NEA Funds Don’t Reach Minorities : Arts: Analysis by UC Irvine sociology professor Samuel Gilmore shows that the distribution of money is ‘significantly’ inequitable.

Cultural diversity in the arts--or the lack of it--has been debated ad infinitum. Now a UC Irvine professor says he’s documented what many artists and others say they’ve long suspected: Minorities aren’t getting their fair share of federal arts funding.

“The data clearly show that less money is given to support minority arts activity than could be considered equitable,” says sociology professor Samuel Gilmore.

Gilmore, who specializes in arts communities, analyzed National Endowment for the Arts data mostly from fiscal years 1987 through 1990, and population figures from the U.S. Census Bureau.

According to his most recent figures, NEA grant funding to minorities was equal to or greater than total minority populations in only six of the 50 states. California was not among them. Minorities made up 43% of California’s population but NEA funding reached only 22%, Gilmore said.

Nationally, he found that while minorities represented 28.7% of the population, only 22% of minorities received NEA funds.

Gilmore stressed that “the distribution of (grants) to minorities has increased at the NEA in the four-year period examined,” in keeping with its stated goal of increasing minority arts support. But overall, the figures show a “significantly” inequitable level of distribution, Gilmore said in a recent interview on campus.

Gilmore, who plans to present his findings at the University of Pennsylvania in October at a conference on social theory, politics and the arts, said he and fellow UCI professor Robert Garfias, a member of the NEA’s advisory National Council on the Arts, presented some of the data to the NEA in Novemberbut “nothing much came of it.”

An NEA spokesman said some endowment administrators are familiar with Gilmore’s study, but he could give “no official reaction.” He noted that the agency issues an annual report on minority arts funding and that only last Saturday, it passed a resolution--proposed by Garfias--to establish a committee to further explore issues of multiculturalism in its grants processes.

Gilmore theorizes that inequitable funding to minorities is a result of the NEA’s “internal structure,” or the way it awards grants, and its “information” system, or how it gets word out that it’s got money to give.

A key internal problem has to do with NEA peer panels, made up of artists and arts administrators who assess applications to make grant recommendations, he said.

To an “extraordinarily” high degree, the more minorities on a panel, the more grants awarded are to minorities, Gilmore said. However, he added, while panels have become more diverse over a 12-year period ending in 1991, only 25.6% of all panelists were minorities during that time.

Gilmore said he found “no evidence of a direct bias” toward minorities, but “it is apparent that the percentage of minority panelists plays a role in the success of minority applicants seeking funds.”

More than 75% of all minority-run arts organizations seeking funds in 1990 applied to the NEA’s Expansion Arts program, which suggests that the endowment isn’t doing what it should to solicit minority grant applicants, Gilmore continued.

Expansion Arts grants focus on minority and emerging artists and underserved organizations which present non-traditional arts, such as multidisciplinary projects with strong community involvement. Expansion Arts administrators “take a more active role” than some other grant officials by searching out applicants through community networking, and have more interpersonal contact with grantees, he said.

But no Expansion Arts grant exceeds $50,000, Gilmore said, compared to the top NEA Challenge grant of $1 million.

Gilmore said to his knowledge, no one has done similar research, largely because of difficulties with the documentation: Ethnic identification is not required on NEA grant applications.

He said he wanted to establish a “benchmark” with his research, and that he believes federal minority art support could be threatened as never before because of “right-wing” attacks against the NEA for supporting what some deem obscene art. Some observers have speculated that this could lead the agency to support only large, mainstream, mainly Euro-centric arts institutions.

Gilmore said he doesn’t advocate a quota system, or forsaking the NEA’s goal of supporting “quality art.”

“But the agency has to be inclusive of a variety of different (artistic) techniques, ideologies and cultural backgrounds,” he said.

NEA administrators “have to get out of their offices more and try to close the gap that exists, not just by handing out applications but by providing technical expertise to fill out the applications. I think the NEA is moving in the right direction, but it’s slow to change.”

According to his research, NEA grants to minorities were in line with the minority populations of Alaska, Hawaii, New Jersey, Idaho, Maine and Vermont.