NEA Funding Called Unfair to Minorities

IRVINE — 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 studies the arts in society, 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 proportional to or greater than the percentage of minority population in only six of the 50 states. California was not among them: Minorities made up 43% of California’s population but only 22% of NEA funds went to minorities, Gilmore said.

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

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, he 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 UC Irvine professor Robert Garfias, a member of the NEA’s advisory National Council on the Arts, presented some of the data to the NEA in November but “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 has 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 there are on a panel, the more grants awarded 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 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 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 that present non-traditional arts, such as multi-disciplinary 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. However, NEA administrators were able to provide Gilmore with identification for most of their applicants.

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 Funding to Minority Arts

A study of NEA minority arts funding indicates that only six of 50 states are awarded a percentage of funds equal to or greater than the percentage of minorities in that state.

STATE TOTAL NEA MINORITY % MINORITY % MINORITY FUNDING NEA FUNDS POPULATION ARTS FUNDS California $18,010,572 $3,981,200 42.8% 22.01% New York 37,044,067 6,409,094 30.7 17.31 Alaska 981,900 298,700 26.1 30.42 Hawaii 1,043,000 888,500 68.6 85.19 Idaho 559,600 58,000 7.8 10.36 Maine 1,009,943 21,470 2.0 2.13 New Jersey 1,679,715 611,215 26.0 36.39 Vermont 823,800 20,000 1.9 2.43

Source: Samuel Gilmore, UC Irvine professor of sociology