A Capacity Survey of California’s Cultural Heritage Organizations and Recommendations for Financing by Mimi Morris Executive Officer California Cultural and Historical Endowment November 2012 www.endowment.library.ca.gov www.californiastreasures.org (916) 653-1330 A Capacity Survey of California’s Cultural Heritage Organizations and Financing Recommendations TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 3 Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 5 Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. 7 The Capacity of Cultural Heritage Organizations in California ........................................ 9 Methodology for the Survey of California’s Cultural Organizations .............................. 11 Survey Transmittal Letter ........................................................................................... 13 Survey Introduction .................................................................................................... 15 Survey Questions ....................................................................................................... 17 Survey Results ........................................................................................................... 19 Table 1: Response Totals for Structural Integrity Improvement Funding Needs .. 20 Chart 1: Structural Integrity Improvements ........................................................... 21 Table 2: Response Totals for Expansion Funding Needs ..................................... 22 Chart 2: Expansions .............................................................................................. 23 Table 3: Funding Need Responses by Organization Type ................................... 24 Table 4: Response Totals for Interior/Operational Enhancement Funding Needs 25 Table 5: Response Totals for Enhancement Budget Detail .................................. 26 Table 6: Enhancement Budget Detail by Organization Type ................................ 27 Conclusions regarding the Capacity of CA’s Cultural Heritage Organizations .... 31 Recommendations for Future Financing of Cultural Heritage Organizations ...... 33 Telephone Poll to Assess Public Support for State Funding of Cultural Heritage Organizations .............................................................................................................. 35 Polling Instrument .......................................................................................................... 37 Raw Polling Results from California Museums Survey ................................................. 41 Survey Analysis from CERC ......................................................................................... 45 Appendix One: Total CCHE Applicant Demand on Funds Appendix Two: Estimated Duplicate CCHE Funding Requests Appendix Three: List of Survey Respondents (Organizations) Appendix Four: Survey Data Analysis California Cultural and Historical Endowment 1 A Capacity Survey of California’s Cultural Heritage Organizations and Financing Recommendations Introduction The many organizations that provide cultural and historical facilities and services in our communities are often taken for granted, but they provide rich educational opportunities for young children, new citizens, and students. They also enhance the quality of life for all Californians. Such organizations are often, however, seriously underfunded, and struggle to meet operating expenses. Their ability to undertake larger capital improvement projects that address important issues such as bringing a building into compliance for seismic safety, providing better access for the disabled according to the Americans with Disabilities Act, or correcting outdated and unsafe building code violations is significantly hampered by their limited resources. California has over one thousand museums and hundreds of additional organizations which make cultural and historical facilities and services available to the general public. The vast majority of these organizations are nonprofit organizations, though many are publicly supported or privately-run entities. The enabling legislation of the California Cultural and Historical Endowment (CCHE), Assembly Bill 716, included as part of the bill’s comprehensive cultural survey component the requirement that the CCHE survey the capacities and fiscal conditions of public, nonprofit, and other private entities in California that provide historical facilities and services, including museums. The legislation also included the requirement that the CCHE develop recommendations for the future financing of cultural and historical programs provided by public agencies and nonprofit agencies in California, including museums. This report summarizes our efforts to address those requirements. Mimi Morris Executive Officer California Cultural and Historical Endowment November 2012 California Cultural and Historical Endowment 3 A Capacity Survey of California’s Cultural Heritage Organizations and Financing Recommendations Executive Summary The California Cultural and Historical Endowment (CCHE) awarded over $122.5 million to 150 organizations for 180 projects in California between 2005 and 2010. The total value of all applications from CCHE’s four rounds of competitive grant submissions from 2005-2010 comes very close to $921 million. A complete listing of all of CCHE’s applicants from all four rounds is attached as Appendix 1. That figure includes the $122.5 million in CCHE grants that were funded and includes some duplication from applicants who did not get funded in one round and submitted an application again in another round. We’ve attempted to calculate the amount of those duplicate submissions and have come up with the figure of $150 million (See Appendix 2). After subtracting the estimated duplicate submission figure of $150 million and removing the funded grants of $122.5 million, we estimate that there would still be a need of close to $650 million for historic and cultural preservation capital improvements in California. ($921 million minus $150 million equals $771 million. $771 million minus $122.5 million equals $648.5 million). The unfunded need of $650 million roughly estimated from CCHE funding round applications through 2010 is substantiated by this 2012 survey which demonstrates aggregate needs that range from $585 million on the low end to $1.1 billion on the high end. These costs include three categories of capital improvements which were considered in the survey: structural integrity improvements, interior or operational enhancements, and expansions. This report also responds to the element of the survey that required that we address the issue of future financing of cultural heritage institutions. The CCHE recommends two financing mechanisms to provide new financial resources to help preserve state historic and cultural resources. Since the 1980s, existing state law has allowed state taxpayers to contribute money to Voluntary Contribution Funds (VCFs) to fund a variety of charitable causes. VCFs are placed on the state income tax form through legislative action. CCHE recommends that a VCF for cultural heritage preservation be established. This would allow Californians to contribute $1 or more to support museums, cultural centers, and historical sites, with administration of the resources to be handled by the CCHE. The only other method that has been used effectively by the state to finance capital improvement projects for cultural heritage resources is statewide general obligation bonds. The CCHE continues to believe that statewide general obligation bonds are the most viable method for financing statewide cultural and historical resource preservation. CCHE commissioned a polling firm to assess public support for cultural heritage organizations in general and the public’s support for state funding of cultural heritage organizations. The results demonstrate a constituency that seems to recognize the value of cultural heritage organizations as educational institutions that benefit society by providing a deeper understanding of the world around us. The results demonstrated a strong majority of respondents who were supportive of public funding for major building repairs and improvements for museums, cultural centers, and historical sites and a modest majority that even supported the idea of some public funding for operating expenses of those kinds of organizations. The poll found almost 80% of respondents would support the VCF concept ($1 checkbox) and 67% of the respondents would support another bond measure for cultural and historical resource preservation. # # # California Cultural and Historical Endowment 5 A Capacity Survey of California’s Cultural Heritage Organizations and Financing Recommendations Acknowledgements The individuals who work or volunteer in California’s cultural heritage organizations are often there because they love the organization or the history that organization lives to tell. Those individuals give of themselves in endless ways throughout the year and truly are the heart and soul of these organizations. We appreciate not only the many CCHE grantees who took on the job of rehabilitating historic and cultural resources in California so that they will be available for many generations of Californians yet to come,