a v a i l a b l e f o r t h e i r review.

The e f f e c t s of t r e a t i n g t h e grant summary sheets i n a c o n f i d e n t i a l manner

p r i o r t o the g r a n t s award meeting f u r t h e r r e s t r i c t s p u b l i c i n p u t i n the

g r a n t s award process. Since the formal n o t i f i c a t i o n of reasons f o r

funding d e n i a l i n d i c a t e s only the lack of a v a i l a b l e funds, denied

a p p l i c a n t s could be misinformed a s t o s p e c i f i c reasons f o r grant d e n i a l s .

Making the grant summary s h e e t s a v a i l a b l e only during t h e g r a n t s award

meetings does not provide a p p l i c a n t s with an opportunity t o challenge the

s t a f f recommendations t o the Commission regarding grant funding. I n

a d d i t i o n , because the s t a f f evaluations of grant a p p l i c a n t s a r e t r e a t e d

c o n f i d e n t i a l l y p r i o r t o t h e g r a n t s award meeting, the award process

appears t o be contrary t o NEA's req~ ireme:~: t h a t S t a t e a r t s agencies show

s u b s t a n t i a l e f f o r t s t o provide f o r "... peer review, and provision f o r

informing a p p l i c a n t s of reasons f o r decisions...."

The Grant Award Process Followed

by Other S t a t e s Provides f o r Open

Communication with Grant Applicants

Our review of n o t i f i c a t i o n p r a c t i c e s i n nine western s t a t e s , other than

Arizona, revealed a general p a t t e r n of more open communication with grant

a p p l i c a n t s both p r i o r t o and a f t e r grant award decisions have been made by

the s t a t e commissions. S p e c i f i c a l l y :

- Six of the nine s t a t e s u t i l i z e p e e r p a n e l s , and a l l panel

recommendations a r e open t o public review p r i o r t o the a c t u a l

grant award decisions.

- One s t a t e allows grant a p p l i c a n t s t o review s t a f f recommendations

p r i o r t o the a c t u a l grant award decisions. Thus, seven of the

nine western s t a t e s surveyed allow f o r open review of

recommendations made t o t h e i r commissions p r i o r t o the a c t u a l

awarding of grant funds.

- Five s t a t e s allow t h e i r grant a p p l i c a n t s e i t h e r t o speak o r

submit w r i t t e n information t o t h e i r commissions a t t h e a c t u a l

g r a n t s award meetings.

- A t l e a s t four s t a t e s n o t i f y denied g r a n t a p p l i c a n t s of the

s p e c i f i c reasons f o r d e n i a l by a formal l e t t e r .

Problems with the

A ~ ~ eParloc ess

Until November 2, 1981, the Commission had no w r i t t e n provisions f o r

appeal by grant a p p l i c a n t s whose funding requests had been denied. On

t h i s d a t e , the Commission implemented a formal review process f o r

nonfunded g r a n t e e s , described below:

" 1. Designated s t a f f who has worked with grantee

a p p l i c a t i o n answers w r i t t e n request from applicant

t o d i s c u s s a p p l i c a t i o n . S t a f f meets with

applicant who was denizd :': ia? i; ig t o d i s c u s s the

c r i t e r i a on which the a p p l i c a t i o n was evaluated.

This meeting can provide an opportunity t o discuss

agency funding p a t t e r n s , recommend a l t e r n a t e

funding s t r a t e g i e s as well as provide d i r e c t i o n t o

applicant i n preparation of f u t u r e a p p l i c a t i o n s .

" 2. I f an applicant is not f u l l y s a t i s f i e d with the

meeting with the s t a f f member, a meeting with the

Executive Director may be requested. The

Executive Director w i l l d i s c u s s i n g r e a t e r depth

the a r e a s of concern with the appiicant.

" 3. I f an applicant remains u n s a t i s f i e d , the applicant

can request a meeting with the Director and

Chairman j o i n t l y . I f deemed necessary, the

Chairman may bring the applicant t o a committee of

the Commission o r the e n t i r e Commission f o r

f u r t h e r review and discussion."

I n our opinion, the above process does not, i n f a c t , c o n s t i t u t e an appeal

of the Commission's decision- making process because it occurs a f t e r a l l

Commission funds have been granted. Thus, even i f a denied a p p l i c a n t

presents a compelling case f o r funding it is u n l i k e l y t h a t funds w i l l be

forthcoming because funds a r e not s p e c i f i c a l l y s e t a s i d e f o r t h i s purpose.

Neighbor S t a t e s have E f f e c t i v e

Review B u i l t i n t o E n t i r e

Grants Award Process

A s mentioned previously, our review of the g r a n t s award processes i n nine

other western s t a t e s revealed a p a t t e r n of g r e a t e r applicant

communication, input and review both p r i o r t o and a f t e r grant award

decisions have been made. S p e c i f i c a l l y :

- Seven of the nine s t a t e s provide f o r review of s t a f f and/ or panel

recommendations by grant a p p l i c a n t s p r i o r t o grant award

d e c i s i o n s , t h u s allowing an opportunity f o r funding of grant

a p p l i c a n t s t h a t otherwise would be denied.

- One s t a t e allows a p p l i c a n t s t o appeal a f t e r panel recommendations

but before grant award d e c i s i o n s , thus allowing a p p l i c a n t s

f u r t h e r input.

- Two s t a t e s provide f o r a formal appeal process and one provides

f o r an informal process, whereby a c t u a l funding of previously

denied a p p l i c a n t s can be granted i f o r i g i n a l commission decisions

a r e reversed.

Causes of Present Limitations

Of Grants Award Process

During our d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h ACAH s t a f f regarding the apparent weaknesses

i n the g r a n t s award process, a number of p o i n t s were presented i n

j u s t i f i c a t i o n of the present system:

- Commission members a r e appointed t o represent the public and it

is the Commission t h a t makes the f i n a l decisions on grant

awards. Allowing more public p a r t i c i p a t i o n during t h e s t a g e i n

which s t a f f is formulating its recommendations t o the Commission

on g r a n t a p p l i c a t i o n s might give the impression t h a t the s t a f f is

prejudging the p r o j e c t s .

- The Commission is g r e a t l y concerned with t h e c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of

the information submitted by the arts organizations and believes

it should l i m i t access t o the grant summary s h e e t s which include

the s t a f f ' s evaluations of the g r a n t a p p l i c a t i o n s .

- Commission s t a f f h a s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e use of a peer- panel

review of grant a p p l i c a t i o n s is i m p r a c t i c a l i n Arizona because of

t h e l i m i t e d a r t i s t i c resources a v a i l a b l e . The u s e o f artists on

panels would c r e a t e a d r a i n on the a r t i s t i c resources a v a i l a b l e

t o t h e g r a n t e e organizations.

- Allowing a r t constituency input a t public meetings was a l s o

considered i m p r a c t i c a l because of the danger t h a t the l a r g e r arts

organizations might dominate the meetings.

The above philosophy has r e s u l t e d i n a g r a n t s award process which is

1) not a s open t o p u b l i c i n p u t a s the processes followed by a majority of

the western s t a t e s surveyed, and 2) may be contrary t o the NEA

requirements f o r an open and public g r s n t s award process. Under the

Commission's present g r a n t s award process, it is the s t a f f ' s

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o evaluate the merits of t h e g r a n t a p p l i c a t i o n s and t o

make recommendations t o the Commission regarding funding. Such

recommendations a r e " prejudgments" of g r a n t a p p l i c a t i o n s by d e f i n i t i o n and

a s such should be open t o public s c r u t i n y before t h e g r a n t s award

meeting. Further, since the recommendations and r e l a t e d information

compiled i n the g r a n t s award process u l t i m a t e l y r e s u l t s i n the disbursing

of public funds it should be made a v a i l a b l e t o g r a n t a p p l i c a n t s and the

public.

Additional concerns expressed by ACAH regarding the use of peer panels

include:

1. ACAH s t a f f h a s i n d i c a t e d t h a t the use of peer panels could

involve s t a f f time i n organizing the panels and the panel process.

2. ACAH has indicated t h a t use of p e e r p a n e l s would r e s u l t i n

s i g n i f i c a n t increases i n t r a v e l c o s t s .

Our discussions with s t a t e a r t s a g e n c i e s u s i n g the peer- panel process

indicated t h a t t h e r e s u l t i n g i n c r e a s e s i n s t a f f time could be o f f s e t a t

l e a s t p a r t i a l l y by the attendant reduction i n s t a f f time involved i n

formulating recommendations t o the Commission. Under the peer- panel

system, it would be the s t a f f ' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o gather information t o

f a c i l i t a t e the analyses and funding recommendations made by the peer

panels.

Further, a review of t r a v e l and per diem c o s t s associated with

implementing peer panels i n other s t a t e s u s i n g p a n e l s d i s c l o s e d t h a t

annual c o s t s could be a s low as $ 2400 based upon the following assumptions:

- ACAH would e s t a b l i s h t h r e e panels.*

- Each panel would c o n s i s t of seven p a n e l i s t s f o r a t o t a l o f 21

p a n e l i s t s .

- 12 of the 21 p a n e l i s t s would be from o u t s i d e the Phoenix

m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a .

- Panels would meet f o r t h r e e days each f i s c a l year t o evaluate

grant a p p l i c a t i o n s .

- The twelve out- of- town p a n e l i s t s would receive $ 40 per day f o r a

t o t a l reimbursement f o r the three- day period of $ 1,440.

- The average round- trip mileage f o r the 12 out- of- town p a n e l i s t s

would be 400 miles, f o r a t o t a l of 4,800 miles. The mileage

reimbursement r a t e s would be 20h per mile f o r a t o t a l

reimbursement of $ 960 per year.

A s described e a r l i e r i n t h i s report a majority of s t a t e a r t s agencies

provide f o r p u b l i c i n p u t by an open peer panel process and/ or by ~. llor. ring

p u b l i c i n p u t at meetings during t h e g r a n t s award process. Our survey of

the nine neighboring s t a t e s disclosed t h a t limited a r t i s t i c resources did

present a problem i n some cases but t h a t p e e r p a n e l s were s t i l l considered

a viable approach. I n a d d i t i o n , allowing public input a t meetings could

be c o n t r o l l e d by s e t t i n g time l i m i t s f o r speakers t o assure f a i r treatment.

* For example, the Colorado Council on the A r t s and Humanities has t h r e e

separate panels f o r v i s u a l a r t s , performing a r t s and m u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r j

a r t s . A l l a r t s program areas a r e included under these t h r e e panels.

CONCLUSION

Existing information supports the need f o r continued s t a t e funding of the

ACAH i f the Legislature deems continued federal funding for the a r t s i n

Arizona appropriate:

- Federal law requires that a s t a t e agency receive and disburse a

large proportion of NEA funds granted to Arizona.

- Nationally, s t a t e funding to a r t s agencies appears to be

increasing while NEA funds may be reduced.

However, the process by which the Conmission grants funds to a r t s

organizations and individuals is deficient i n that

- ACAH l i m i t s input from the public sector including grantees and

potential grantees.

- Formal notification to denied applicants lacks d e t a i l and is

misleading.

- The appeal process, only recently implemented by ACAH, does not

provide adequate recourse to potential grantees who have been

denied funding.

RECOMMENDAT1 ONS

Consideration should be given to the following recommendations:

1. Should the Legislature deem continued federal funding for the

a r t s i n Arizona appropriate, the Arizona Commission on the A r t s

and Humanities should be continued i n order to s a t i s f y the

National Endowment for the A r t s requirement that a s t a t e agency

receive and disburse federal funds.

The ACAH provide for g r e a t e r public input, communication and

review by implementing the peer- panel review process and

providing t h a t :

a. A peer- panel system be established by augmenting and using

t h e e x i s t i n g r o s t e r of Arizona experts i n the various a r t

d i s c i p l i n e s .

b. Peer- panel review meetings, a t which panel recommendations

are formulated, be open to the public.

c. Opportunity f o r g r a n t a p p l i c a n t s t o respond t o panel

recommendations be allowed p r i o r t o the grant award

decisions. This would provide the opportunity f o r appeal

p r i o r to the awarding of a l l funds.

d. Greater d e t a i l t o grant applicants, whose funding requests

have been denied, be made available through access to the

grant summary sheets or through the use of more s p e c i f i c

n o t i f i c a t i o n l e t t e r s .

FINDING I1

COMMISSIONER ATTENDANCE AT QUARTERLY MEETINGS OF THE ARIZONA COMMISSION ON

THE ARTS AND HUMANITIES IS INSUFFICIENT AND RESULTS I N UNTIMELY AND

INEFFICIENT DECISION- MAKING.

I r r e g u l a r commissioner attendance a t t h e q u a r t e r l y meetings of the ACAH

has resulted i n delays i n decision- making and policy implementation. The

ACAH has not established bylaws concerning meeting attendance

requirements, although our review indicated t h a t absenteeism has been an

ongoing problem since January 1979. Meeting attendance has declined to

the point where a quorum was not present a t four of f i v e meetings held

between November 1980 and November 1981. A s a r e s u l t , the ACAH has

resorted t o conference c a l l s as an a l t e r n a t i v e means of conducting

business, which leads to a duplication of costs and i n e f f i c i e n c i e s .

Commissioners Do Not Attend

Meetings Regularly

The Commission is a 15- member body which holds a t l e a s t four meetings a

year. Regular commissioner attendance is necessary f o r decision- making

and t o assure t h a t commissioners are informed of the ongoing development

of p o l i c i e s and procedures. However, our review of minutes and other

documentation f o r meetings held between January, 1979 and November, 1981

revealed that

- Of the f i v e meetings held between November 1980 and November

1981, four did not have a quorum present f o r t h e duration of the

meetings.

- Four appointees presently serving on the Commission have been

absent f o r three consecutive meetings since January 1979 or since

date of appointment i f a f t e r January 1979.

- In 1981, two important decisions regarding budgetary and grant

award p o l i c i e s had t o be made by conference c a l l s due t o a lack

of a quorum.

- Commissioners often attend only a portion ( 50 percent or l e s s ) of

scheduled meetings." A majority of the commissioners attended a t

l e a s t one meeting during 1981 only on a p a r t i a l basis.

- Of the ten meetings held i n 1979 and 1980, four had i n attendance

the minimum number of commissioners needed f o r a quorum. Our

observations and discussions with ACAH Commission members and

s t a f f indicated that had p a r t i a l attendance been reported p r i o r

t o 1981, a quorum may not have been present f o r the duration of

the s i x meetings.

Absenteeism and P a r t i a l Attendance

A t Commission Meetings Hinders

Decision Making

Absenteeism and p a r t i a l attendance has resulted i n i n e f f i c i e n t and

untimely decision- making as shown by the following examples:

1. The November 1980 policy meeting reported a quorum i n attendance

a t the beginning of the meeting. Later i n the meeting when a

vote on grant award p o l i c i e s was t o be taken, the decisions had

to be postponed due to the absence of a quorum. The p o l i c i e s

discussed a t the November 1980 meeting were voted upon by a

conference c a l l i n July 1981. A s a r e s u l t , 1 ) t h e ACAH did not

e s t a b l i s h its grant award p o l i c i e s u n t i l a f t e r the June 1, 1981

deadline f o r g r a n t a p p l i c a n t s to f i l e t h e i r g r a n t a p p l i c a t i o n s ,

and 2) grant applicants had t o f i l e t h e i r grant applications

without t h e b e n e f i t of knowing f u l l y what the ACAH would take

i n t o account when evaluating grant applications.

* We were unable to determine the f u l l extent of the problem of p a r t i a l

attendance since p a r t i a l attendance was not reported i n the minutes

u n t i l February 1981.

Poor commissioner attendance was discussed a t the August 28 and

29, 1981 grants award meeting. Those commissioners still present

on the morning of August 29, 1911 decided to cancel the afternoon

s e s s i o n s i n c e t h e meeting lacked a quorum. Those commissioners

still present on August 29 expressed concern over t h e p r a c t i c e of

some commissioners to attend meetings f o r an hour or two " j u s t to

get t h e i r names recorded on the minutes as having attended." The

general discussion a t t h i s meeting indicated t h a t part- time

attendance has h i s t o r i c a l l y been a problem.

3. On two occasions during 1981, conference c a l l s had to be arranged

to reach decisions on grant policy issues and budgetary matters.

The decisions could not be reached a t the regularly scheduled

meetings because a quorum was not present. This resulted i n

delays i n decision- making and a duplication of e f f o r t i n t h a t

arrangements had t o be made f o r another date and time convenient

f o r the absent commissioners t o discuss the issues.

A s the examples i l l u s t r a t e , poor commissioner attendance a t meetings has

resulted i n delays i n reaching c r i t i c a l decisions, resulted i n duplication

i n s t a f f preparation for meetings, and n e c e s s i t a t e d t h e use of conference

c a l l s to conduct business. The use of conference c a l l s to reach decisions

presents t h e a d d i t i o n a l concern t h a t these meetings could be i n v i o l a t i o n

of the open meeting law. While the Commission may not have taken formal

votes by conference c a l l , the c a l l s did r e s u l t i n the adoption of

budgetary and policy issues.

The Executive Director concurs t h a t absenteeism has been a problem. She

indicated that absenteeism hinders both the Commission's e f f o r t s t o obtain

as much p a r t i c i p a t i o n as possible i n the decision- making process and the

implementation of p o l i c i e s . She added t h a t timing delays i n

decision- making a f f e c t the t o t a l grant prseess.

Guidelines Have Not Been

Established Regarding Commissioner

Attendance at ACAH Meetings

Lack of w r i t t e n policy regarding member attendance h a s c o n t r i b u t e d toward

high absenteeism at Commission meetings. The s t a t u t e s and the Commission

bylaws do not provide guidelines regarding meeting attendance, although

excessive absenteeism has been an ongoing problem.

During our a u d i t , Commission members have expressed concern regarding the

e f f e c t s of absenteeism and at its August 1981 meeting, the Commission

decided t o d r a f t a r e s o l u t i o n regarding meeting attendance f o r submission

LI, O the G o v e r r , ~ ~ . A s of X o ~ ~ i ~ k1t9i8r1 , t l ~ ir e s o l u t i o n had not been d r a f t e d .

According t o some commissioners, the primary cause of high absenteeism is

the Commission's p r a c t i c e of holding meetings outside the Phoenix area

during 1981 which made it inconvenient f o r some commissioners t o be away

from t h e i r businesses t o a t t e n d meetings. However, t h i s does not explain

the f a c t t h a t high absenteeism and p a r t i a l attendance at meetings have

been an h i s t o r i c a l problem f o r ACAH. Also, A. R. S. $ 41- 981, subsection A,

requires t h a t appointees a r e s e l e c t e d t o " . . . insure geographic

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n t o a l l a r e a s of t h e s t a t e . " Accordingly, some

commissioners represent areas such as F l a g s t a f f , Tucson and Window Rock.

Thus, the holding of some ACAH meetings o u t s i d e of the Phoenix area not

only seems t o be equitable but i n the s p i r i t of A. R. S. $ 41- 981 a s well.

Model L e g i s l a t i o n and Other

Arizona Boards Provide Guidelines

For Attendance

The model l e g i s l a t i o n s t u d y o f the National Assembly of S t a t e Arts

Agencies recommends a provision f o r dealing with unexcused absences of

appointees t o arts commissions o r councils. It recommends, i n p a r t , t h a t

" A member may be removed by the appointing a u t h o r i t y

f o r unexcused absences from meetings of the Council

board o r other i n a t t e n t i o n t o Council business, only on

recommendation of the Council board."

The report f u r t h e r s t a t e s t h a t

" without some mechanism f o r removal, a member is

l e g a l l y e n t i t l e d to complete a term without performing

a duty. It is proposed t h a t the appointing authority

be empowered to remove an appointee; however, to

i n s u l a t e t h a t appointing authority from c r i t i c i s m ( or

abuse), the removal should be only upon recommendation

of the board ( which has the immediate experience on

which to make judgment) ."

The bylaws and procedures of 14 other Arizona advisory cour_ cils and

boards* provide for action to be taken i n the case of excessive

absenteeism. After three consecutive members' absences the following

steps may be taken:

1. a declaration t h a t the board or council membership is vacant,

2. submission of board member's resignation, or

3. recommendation of dismissal.

The Arizona Humanities Council*" has a policy regarding member

absenteeism. The policy provides f o r the removal of an appoictee absent

f o r two meetings i n a calendar year. A removed member must p e t i t i o n the

executive committee f o r reinstatement.

CONCLUSION

Attendance a t Commission meetings has been substandard. A s a r e s u l t ,

important decisions are made i n an i n e f f i c i e n t and untimely manner, and

t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the Commission has been impaired.

* For a complete l i s t i n g of advisory councils and boards see Appendix 11.

* The Arizona Humanities Council is a nonprofit organization t h a t is

separate and d i s t i n c t from the ACAH.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Consideration should be given to the following recommendations:

1. A. R. S. $ 41- 981 be amended to provide f o r removal of members with

excessive absenteeism, and

2. The Commission make provision i n its bylaws regarding excessive

member absenteeism. Such provisions should include:

a. Standards f o r determining what c o n s t i t u t e s excessive

absenteeism.

b. A procedure f o r the removal of members considered to have

excessive absenteeism.

OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION

STATUTORY REFERENCES TO THE HUMANITIES

The enabling l e g i s l a t i o n f o r the Arizona Commission on the A r t s and

Humanities ( A. R. s. $ 41- 981, et. seq. ) repeatedly refers to the

" humanities" and humanities- related activities." This is confusing i n that

- The Commission has never received any funding for the humanities

or been involved i n humanities- related a c t i v i t i e s .

- The humanities and related a c t i v i t i e s are handled through the

Arizona Council on the Humanities, a nonprofit organization that

is separate and d i s t i n c t from the ACAH.

Nonprofit Organization is

Designated Agency to Receive

And Disburse NEH Funds

The Arizona Council on the Humanities, a private, nonprofit organization,

is the agency designated by the National Endowment on the Humanities ( NEH)

to receive and disburse NEH funds.

Current NEH l e g i s l a t i o n allows ( but does not require) the establishment of

a s t a t e agency to receive and disburse its funds, provided the s t a t e

agency appropriate a t l e a s t 50 percent of the amount provided the agency

by NEH i n - new funds ( monies not currently appropriated to an established

a r t s agency or an established a r t s and/ or humanities project). 20 U. S. C.

956 ( f ) .

The " humanities" has been defined as the philosophical or h i s t o r i c a l

study of matters " which have t r a d i t i o n a l l y been concerned with values,

thoughts and ideas." The " a r t s , " on the other hand, refers generally

to the " presentation, performance, execution and exhibition" of major

a r t forms such as music, dance, painting, sculpture, theater and

film. While there is some overlap between the two f i e l d s , the major

distinction is that the " humanities" r e l a t e s to theoretical study and

the " arts" relates to actual creation and performance.

The minimum amount granted to s t a t e s by NEH is $ 200,000. Thus, to receive

NEH funding a s t a t e would have to grant a t l e a s t $ 100,000 i n new funds

( o r , 50 percent of the NEH grant amount).

A s of October 26, 1981, none of the 50 s t a t e s had chosen t o meet the NEH

requirements f o r establishing a s t a t e agency to receive and disburse NEH

funds.

H i s t o r i c a l l y NO S t a t e

Funding f o r the Humanities

According t o the ACAH Executive Director, ACAH has never received any

funding f o r the humanities from any source, including the State. In

addition, ACAH has never been involved i n the humanities or related

a c t i v i t i e s .

Consequently, the references to the humanities and related a c t i v i t i e s are

confusing to the public and may lead one to believe t h a t ACAH is not

complying with its s t a t u t o r y mandate.

COMMISSION SIZE

A t the Commission's August 28 and 29, 1981 meeting, the Chairman reported

that the Governor is considering increasing the Commission membership to

20. The s t a t u t e s currently specify t h a t the Commission s h a l l consist of

15 members ( A. R. s. $ 41- 981, subsection A ) .

A survey conducted by the Office of the Auditor General to which 45 s t a t e s

responded revealed that 35 s t a t e a r t s commissions or councils consisted of

15 or fewer members. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e model s t a t e a r t s agency l e g i s l a t i o n

recommended by the National Assembly of S t a t e A r t s Agencies s e t the

optimal commission s i z e a t 15 members. The model l e g i s l a t i o n concluded

that a 15- member commission allows d i v e r s i t y of appointments and is not

too large f o r meaningful discussion a t meetings.

FINANCIAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

The NEA r e q u i r e s the ACAH t o maintain sound f i s c a l management i n

administering the Federal Basic S t a t e Operating Grant. Accordingly, the

NEA r e q u i r e s t h e ACAH t o provide an annual f i n a n c i a l report documenting

g r a n t s , expenditures and matching funds.

Currently, the Commission r e q u i r e s each subgrantee t o submit itemized

f i n a n c i a l r e p o r t s a t the completion of f ,;: ded p r o j e c t s . The Commission's

guidelines f o r such r e p o r t s s t a t e s i n p a r t t h a t :

" I f funding was given f o r 3 s p e c i f i c p r o j e c t , a

separate l i s t i n g should be made of the expenditure of

the grant and matching funds a p a r t from the t o t a l

f i n a n c i a l statement of your organization."

Our review of subgrantee f i n a n c i a l r e p o r t s revealed t h a t subgrantee

reporting is not always timely, c o n s i s t e n t , o r complete. A s a r e s u l t ,

ACAH program coordinators sometimes must telephone subgrantees t o e i t h e r

c l a r i f y information on t h e r e p o r t s o r obtain a d d i t i o n a l information.

However, ACAH does not require subgrantees t o submit revised r e p o r t s .

Consequently, the supporting documentation f o r ACAH's consolidated report

t o NEA may not be adequate t o s a t i s f y f e d e r a l requirements.

A s a means t o a s s e s s the p o t e n t i a l f o r Arizona losing f e d e r a l funding

because of ACAH's acceptance of incomplete f i n a n c i a l r e p o r t s from

subgrantees, a u d i t s t a f f contacted two o f f i c i a l s * a t NEA. Discussions

with these o f f i c i a l s revealed t h a t NEA does not have a formal policy

regarding grant reporting requirements f o r s t a t e agencies. iiowever, it

should be noted t h a t NEA's c u r r e n t lax reporting policy is s u b j e c t to

change i n which case ACAH's continued f a i l u r e t o properly document

subgrantee uses of funds could r e s u l t i n NEA e v e n t u a l l y d i s a l l o w i n g

unsupported grant expenditures f o r f e d e r a l funding purposes.

* The o f f i c i a l s were the Assistant Audit O f f i c e r and Auditor from the

NEA a u d i t o f f i c e .

0

The Ar~ zono Comm~ ss~ on

on the Arts & s esrobltshed os o srore

ogency in 1967 to sr~ mulareo nd

encouroqe publ~ cln reresr In the arts

December 21 , 1981

Mr. Douglas R. Norton

Auditor General

State Capi to1

Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Dear Mr. Norton:

The Arizona Commission on the Arts has had an opportunity to review the

draft report by your office for our Sunset Review. Both the Commission members

and the staff have looked forward to this audit and welcome the independent

b perspective that i t brings to us. We believe that your review provides a frame-work

for improvement in our operations.

We appreciate the significant amount of time, nearly 16 months, that was

taken by your staff in making this study and commend them both for their efforts

and their depth of understanding.

D Through our discussion with Mr. Silva and the audit team on December 16th,

we recognize that the approach of this report i s " management by exception,"

i. e., pointing out areas where improvements are needed, rather than applauding

achievements. We appreciate their frankness in discussing this and their as-surance

that the legislature understands this concept. Because of this, we

especially appreciate the audit team's invitation to attach to this reply a

short statement of some of the agency's accomplishments ( see Attachment A ) .

We have noted three specific areas in which recommendations have been made

in the report and believe that their adoption will improve the operations of

the agency. These include:

-- Address and correct the problem of absenteeism by Commissioners

a t Commission meetings.

As your staff knows, we had recognized this problem several

months ago and began steps to deal with i t . Since most of the

meetings in question took place outside of Phoenix, we have

reduced their number.

-- Make Bylaw and legislative changes.

A t our next regular meeting in January, we will discuss the

desireability of making both changes in by- laws and in legis-lation

to remove references to the " humanities." Again, as

your staff knows, we already had dropped this reference in all

our written and printed material and had agreed to seek an

amendment of the legislation at the appropriate time.

2024 North Seventh Street. Suite 201, Phoenix, Arizona 85006 ( 602) 255- 5882

-- L i m i t the size o f the Board

The model s t a t e a r t s agency l e g i s l a t i o n recommended by the Na-t

i o n a l Assembly o f State Arts Agencies set the optimal commission

size a t 15 members which allows f o r d i v e r s i t y o f appointments and

y e t i s not too l a r g e f o r meaningful discussion a t meetings. The

statutes c u r r e n t l y specify t h a t the Comnission s h a l l consist o f

15 members ( A. R. S. 41 - 981, subsection A). We agree with the

model l e g i s l a t i o n , as you noted.

Your r e p o r t recommends t h a t improvements are needed i n the Commission's grant

award process t o provide f o r adequate p u b l i c i n p u t from grantees, p o t e n t i a l grantees

and the general p u b l i c . The Commission has been addressing the broad issue o f pub-l

i c input during the l a s t two years i n several ways. Two steps have been taken t o

insure greater openness a t the annual grants meeting. A f u l l set o f f i n a l grant

recommendations i s now made a v a i l a b l e f o r public review during t h i s meeting. In

addition, the agency now announces the grants meeting through a statewide press

release. The Commission plans t o continue t o address the concern o f how t o equi-t

a b l y provide f o r meaningful p u b l i c input. Your suggestions w i l l be h e l p f u l " o

our d e l i b e r a t i o n s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , you make three recommendations which we agree

deserve prompt, and i n depth consideration, as follows:

1. The f i r s t recomnends t h a t the Commission adopt a peer- panel review

process i n making grant award decisions.

This suggestion comes a t a time when the s t a f f has been researching the

issue o f panel review o f grants. Both the peer- panel review process i n

general and a s p e c i f i c procedure f o r panel review o f grants t h a t meets

the needs o f t h i s s t a t e agency w i l l be presented f o r p o l i c y discussion

a t the next q u a r t e r l y meeting o f the Commission i n January 1982.

2. The second recommends t h a t the Commission's appeal process f o r nonfunded

grantees be revised t o i n c l u d e p r o v i s i o n s f o r granting funds i f a denied

applicant presents a compelling case o f funding.

H i s t o r i c a l l y , there normally have been some funds a v a i l a b l e f o r r e a l l o -

cation t o applicants throughout the f i s c a l year. These become available

due t o t h e c a n c e l l a t i o n of projects by grantees. Nevertheless, we rec-ognize

the d e s i r e a b i l i t y o f a c e r t a i n amount being available t o respond

t o the appeal process. This p o l i c y issue also i s being scheduled for i n

depth discussion a t the next q u a r t e r l y meeting o f the Commission i n Jan-uary.

3. The t h i r d recommendation i s t h a t greater d e t a i l be provided t o nonfunded

grantees, through a more s p e c i f i c l e t t e r o f n o t i f i c a t i o n .

As we pointed out t o your s t a f f , t h i s information c u r r e n t l y i s o r a l l y

communicated t o t h e a p p l i c a n t s . Again, the d e s i r e a b i l i t y and methods

by which t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n might b e t t e r be communicated i n w r i t i n g also

w i l l be discussed a t the Commission's next q u a r t e r l y meeting i n January.

D Finally, at your invitation, we call your attention to Attachment B. This

contains a summary of a few areas of possible factual misunderstanding of which

we believe you should be aware.

Once again, we wish to thank you for such constructive suggestions.

Sincerely,

' t /? 1

Chairman

ATTACHMENT A

The A r i z o n a Commission on t h e A r t s and H u m a n i t i e s i s a working

commission. Beyond t h e r e v i e w of g r a n t s and a t t e n d a n c e a t q u a r t e r l y

m e e t i n g s , t h e Commission members a c t i v e l y p a r t i c i p a t e i n committees

t o which t h e y a r e a p p o i n t e d s u c h as P e r s o n n e l , P l a n n i n g , F a c i l i t i e s

a n d A p p e a l s . They a l s o a t t e n d and e v a l u a t e a r t s e v e n t s . T h i s i n -

volvement i n t h e a r t s community p r e p a r e s t h e Commission members t o

f o r m u l a t e p o l i c i e s a f f e c t i n g and r e f l e c t i n g t h e g r o w t h a n d d e v e l o p -

ment i n t h e c u l t u r a l c l i m a t e o f A r i z o n a .

Beyond t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of g r a n t s , t h e Commission a l s o t a k e s

an a c t i v e r o l e i n t h e management of o p e r a t i o n a l p r o g r a m s a n d t e c h n i c a l

a s s i s t a n c e t o a r t i s t s and a r t s o r g a n i z a t i o n s . For example, t h e

A r i z o n a Commission on t h e A r t s and H u m a n i t i e s h a s p l a y e d a l e a d e r s h i p il

r o l e i n e n c o u r a g i n g a growing p a r t n e r s h i p between t h e c o r p o r a t e , p r i -

v a t e and p u b l i c s e c t o r s . A k e y e x a m p l e of t h i s r o l e was s e e n when

t h e s t a t e a r t s a g e n c y , i n c o o p e r a t i o n w i t h a c o n s o r t i u m of e i g h t

l a r g e r a r t s i n s t i t u t i o n s i n t h e s t a t e r e c e i v e d a $ 480,000 C h a l l e n g e

Grant from t h e NEA, t h e f i r s t s u c h c o n s o r t i u m g r a n t awarded t o a

s t a t e a r t s a g e n c y . S u c c e s s of t h e C h a l l e n g e Grant h a s f a r s u r p a s s e d

4

a n t i c i p a t i o n . The r e q u i r e d match of 3 t o 1 from new and i n c r e a s e d

s o u r c e s , b o t h c o r p o r a t e and p u b l i c , a c t u a l l y s t l m u l a t e d c o n t r i b u t i o n s

e q u a l t o a 6 t o 1 match.

A r e s e a r c h s t u d y , s t i m u l a t e d by t h e A r i z o n a Ccmmission on t h e

A r t s , r e s u l t e d i n The A r t s i n A r i z o n a : A Study of Economic Impact

4

which m e a s u r e d t h e e c o n o m i c i m p a c t o f t h e a r t s i n A r i z o n a and advanced

t h e l e v e l of knowledge a b o u t t h e p o p u l a t i o n ' s a t t i t u d e s , p e r c e p t i o n s

and o p i n i o n s c o n c e r n i n g t h e a r t s and a r t s a t t e n d a n c e .

The o p e r a t i o n a l programs c o o r d i n a t e d f o r FY 1981- 82 t h r o u g h t h e

agency i n c l u d e :

4

1. A r t i n A r i z o n a Towns: 1 8 communities i n r u r a l a r e a s of

t h e s t a t e program, f u n d r a i s e and promote a s e r i e s of

p e r f o r m i n g a r t s e v e n t s .

2. T r a v e l i n g E x h i b i t i o n s : 22 v i s u a l a r t s e x h i b i t i o n s a r e

booked i n 100 s i t e s t h r o u g h o u t t h e s t a t e and r e g i o n i n

l i b r a r i e s and museums o u t s i d e of major m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a s .

3 . A r t i s t s i n E d u c a t i o n : 40 a r t i s t s c o n d u c t programs i n 182

s c h o o l s s t a t e w i d e .

4. B i - C u l t u r a l Program: a new program which f a c i l i t a t e s

e x c h a n g e s of a r t s programming between A r i z o n a and Mexico.

Attachment A - page 2

5. A r t i n P u b l i c P l a c e s : p r o v i d e s t e c h n i c a l a s s i s t a n c e f o r

a r t i s t s e l e c t i o n , s i t e s e l e c t i o n and l o c a l f u n d r a i s i n g f o r

c i t i e s and towns t o commission a r t w o r k s f o r p l a c e s of p u b l i c

a c c e s s .

6. F e l l o w s h i p Program: r e c o g n i z e s e x c e l l e n c e i n t h e a r t s i n

t h e a r e a s of c r e a t i v e w r i t i n g , v i s u a l a r t s and c h o r e o g r a p h y .

7 . T i c k e t D i s c o u n t : p r o j e c t i n t e n d e d t o b r i n g h a n d i c a p p e d

p e r s o n s , e l d e r l y c i t i z e n s and y o u t h t o t h e a t r e , music and

d a n c e p e r f o r m a n c e s .

8. A r t s S e r v i c e s : r e s p o n d s t o d i v e r s e r e q u e s t s f o r i n f o r m a t i o n

t e c h n i c a l a s s i s t a n c e .

The s t a f f e s t i m a t e s t h a t t h e y w i l l a s s i s t w i t h 3,000 r e q u e s t s

f o r t e c h n i c a l a s s i s t a n c e i n FY 1981- 82. T h i s a s s i s t a n c e i n v o l v e s

p r e s e n t a t i o n s a t w o r k s h o p s a n d c o n f e r e n c e s , a t t e n d a n c e a t b o a r d

m e e t i n g s t o d i s c u s s f u n d r a i s i n g , m a r k e t i n g , p l a n n i n g a n d programming

s t r a t e g i e s . A s w e l l , t h e y s e r v e i n a c a t a l y t i c and r e s o u r c e c a p a c i t y

f o r exchange o f i n f o r m a t i o n s t a t e w i d e . A s s i s t a n c e i s p r o v i d e d

s p e c i f i c a l l y t o i n d i v i d u a l a r t i s t s i n t h e a r e a s of c o p y r i g h t , t a x ,

h e a l t h h a z a r d s and employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s .

T e c h n i c a l a s s i s t a n c e i s r e g u l a r l y and c o n s i s t e n t l y p r o v i d e d t o

g r a n t e e s beyond t h e g r a n t award p r o c e s s t o i n s u r e t h a t p r o j e c t s

a c h i e v e t h e g r e a t e s t i m p a c t a n d s u c c e s s p o s s i b l e .

ATTACHMENT B

Pages 11 and 25 of t h e S u n s e t Review s t a t e t h a t n o t i f i c a t i o n

t o g r a n t e e s h a s been u n t i m e l y . Formal n o t i f i c a t i o n i s s e n t t o

g r a n t e e s w i t h i n two weeks of t h e g r a n t s m e e t i n g . T h i s is c o n s i s t e n t

w i t h t i m e t a k e n by a d j o i n i n g w e s t e r n s t a t e s e x c e p t f o r t h o s e w i t h

f u l l y c o m p u t e r i z e d p r o c e d u r e s . It a l s o r e p r e s e n t s a s h o r t e r p e r i o d

t h a n t a k e n i n p r e v i o u s y e a r s i n s p i t e o f more a p p l i c a t i o n s b e i n g pro-c

e s s e d . Judged by t h e s e s t a n d a r d s , t h e n o t i f i c a t i o n p e r i o d i s b o t h 4

t i m e l y and e f f i c i e n t . *

Page 14 of t h e S u n s e t Review l i s t s a s t a t i s t i c a l r e v i e w of i n -

c r e a s e s of s t a t e a p p r o p r i a t i o n s t o t h e a r t s . A more a c c u r a t e s t a t i s -

t i c p r e s e n t e d i n a s t u d y compiled by t h e N a t i o n a l Assembly of S t a t e

A r t s Agencies r e p o r t s t h a t 80% of t h e s t a t e s r e c e i v e d an i n c r e a s e

i n t h e i r a p p r o p r i a t i o n i n FY 1982. A s w e l l , t h e Commission's 1981- 82

a p p r o p r i a t i o n r e f l e c t e d a 70% i n c r e a s e , n o t an 80% i n c r e a s e a s s t a t e d

i n t h e d r a f t r e p o r t . '

Page 1 5 , p a r a g r a p h 2 and Page 23: I n b o t h c a s e s , t h e S u n s e t

R e p o r t s t a t e s t h a t t h e N a t i o n a l Endowment f o r t h e A r t s " r e q u i r e s "

t h a t t h e d e s i g n a t e d s t a t e a r t s agency p r o v i d e f o r an o p e n a n d p u b l i c

g r a n t s award p r o c e s s . T h i s i s one of t e n a c t u a l c r i t e r i a i n t h e

g u i d e l i n e s . I n d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h t h e D i r e c t o r of t h e NEA S t a t e Pro-grams

o f f i c e , he v e r i f i e d t h a t t h e Endowment g u i d e l i n e s s p e c i f i c a l l y

s a y t h a t each s t a t e " must show e v i d e n c e of s u b s t a n t i a l e f f o r t s " t o

meet t h e s e g u i d e l i n e s . T h i s is a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e from

I t r e q u i r e s . " The c a r e f u l l a n g u a g e of t h e NEA g u i d e l i n e s i n t e n t i o n -

a l l y does n o t u s e t h e word " r e q u i r e s 1 ' b e c a u s e t h e f e d e r a l agency

wants t o i n s u r e each s t a t e ' s i n d i v i d u a l i t y i n d e t e r m i n i n g how t o

a c c o m p l i s h t h e c r i t e r i a .

On page 36, t h e r e p o r t s a y s t h a t t h e " ACAH i s i n noncompliance

w i t h NEA r e p o r t i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s and c o n t i n u e d f a i l u r e t o p r o p e r l y

document s u b g r a n t e e s u s e of f u n d s c o u l d j e o p a r d i z e f u t u r e f e d e r a l

f u n d i n g . " *

The D i r e c t o r of S t a t e Programs a t t h e NEA r e p o r t s t h a t t h e ACAH

is i n good s t a n d i n g w i t h f i n a l r e p o r t s on NEA g r a n t s . The S u n s e t

Review a u d i t s t a f f spoke w i t h o f f i c i a l s i n t h e NEA Audit O f f i c e o n l y .

The NEA Audit O f f i c e does n o t f o r m u l a t e p o l i c y f o r t h e Endowment.

Thus, t h e A u d i t O f f i c e ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n on t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between

t h e Commission's r e p o r t i n g p r a c t i c e s and t h e p o t e n t i a l impact on

f u t u r e f e d e r a l f u n d i n g i s n o t a sound b a s i s on which t o s p e c u l a t e

on t h e l o s s of f e d e r a l f u n d i n g . The S t a t e Programs P a n e l a p p e a r s

t o be h e a d i n g toward some " c o n d i t i o n s " f o r r e c e i p t of a c t u a l f u n d s

awarded t o s t a t e a r t s a g e n c i e s i n t h e i r B a s i c S t a t e O p e r a t i n g G r a n t s

i n r e l a t i o n t o r e p o r t i n g . However, i t would b e m i s l e a d i n g t o con-s

i d e r t h i s a s j e o p a r d i z i n g f u t u r e f e d e r a l f u n d i n g .

* AU' 3ITCRS : TOTE: The report d r a f t was amended accordincly.

42

APPENDIX I

AMOUNT REQUESTED AND AMOUNT FUNDED TO

ARTS ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS BY THE

COMMISSION ON THE ARTS AND HUMANITIES FOR

FISCAL YEARS 1980- 81 AND 1981- 82

SUMMARY

The Arizona Commission on the A r t s and Humanities granted t o a r t s

organizations and i n d i v i d u a l s $ 212,855 i n f i s c a l year 1980- 81 and $ 257,;;~

i n f i s c a l year 1981- 82. These granted amounts represent 27.4 percent and

39.3 percent of the t o t a l amounts requested, and 41.3 percent and 53.9

percent of tne amounts requested by t h o s e o r g a n i z a t i o n s and i n d i v i d u a l s

t h a t received g r a n t s i n f i s c a l years 1980- 81 and 1981- 82 r e s p e c t i v e l y .

Page 1- 2 summarizes the above grant information and pages 1- 3 through 1- 18

d e t a i l by requesting a r t organization and i n d i v i d u a l s , grant arno?: n$ s

requested and awarded during f i s c a l years 1980- 81 and 1981- 82.

Sli;.! I,:.\ EY OF AMOUNTS REQUESTED AXD P. IiOUNTS FIJNDED TO ARTS ORCAliIZATIONS

h:! O IilDIVlDUALS BY THE CO? EIMISSION 014 THE ARTS AND HUI', ANTTIES

FOR FISCAL YEARS 1380- 81 AN11 1381- 02

Percentag" e of ACAH Fundin- g

T o t a l A ~ o u n t sR equested To Requested Amount - A. verzge Amount Per Grant For

E n t i t i e s A l l E n t i t i e s E n t i t i e s

F u n d i r ! ~ T o t a l K~ i: nl. er of Grant f e q ~ e s t s A l l Requesting Recciving T o t a l Funds Requesting Receiving

Y r iteceived Furded - E n t- i t i e s Funding Granted E n t i t i e s Funding

Receiving

Funding

AVOUNT REQUESTED APJD AMOUNT FUNDED TO

ARTS ORGANIZATIONS AND IIiDIVIDUALS BY THE

COI4MISSION ON TIIE ARTS Ah9 HIJMANITIES FOR

FISCAL YEARS 1980- 81 Ah9 1981- 82

FU1DED REQUESTS 1980- 81

Amount

Requested

Unfunded

ACAF! Requestinp Requested Amount

Pro. p, ram Organization Rnioun t Funded

ART I N PUBLIC PLACES 1. City of Casa Grande

B

8 1,500 $ 1,000

2. Copper Community

Rural Action Council 13,716 500

3. City of Glendale 2,000 1,000

4. Mesa Enrichment Gemmitee 2,000 1,000

5. City of ! dillcox 1,000 1,000

ACAH Program Sub- Total $ 20,216 $ 4,500

6. Az. Commission on the

Arts ( Arizona A r t i s t s ) $ 500 $ 500

7. Az. Co~ mission on the

Arts ( Consultant Services) 2,500 1,900

8. Az. Commission on t h e

Arts ( Travel Assistance) 2,000 1,400

9. Ariztlan 26,451 1,900

ARTS SERVICES

ACAH Program Sub- Total $ 31,451 $ 5,700

b BASIC AID 10. Arizona Opera Company $ 18,000 $ 8,275

11. Arizona Theatre Company 20,000 12,350

12. Phoenix Art Museum 10,000 6,850

13. Phoenix Symphony Assoc. 17,210 4,000

14. Tucson Museum of Art 10,000 6,850

15. Tucson Symphony Orchestra 10,000 4,000

ACAH Program Sub- Total $ 85,210 $ 42,325

CO!. IMUNITY

DEVELOPRENT Az. Commission on the

Arts ( Dance Touring Prg.)

Beacon Foundation

Bisbee Council on the Arts

and Humanities

Ticket Discount:

Calvary R e h a b i l i t a t i o n

Lyric Opera Theatre

Tucson Assoc. f o r Blind

Cave Creek C r a f t s Council

C e n t r a l Arizona College

( Performing A r t i s t s )

Eastern Arizona College

Friends of Music Corn.

College of Ganado

G i l b e r t Fine Arts Soc.

Green Valley Friends of

t h e Arts

FUPJTlElI REQUESTS 1900- 81

4

Amount

Requested

Unfunded

ACAH Requesting

P ropram Organization

COI. 1MUNITY

DEVELOPMENT ( Concl. ) 27. Mesa College ( Mesa

Civic B a l l e t )

28. Mesa College

( Mesa Symphony Orch.)

29. Mesa Fine Arts Assoc.

30. North Phoenix Corporate

Ministry

31. City of S i e r r a Vista

32. Yavapai Symphony Assoc.

Requested

Amount

Amount

Funded

ACAH Program Sub- Total

33. Living Dance Company

( A r t i s t in Residence)

3 Living Dance Company

( Guest Choreographer)

35. Mesa Civic S a l l e t

( Resident Artist Exch.)

36. Territory Dance Theater

37. Tucson Dance Gallery

38. Yuma Dance Company

( Guest A r t i s t )

39. Yuma Dance Company

( Guest S o l o i s t s )

DANCE

ACAH Program Sub- Total

EDUCATION Alhambra Elementary

D i s t r i c t # 68

Arizona S t a t e School For

The Deaf and Blind

Holinger Elementary

School

Manzo Elementary Sch.

Kino Learning Center

Saguaro High School

Santa Rita High School

Kyrene School D i s t r i c t

Mesa Unified School

D i s t r i c t C4

Phoenix Symphony Assoc.

Rural School PTO

Santa Cruz County

Young Audiences ( Theatre

of the P e r f . Arts)

Santa Cruz County

Young Audiences ( In-

School Programs)

Tucson Symphony Orch.

ACAB Program Sub- Total

FUI, IDED REQUESTS 1980- 81

Anount

Requested

Unfunded

ACAIl Requesting Requested

P r o ~ r a ~ Organization A~ outn

Amount

Funded

B EXP AXSION ARTS 51. B a l l e t Folklorico $

G uadalupano 3,500

B a l l e t Folklorico

P rimavera 2,815

Chicanos Por La Causa

( Mex. Folk Dance Summer

liTorksho?] 2,20CI

Eneke Experimental Arts 2,000

El Quinto Sol De

Arizona, Inc. 3,605

Friendly House

( Guest Set Designer) 1,000

Friendly House

Wex. Performing Arts) 2,000

Grupo Folklorico De

Pima College 1,863

H. Junta P a t r i o t i c a 700

MechA, U of A 1,140

> lovimiento A r t i s t i c o

D e l Rio Salado ( MARS) 3,300

Museo Indi~ ema- Bwiya Toli 48,000

Quechan Indian Tribe 3,000

Rural Arts Program 1,000

Tolleson P u b l i c L i b r a r y 500

Tucson Commission of the

Arts and Culture 800

Wesley United i4ethodist

Church 1,500

Xicanindio Artists

C o a l i t i o n 3,000

ACAII Program Sub- Total $ 81,923

69. Arizona Commission on the

Arts

( Composer's Fellowship) $ 6,100

70. Arizona Comnission on the

Arts ( Visual Artists

Fellowship) 6,000

71. Arizona Commission on the

Arts ( k i r i t e r s

Fellotrship) 6,000

ACAH Program Sub- Total

FUfJDED REQUESTS 1980- 8 1

4

Amount

Requested

Unfunded

ACAII Requestinq Requested

? royrnm Oreanization Amount

Amount

Funded

LITERATURE 72. Blue Moon P r e s s 300

73. Central Arizona College 3,000

74. Cochise Fine Arts, Inc. 1,200

75. Friends of the Tucson

Library 1,000

76. La Palabra 1,800

77. Pima Community College 1,000

78. Porch P u b l i c a t i o n s 500

ACAH Program Sub- Total

f. 1E3IA ARTS 79. Southwestern Film

Consortiurn 3,500

ACAFI Program Cub- Total $ 3,501:

Arizona Conmission on the

Arts ( Special Consti-tuencies

Arizona Commission on the

Arts ( Ticket Discount)

C u l t u r a l Exchange Council

Douglas A r t Association

F l a g s t a f f F e s t i v a l o f t h e

Arts

G i l a Pueblo College

? Iuseum of Morthern llz.

Phoenix Arts Coming

TOTS t h e r

Raza Graduate Student

Caucus

S c o t t s d a l e Center f o r the

Arts

Tucson Jazz Society

Vestern S t a t e s Arts Fd.

MUSIC 92. Arizona Opera Coinnany 20,000

93. F l a , ~ s t a f fS ymphony Assoc. 3,000

94. Jazz i n Arizona, Inc. 2,000

95. O r c h e s t a i , Inc. 5,000

36. Theater of the Perforn-ing

Arts ( Guest A r t i s t ) 2,180

97. Theater of the Perform-ing

Arts ( A r t i s t i c Director

i n Residence) 4,000

FUNDED REQUESTS 1980- 8 1

Amount

Requested

Unf~ r.< ed

Requesting Requested

Organization A~ ount

Amount

Funded

98. Tucson F e s t i v a l Society $ 4,490 9 290

99. Tucson Friends of Tradi-t

i o n a l ?? usic 4,200

100. Tucson Pops Orchestra 4,143

llUSIC ( Concluded)

B

ACAM Program Sub- Total

THSATER Az. Conmission on the

Arts ( N a t i o n a l T h e a t r e

of the Deaf Residencies)

Arizona The? t r e Conpzny

( Encompass Guest A r t i s t )

Arizona Theatre Company

( Phoenix Residency)

Black Theatre Troupe

( Audience Development)

Teatro Libertad

Childsplay, Inc.

I n v i s i b l e Theatre

New Kiva Notions, Inc.

( Puppetry Workshop I)

Ododo Theatre Foundation

Phoenix L i t t l e Theatre

( C h i l d r e n ' s Theatre)

Phoenix L i t t l e Theatre

( P r o f e s s i o n a l D i r e c t o r )

ACAH Program Sub- Total

Arizona Designer Craftsmen

Arizona Western College

Arizona Women's Caucus

For Art and \ loman Inage

FJow

Center f o r Creative

Photography

C e n t r a l Arizona College

Cochise Fine Arts, Inc.

( Exhib. Documentation)

Dinnerware Artists Coop.

( Rent Assistance)

Dou, qales Art Assoc .

The Heard Museum

14useum of Northern Az.

VISUAL ARTS

FUNDET) REQUESTS 1980- 81

iZC. 411 Requesting Requested

P ropram Organization Arount

VISUAL ASTS ( Concl) 122.

123.

124.

125.

126.

127.

Northern Arizona Univ.

N o r t h l i g h t G a l l e r y

P a t r o n s of t h e Arts

Sedona Arts Center

P r e s c o t t Fine Arts

Tucson V i s i t i n g Artist

Consortiun

University A r t C o l l e c t i o n

ASU

Yuma Fine Arts Assoc.

Yuma P r o j e c t ! t,' orks'nop

ACAH Program Sub- Total $ 33,432

ACAH Funded Grants Totals

f o r 13150- 51

Amount

Funded

Amount

Requested

Unfunded

Amount

Requesting Requested Amount Requested

P ropran O r ~ a n i z a t i o n Arcount Funded Unfunded

AD!. IIMISTRATION/ ARTISTIC

ASSISTANCE 1. Arts Council

2. Childsplay 3,600 1,000 2,600

3. Cochise Fine Arts Assoc. 5,000 4,500 500

4. S c o t t s d a l e Symphony Orch. 10, OCiO 2,000 8,000

5. Southwestern Film

Consortium 6,250 4,500 1,750

6. Verde Valley A r t Assoc. 5 , 000 3,500 ' ,500

ACAF! Program Sub- Total $ 38,050 $ 16,500 $ 21,550

7. ACAE: Az. Forecast P a r t I1 $ 2,500 $ 2,000 $ 500

8. ACAH: Consultant Services 2,000 1,900 100

9. ACAH: > l u s e u ~ E nvironment

Testing K i t 750 750 - 0-

10. ACAH: T r a v e l A s s i s t a n c e 2,100 2,000 100

11. Kestern S t a t e s Arts

Foundation 11,500 10,000 1,500

ARTS SE9VICES

ACAH Program Sub- Total $ 18,850 $ 16,650 S 2,200

12. Arizona Opera Company $ 12,000 $ 7,000 8 5,000

13. Arizona Theatre Corny 3ny 15,000 10,000 5,000

14. P hoenix A r t Museun 25,000 10,000 15,000

15. Phoenix Symphony P. ssoc . 20, GOO 14,000 6,000

16. Tucson Museum of A r t 12,000 7,000 5,000

17. Tucson Symphony Orchestra 7,000 7,000 - 0-

BASIC AID

ACAH Program Sub- Total $ 91,000 $ 55,000 $ 36,000

ACAH: Dance Touring Prgm.

ACAH: J e f f r e y S i c e e l Tour

ACAH: S p e c i a l Consti-tuencies

Az. Mini Concert Committee

Bach and Madrigal Society

Beacon Foundation

Cave Creek Craft Council

C e n t r a l Arizona Colleqe

DRS: Div. of Developmental

D i s a b i l i t i e s ( Dance)

DES: Div, of Develonmental

D i s a b i l i t i e s ( Drana)

Eastern Arizona Colleqe

G i l b e r t Fine Arts Assoc.

Mesa Community College

? Jirrht People

' lesa Parks and Recreation

* Grantee c e c l i n e d 51,000 of t o t a l $ 2,500 du- e t o -, scheduling c o n f l i c t s . i- ,

FUr\ lDEl REQUESTS 1981- 82

Amount

Requested

Unfunded

ACAII Requestinl:

P r o ~ r a m Organization

Requested

Ar~ ount

Amount

Funded

O r c h e s t a i , Inc.

Oro Valley Comnission

on the Arts

Patagonia Conmunity Arts

Association

Phoenix Parks Recreation

and Library

Sedona Arts Center

S c o t t s d a l e Center f o r

the Arts

S i e r r a Vista, City of

Yavapai Sycphony Assoc.

ACAH Procrax Sub- Total

ASU Dance Department

Artes B e l l a s , Inc.

Desert Dance Theatre

Laura Xoya I n s t i t u t e f o r

Sispanic Dance

Xesa Civic B a l l e t Co.

Mesa Civic B a l l e t Co.

T e r r i t o r y Dance Theatre

Yuma B a l l e t Theatre

Yuma Dance Company

Yuma Dance Company

Yuma Dance Company

ACAII Proqram Sub- Total

EDUCATION A r t Education Assoc.

Arizona S t a t e Hospital

I n v i s i b l e Theatre

Kino Learning Center

Sahuaro High School

S a i n t Gregory Hiqh Scho.

Pesa Unified School

D i s t r i c t 84

Santa Cruz County

Young Audiences

Tucson Symphony

Tucson Unified School

D i s t r i c t ~ ! 4

ACAH P r o p a n Sub- Total

ACAH Requestin;: Requested

Procram Organization Amount

D EXPA?: SIO11 ARTS 59.

60.

61.

Alma de la Gente 3 1,200

Ariztlan 3,200

ACAH: Bi- Culture Arts

P rocram 5,000

B a l l e t Foll< lorico

Guadalupano 3,500

B a l l e t Folklorico

P rimavera 2,145

Chicanos Por La Causa 4,000

The Heard Museum 815

Honorable Junta P a t r i o t i c a 830

Movimiento A r t i s t i c 0

Del Rio Salado 4,400

Teatro Libertad 2, COO

Tolleson Public Library 600

Toyei I n d u s t r i e s , Inc. 4,200

Tucson Conmission on the

Arts and Culture 4,000

Xicanindio Artists

C o a l i t i o n 3,020

FOLK ARTS

Amount

Funded

ACAI! Prograin Sub- Total $ 38,910 $ 20,995

73. ACAH: Fellowship f o r

Artists $ 12,500 8 12,000

ACAH Progran Sub- Total $ 12,500 $ 12,000

74. Beth- El Congregation $ 1,000 $

75. Coconino County Center

f o r the Arts 2,000

76, C u l t u r a l Exchanze Council 2,000

77. The Heard Museum 3,500

78. Phoenix Arts Corning

Together 6,000

79. Rio Salado Community Col. 4,000

80. Tempe H i s t o r i c a l Society 3,114

81, Tucson Friends of

T r a d i t i o n a l Yusic 2,435 -

ACAH Prograa Sub- Total S 24, Orig $ 9,750

Amount

Requested

Unfunded

% rantee declined < rant; funds received from other sources.

Anount

Requested

Unfunded

ACAH iieques tin,?

P ro,~ ram O r ~ a n i z aito n

Requested Amount

Amount Funded

LITERATURE 82. Blue Yoon P r e s s

53. C e n t r a l Arizona College

84. G i l b e r t Fine Arts Society

85. La Palabra

86. Pima Conmunity College

87. Porch P u b l i c a t i o n s

88. Yavapai College

ACAH Program Sub- Total

Arizona Opera Company

F l a g s t a f f F e s t i v a l

F l a g s t a f f Symphony Orch.

Friends of Tucson

Public Library

Lyric Opera Theatre

Mesa Fine Arts Assoc.

O r c h e s t a i , Inc.

Philharmonia Orchestra

of Tucson

Theater of the Performing

Arts

Tucson Pops Orchestra

Yuma Chaaber Orchestra

ACAH Program Sub- Total

THEATER 100. Black Theatre Troupe

101. C h i l d s p l a y , I n c .

102. Friends of Az. Theatre Co.

103. I n v i s i b l e Theatre

104. I n v i s i b l e Theatre

104a I n v i s i b l e Theatre

105. Phoenix L i t t l e Theatre

ACAH Program Sub- Total

TICKET DISCOUST 106. ACAIi

107. Arizona S t a t e Hospital

108. Calvary Rehab. Center

109. DES: Div of Developmental

D i s a b i l i t i e s

1 10. : vfetro Independent Living

Center

11 1. Senior N0I. J Pro~ ra: r, s

112. Tempe High Sch. Spec. Ed.

113. Tucson Assoc. f o r Blind

ACAI1 Pro. ryam Sub- Total

FUMED REQUESTS 1981- 82

ACAH Requesting Requested

P rorrram Organization Amount

b VISUAL ARTS 114. Amercan I n s t i t u t e o f

A r c h i t e c t s $

ACAH: A r t i n P u b i i c P l a c e s

Arizona Design Craftsmen

Az. Watercolor Assoc.

Arizona Western College

C t r . f o r Creative Photo.

C e n t r a l Az. College

Dinnerware Artists Coop.

Douglas A r t Assoc.

F l a g s t a f f A r t C t r .

Havasu A r t Guild

The Heard Museum

Northern Az. Univorsiky

A r t G a l l e r y

N o r t h l i g h t G a l l e r y

P i n a l County A r t G a l l e r y

P r e s c o t t Fine Arts Assoc.

S c o t t s d a l e Arts Center

C i t y o f Tolleson

Tucson Museum of A r t

Tucson V i s i t i n g Arts

Consortium

Mickenburg A r t Clcb

1Jocankraf t

Yuma Fine Arts Assoc. -

ACAH Prograa Total $ 45,674

ACAK Funded 1981- 82 T o t a l s

Amount

Funded

Amount

Requested

Unfunded

AMOUNT REQUESTED A?! D AKqOU: JT FUIDEI) TO

ARTS O2G ANIZATIO? IS Af. 9 INDIVIDUALS E3Y THE

C@ I'!~ IISSION ON TEE ARTS AYD IIU14AIIITIES FOR

FISCAL YEARS 1980- 81 AlD 1981- 82

Amount

ACAH Requesting Requested

P ronram Orqanization CTnfunded

ART I11 PIJ9LIC PLACES 1. House of : Teighborl; r Services $ 2,500

2. Tucson Co~ mission on the Arts and

Culture 5,000

A2TS SERVICES

E11SIC AID

COI.? IU1IITY CEVZLC) Pb! Et: T

3. Arts Educ-. tion C o l l a b o r a t i v e $ 2,000

4. Arts For A i l , Inc. 5,3co

5. F l a g s t a f f Symphony Assoc. 1,000

ACAH Program Sub- Total

5. Chicanos Por La C a u s ~ S 23,710

ACAS Prograa Sub- Total

7. Central Arizona College

( I( usica1 P r o a ~ c t i o n ) S 1,500

5. Kingman Centennial Commission 1P,, 600

9. Vesa Collene ( I n v i s i b l e Theatre) 525

10. ? ' i l l Ave. Merchants Association 3,000

11. City of Phoenix Farkr and Recreation 2,000

12. P r e s c o t t Area Arts and Eumanities 2,000

13. Santa Cruz County Child Care Center

Inc. 560

114. Unn : Joche Platearla 2,500

ACflEi Program Sub- Total

15. Arizona B a l l e t Theatre 1,290

15. Laura : 4ojra I n s t i t u e f o r iiispnnic Dance 1,000

i7. Livinq Dance Company ( Concerts i n ? ks) 4,250

18. Mesa Civic S a l l e t

( 1) ance and the Deaf Child) 705

19. P e r i h e l i o n 9ance Lo. 7bO

20. Tucson Metropolitan P a l l e t Foundation 10,000

1 . Tucson l-' ovini? Cent r e 1, IbO

32. C? licanos Por La Causa

23. Yusic Scholarshins of Arizona

24. Roosevelt School D i s t r i c t ;: 66

25. San i~ lanuelf i i ~ hS chool

26. Tucson TuSlic Library

,", CAY Proprax Sub- Total S 5,680

Amount

Requested

Unfunded

ACAIi Requestin, q

P ro:? rna Orqanizat ion

27. Chicanos Por La Causa ( Chicano

Theatre Sokshop)

28. Chicanos ? or La Causa ( Mex. A r t

b! orkshop ' 8 1 )

29. Chicanos Por La Causa

( Mex. Yusic Summer ? iorkshop)

39. Varicopa Comrnunity Collese C i s t r i c t

31. Raza Gradunte Student Caucus

32. Tucson C l a s s i c a l G u i t a r Society

ACAH Program Sub- Total

b LITERATUBE 33. P e a r l

34. Oreja P r e s s

35. Una Noche Plateada

hCAIi Program Sub- Total

rn >: EDIA ARTS 36. Southwest Althernate Nedia P r o j e c t

ACAH Program Sub- Total

MULTI- DISCIPLINARY

D

Arizona Aikikai

Arts Council

Arizona S t a t e University

Chicanos ? or La Causa

O r c h e s t a i , Inc.

Simon P e t e r Productions

Tucson Commission of t h e Arts

And Culture

T u c s ~ n F e s t i v a l Society

I: Tomenwol~ en Productions

ACAH Program Sub- Total

MUSIC American Vocal Arts Trio

Arizona Mini- Concerts Corn.

Rach and Madrical Society

Lyric Opera Theatre

Philharmonia Orchestra of Tucson

6out! 1i3rn brizoca Symphony

Orchestra

Tucson Az. Boys Chorus

Yuna Chaxber Orchestra

ACAH P rograrn Sub- Tota 1

P. rnoun t

AC AH Requesting Requested

P r o ; . r n ~ Orcan i z a t ion [ Jnfunded

THEATRE

VISUAL ARTS

54. Desert Sage Playhouse ( Bring Me There) $ 5,300

55. Desert Sage Playhouse ( Trainin,? Film) 2,200

( I

56. New Kiva Motions, Inc.

( People Puppetry 11) 4,435

ACAH Program Sub- Total

Arizona Women' s Commission

Bisbee Council of the Arts and Human.

Cochise Fine Arts, Inc.

( Salary Support)

Dinnerware Artists Cooperative

( Cochise Fine Arts Exchan~ e)

Phoenix A r t ?! useurn

P ima count;^ S h e r i f f ' s 2epsrt~ ent

Tucson Museua of A r t

University of Arizona

Verde Valley Art Assoc.

( Salary Assistance)

Verde Valley A r t Assoc.

( 6 th F4ernorabilia Show)

T', . cr~ nxr% f5, In c.

ACAH Program Sub- Total

ACAU Pionfunded 1980- 81 Total

Amount

Requested

Unfunded

ACAH request in^

P royram O r ~ a n i z a t i o n

# ADFINISTRATIVE

ARTISTIC ASSISTAriCE 1. Theater of the Performing Arts

2. Tucson Commission of the Arts and

Culture

3. Tucson Symphony

D

ARTS SE3VICES

ACAH Program Sub- Total

4. Az. Dance Arts Alliance

5. Arts Council

6. FJort, hern Arizona University

D

BASIC AID

COI,? f%!! ITY DEVELOPMENT

ACAH Program Sub- Total

7. T e r r i t o r y Dance Theater

8. A ~ e r i c a n Association of Univ.

!* Jor?. en

9. Az. Wini- Concert Committee

10. Cosanti Foundation

11. Green Valley Recreation, Inc.

12. Santa Cruz County Young Audiences

13. Fountain EIills Civic Assoc.

m

DANCE

ACAH Program Sub- Total

14. Nesa Civic B a l l e t Co.

15. T e r r i t o r y Dance Theater

16. T e r r i t o r y Dance Theater

17. Tucson Metro B a l l e t Foundation

18. Yuma Dance Company

19. Yuma Dance Company

ACAH Program Sub- Total

EDUCATION 20. Borton Elementary

Prickson Elementary School

FIudlon Elementary School

Narshall Elementary School

21. Mental h e a l t h Association of

IJaricopa County

22. Phoenix Symphony Association

23. S c o t t s d a l e Foundation f o r the

Ilandicapped

24. Valley o f t h e Sun School

ACAK Program Sub- Total

YIO? iFU:~ D REQUESTS 198 1- 82 4

ACAH Requesting

P r o ~ ~ r a m Orcanizntion

i" irr, ount

Requested

Unfunded

EXPANSION ARTS 25. Fovimiento A r t i s t i c o Del Rio Salado

26. Metropolitan Youth Centers

ACAH Progran Sub- Total

LITERATURE

MEBIA ARTS

27. De Colores, I n c .

23. KUAT- TV

29. Southwestern Film Consortium

ACAH Program Sub- Total

30. Academy of Performing Arts

31. Lyric Opera Theatre

32. Orchestai, Inc.

ACAH Program Sub- Total

33. Arizona Theatre Company

34. New !< iva Motion, Inc.

35. Valley Shakespeare Theatre

THEATER

ACAH P r o ~ r a mS ub- Total

TICKET DISCOUNT

VISUAL ARTS

36. Lyric Opera Theatre

37. Maricopa County General I- Iospital

33. Master Apprentice Program

39. Tucson !;' omen's Commission

40. Verde Valley A r t Association

ACAH Program Sub- Total

fjCAIi Yonfunded 198 1- 82 Total

ARIZONA ADVISORY COUNCILS, COPlMITTEES

AND BOARDS SURVEYED

ARIZONA HUMANITIES COUNCIL

STATE OF ARIZONA:

Advisory Council on Aging

Developmental D i s a b i l i t i e s Planning and Advocacy Council

Economic Security Advisory Council

CITY OF PHOENIX

A r t Committee

Housing Commission

Human Relations Board

Insurance Committee

J u d i c i a l S e l e c t i o n Board

Library Advisory Board

Municipal Aeronautics Board

Public Housing Board

S i s t e r C i t i e s Board

S t r e e t s Advisory Board

Youth Commission