GOS Stability Markup

“Stability and Equity in Arts Grantmaking Amendment Act of 2025” –  CAH Markup

Overview statement: The Council should consider whether the priority of GOS is to fund as many organizations as possible, or to have a higher and static base funding rate for awardees. The bill as currently proposed would force CAH to reduce the number of grantees by approximately 70 organizations to accommodate the described formula-based funding rate. Additionally, the formula itself makes incorrect assumptions about the program’s funding rate and generates unintelligible results consequently. While the spirit of the suggested changes is shared, CAH would urge that more nuance is needed to determine new parameters around funding rates and funding amounts.

Details:

1. “Between the Fiscal Year 2024 and Fiscal Year 2025 General Operation Support grant cycles, 108 out of 166 GOS grantees saw a reduction in the award amount – 16 of which saw a reduction of 60% each”
   • Response: The total number of grantees increased in FY25 to 205, so while the overall budget stayed the same the recipient pool did not.
   • In FY20 the total number of GOS awardees was 126. The program, like all our grant making activities is designed to grow and extend the reach of our artistic ecosystem.
2. Eligibility is limited to organizations that “(6) Have at least 51% of its activities or programs occur within the District of Columbia” and “(3) Have less than $100 million in organization average expenses”
   • Response: it is unclear how this percentage will be evaluated by CAH or its review panels
   • Seeking clarity on organizations that have partnerships or extensions of their funding
   • As written, 3 examples of organizations cut off from funding: The Kennedy Center, the Smithsonian Anacostia Community Museum, and the Folger Shakespeare Library
3. (d)(1) presents a formula to be used for determining the funding amount for each grantee based on organizational expenses
   • Response: while the cap of 1% of GOS’ total budget is clear, the ratio proposed for establishing the floor does not appear to work properly and would require cutting the number of grantees, or reducing funding amounts
     • The formula appears to operate under the assumption that all applicants are funded—since all applicant expenses are used as an input. However, GOS applications are evaluated by review panels to determine whether an award is made. In FY25, the program had an 85% funding rate and implemented soft landings to ensure that organizations that fell below funding range were not facing extreme shortfalls. The formula appears to generate unusable figures when modeled with the current slate of grantees.
     • The floor of 50% of organizational expenses (or .075% of the GOS budget if the latter is greater) would require a budget of over $32m for the program to fund its current number of grantees. A lower funding rate (likely closer to 50% of applicants) would be needed to meet actual GOS program budget allocations, meaning that 35% GOS recipient (approximately 70) organizations would lose funding altogether in FY26. Alternatively, a lower floor (such as 30% of organizational expenses) would be viable and more compatible with current funding rate and budget allocation figures
     • CAH took a broad funding posture during the peak years of COVID-19 to provide stability to arts and humanities organizations in this city. Anecdotally, many organizations have said that without our CAH support they would have ceased operating
     • CAH offered a multi-year funding opportunity for organizations that had an established GOS history. Organizations had to be funded in FY25 with two additional years of GOS funding from FY20-FY24. CAH offered this extension of FY25 funding with the intention of meeting current funding, or a slight reduction. This measure is aimed at providing planning stability. 123 of 205 organizations opted to take this opportunity, demonstrating a desire for stable funding. Most organizations who did not opt in were ineligible based on our criteria (i.e. did not have 3 years of secured funding from CAH).
     • As written, the legislation does not allow for a mechanism of rejection, given that funds are limited, and that our posture from the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic cannot be sustained.
4. “(2) Supplemental general operating funding amounts shall be competitive, and each application of an eligible organization shall be reviewed in cohorts of similar budget size and with award amounts tiered in relation to the grantee’s budget size.”
   • Response: as per the comments above, the base funding rate established by the new bill would exhaust GOS funding at approximately 100-130 grantees. There would be no remaining funds available for supplemental amounts. This stipulation also suggests review panels would occur after base rates have been calculated. However, again, not all applicants are funded under the current model.