l cases such as sf jz when chis multiracial. the [inaudible] balas was african american and groups with multiple designations so they can fall into a racial and gender minority group and in those cases they were classified the racial group they represented. the findings were that from 1989-201320 percent of fundsing from grants the art went to racial minority. 20 percent went to ethnic and cultural minorities and 7 percent went to groups representing women and lgbtq community. as you can see in this chart over time the funding to racial minority groups declined slightly. this

shows fundsing between 1999 and 2012/13 and you see the downward slope. this chart shows a comparison of san francisco demo grap grafics to grants of the arts funding in 2010. what is interesting in here is in 2010 grants of the arts awarding 21 percent to racial minority grumes and 58 percent of san francisco demo graphics in that year-of the population in that year was classified as people of color so there was a disparity there. in this slide you see the relationship between grants the arts and cultural equity grants. many of those receiving grants fl arts also received cultural equity grants. there is no formal

relationship between the 2 arts programs. in conclusion grants fl arts doesn't have criteria specifically for funding underrepresented groups, nor does it have a methodology for defining underrepresented. as result this report used the back ground of key staff and the organizations mission. there are many possibles reasons why people of color organizations declined since fisqual year 6 and 7 and the board may wish to request [inaudible] evaluate to specific times in the future >> thank you mr. nagle. are there any questions colleagues? supervisor yee

>> the table that looks at the overlap between the 2 funding sources, you said 35-48 percent dependent on which you would have both >> correct >> i don't know if you were able to do a deeper analysis of those particular ones that had both, what percentage were-would they fit into had cal t categories? >> i think what this is showing or what is not maybe clear is the cultural equity grants a lot of times there are specific categories of funds and men a are received for racial minority groups. the point of this is that the cultural equity grantees are racial minorities or other underrepresented groups and so they are also receiving grants for the arts funds

>> so the majority would be sort of mixed ethnic group >> the cultural equity grants, those criteria are part of their mission for many different sources of funds >> i look at the numbers in terms of total amount was 13 million or something 2 years back >> it was 11-last year was 11.8 and this year 11.4 >> in 2008 it was about 15 million? >> it is going down, i'll have to look for that page in the report >> i don't know what you are looking at, i am look thath report that was march 18, 2014. the second page.

>> that is correct. this is a allocation of hotel tax revenue and it has gone down from 15 million in 2007 and 8 to about 11.4 million in the current year. it is also going down as a percent object of the overall hotel tax revenue >> right. there are a lot of questions based on these numbers. one of them is that as the numbers went down is it because there was a downward pattern of what percentage of the groups were minorities? that went down also. it seems like the big hit was at the minority groups. >> i think the numbers where we look at percentage of underrepresented groups

receiving allocations that is the total money available that year oppose today the actual amount of monies are also going down over the years, so there are 2 different factors. >> the other-it doesn't really-thank you for the analysis. the general question i have is, even though whatever gets allocated to grants fl art, it isn't necessarily tie today the hotel tax. this leaves a soft relationship, but it is general funds and at the same time if the hotel tax goes into dpr againroom funds and went opfaum [inaudible] you would think arts group would get a little more support. what do you think the reason is? when f we have more general funds and the arts

group get less money >> actually i think that would be a question for the mayors budget office. the way it works everything since there is a change in the code where these are general funds revenue there is a dedicated amount put into the budget and as we did this report it was projected to be 11.4 million over the next few years, but that is in the discretionary budget decision and don't know if the mayors office would have another answer to that question >> supervisor [inaudible] as i think all decision that come before the mayor and the board of supervisors, these are decision made on a year to year basis about priorities and how to allocate the general funds including the hotel tax funds. i point out this board along with the mayor last year made point to increase funds to both the arts commission and grants it fr the arts and know the

report reflects the prior year so doesn't include that, but thasat a conversation this committee had over the last suveral years >> is there anyone from the grants of the arts coming up? >> yes, there will be a speaker. can i answer mr. chair amman the question? since 1961 the hotel tax fund identified 12 different areas of fundsing. in 20s 13 we as a borebd changed that funding mechanism. from my understanding from reading through the 25 year history it is about 17 percent of the hotel fund chs going to grants for the arts something like that and think the budget and legislative analyst report i think it is good it broke out

the racial and ethnic groups including jewish and arab and middle eastern groups in a second call squm the percentage to women in lgbtq communities. as supervisor yee pointed out, the decline of 29 percent in the late 90's is of serious concern. supervisor breed worked with tom declaina and [inaudible] to insure there will be more money that-when more money came in it goes to cultural equity, but think that was a reason for-we'll see better numbers for 2014 to now. the decline of percentage to ethnic and cultural or decline for women in lgbt arts groups is a concern of mine as well

>> supervisor yee any other comments >> wonder if there are questions for [inaudible] or mrs. nagle i see none. cary shulman coulden be here, but from grants from the art is con wong >> as mr. wong is being set up i know our city attorney probably has advice for us about hotel tax fund resources and how the city allocates those resources and i'm

wondering if mr. [inaudible] could give a comment about that >> sure. [inaudible] the office advised the board a cual years ago about various law suits involving the hotel tax. the specific answer for arts funding is the hotel tax isn't specifically allocated for arts funding. that funding comes from the general fund and as howard mentioned the amount of the fundsing is a discretionary decision for the board and mayor. it is based on a large number of factors including the amount of revenue coming into the general fund >> thank you mr. wong >> thank you for having me. good afternoon supervisors and

chairman. my name is con wong and senior program manager for grants the arts. i would like to acknowledge a few of my colleagues here. [inaudible] pointing them out because should a question be posed i don't know the answer to one of them may step up and answer it. thank you very much for your time and attention to this matter. we are going keep this as brief as possible. i'll give you a brief overview of the programs and then review responses to the budget analyst report and then look at strategies moving forward. so, as you see on the slide we existed since 1961 under the charter to promote city through economic investment in the

arts. our program is consistent and full ilfilling the expectation set in the charter by the codes and we have then a national and international model of arts funding over the years. this is a a overview of our program. all the grants programs. we would like to note the budget analyst report focused only on our general operating support funds, which is the largest chunk, however we do have 1.2 million dollars in our other grant programs which support many small organization including those that are cull charl specific. a bit about our review process, our grant applications are analyzed and reviewed by 5 program staff members and 10 advisory committee members. it bars

noting giving the context of the discussion that all of us are women and people of color or queer. further, the review process is based on transparent and objective criteria and it is important to note that some of our review criteria as well as some of the components of the application are required by the city attorneys office. this gives a breakdown of our overall budget. asia can see the vast majority of our budget goes to direct support of the arts organizations that we serve with very very little over head. more than 90 percent of the budget is in direct grants. 86 percent of the total is strict lee for grant programs. there is about 7 percent that are funds

transferred to other departments including the san francisco art commission for support of the 6 cultural centers as well as the gallery program and education programs and about 400 thousand dollars goes to the film commission. this slide gives you a break down of our grantees and grant amounts by the number of grantees on one chart, the number of grantees for discipline and on the other the number of-the dollar amount per discipline in millions of dollars. there has been concern expressed that larger organizations receive grant the arts funding spirfckly the big 6 organizations. but a significant majority, 94 percent of the grantees are small to midsize organizations and that is the budget cohort

that-where generally the cultural specific organizations fall into. further, we support a diverse and broad spectrum of art forms. as noted in the budget analyst report, about 40 percent of cultural grant recipients are also grant the arts recipients. because those grantees receive cultural equity grants they serve underservedties. it is important to note the grant amounts are based on a percentage of the budget size of the organizations funded and it works out that small budget organizations receive larger percent age of their budget and larger organizations receive a smaller percentage. several years ago [inaudible] budget was cut 20 percent we instituted 5 thousand dollar minimum grant. we are very

aware of the fact that isn't sophistant and the hope is bring those groups up to goal >> mr. wong, can i just ask because i know that the real point of disagreement or dialogue now is the funding formula that many smaller arts groups feel isn't fair and i know that [inaudible] mentioned in the chronicle about 15 years ago when the chronicle did some analysis and reports on arts funding and found that of the ref lieu 12 million dollars i think they identified the sempany receiving a huge amount and smaller organizations receiving, though it is a larger percent of the budget but a small amount. mr.

[inaudible] said the government shouldn't give to small organizations because it fosters dependency and i wundser what the position is of grants fl arts because i think- >> i think that quote misrepresents our position a bit. >> what is the position? >> it is true we base the grant dollar amount on the dollar size of thorganizations and the point isn't that small organizations shouldn't be funded, but they should receive a amount that is a meaningful contribution to them, but does not create a dependency on this single source of funding for their operations >> supervisor breed >> i vaquestion mr. wong to go back to percentage that you throw out. i want to make sure i understand it clearly. are you saying that 80 percent of

the over 10 million dollars that grants for the arts gets goes to medium size or smaller organizations? >> no. 86 percent is our share of the budget that goes-the totality of the grants. 94 percent of the grantees are small to medium size >> of the dollar, that is what i want to understand. i realize a larger number could be the smaller institutions but not necessarily a larger dollar amount. i don't think i understand that clearly. >> i don't center the break down of that, but >> we are not talking about your entire budget calication, we are talking about the number of organizations >> that is correct >> that is why i wanted clarification because we know the larger the budget the more money you can get as a result of grachbts for the arts with

the system set up, which is the system we are talking about now >> that's correct >> thank you >> so, a few years igo in response the thesession grants for the arts was required to implement midyear budget cuts. to preserve funding levels for smaller organizations we made significant cuts to the 6 grantees and did not cut small and midsize organizations at all. the following year our >> sorry, i just need clarification on that again. so, why would that have to be the case, i'm confused? you say in order to preserve the money you give to the smaller institutions you had to make cuts on the larger institutions >> that is correct. we chose to make cuts on thonl larger

institutions >> during the with challenges with the budget >> that is the year we made midyear cuts. the following year our budget was reduced by 20 percent and in that year we did do an across the board 20 percent cut. since then with whatever new money we squeezed out we have inkrimental be restoring the money to small z midsize organizations and have not given any new money to the major 6 organizations. to put that into perspective, currently the largest 6 institutions are 30 percent below what their peek funding level was, where the small and midsize organizations are only 8 percent below what their peek

funding levels were >> a comment from the chair, the problem i have is i want to know the dollar amount, not the percentage because you can vaa larger institution getting 70 thousand dollars and have a smul institution that gets 10 thousand dollars and then you talk about percentages, there is no comparison. the dollar amounts of what these entities are receiving make more sense to me. the percentages are not helpful because you are splaing the difference, but i need dollar amounts to really understand what the impacts are. >> i understand that. i don't have the dollars mount. we can get that to you. >> i want to ask a question, what is the highest amount of money that you have given out in terms of a grant >> a single grant? that would be the the san francisco opera. it is over 700 thousand >> 700 thousand and then the

smallest amount is >> 5 thousand rkss and 5 thousand. i think that is quhie i'm bringing this up is because i'm talking about dollars here more so than just because even from a 5 thousand dollar grant say they turn in paperwork late there is a penalty of maybe 10 percent of that and that is a big deal to a smaller institution. probably not such a big deal to a larger institution where they have development team squz people that manage and track the money in a way that provide them the vehicle to maintain the grants versus a smaller institution who have-they don't have dwument teams to help manage this is my point >> your point is all taken and our practice around the penalties and something we can reexamine >> thank you. >> so, we have committed for this next budget sickle that

new grant funds go only to the small and midsize organizations which again is the budget cohort that includes those cultural specific. now new grant money go tooz the major institutions at all. again, it is our practice to distribute our funds according to budget size. i'll get fl to more detail in a bit. our practice is doing it that way because we are prohibited by law from using demo graphic information as a basis of awarding funds. the smaller budget organizations have a tendency to be [inaudible] >> what sth basis of that >> prop 209 >> my snds is it is not, but that would be helpful to understand how you rationalize funding formula, but my

understanding is tent 9 wouldn't bar use of different types of data to make our arts funding more fair and diverse mpt >> i'll get to the text in a second. if i may. okay. in our last grant cycle we add td 9 new grantees to the docket and of the 7 were seft identified as cultural specific and again, they received only a minimum 5 thousand dollar grants. the preference is fund up to their goal amount as we publuxed them and there is noting at the result of 7 out of 9 new organizations being cultural specific happened as a result of our normal grant making and review process and

without taking demo graphic information factoring into the decision. thanks. um so this just shows the long gevty of the grants. for 54 years we provided a stabile and consistent source orphfunding to support the toltality of the san francisco arts. so, some of the concerns regarding the analyst reports, the report doesn't acknowledge our effective fulfillment of our own mission and purpose as based in the legislation that created this program and in instead gauges the performance against the mission of a different agency that has a different mission and purpose.

as i mentioned before the report only discussed the general operating report portfolio but did not look at the smaller grant programs which contribute over a million dollars to other smaller cultural diverse organizations. the report does suggest that grants for the arts has been funding the same ocean organizations over the years but doesn't mention we fund more organizations than we used to. today we have 213 grantees versus in 1997 there was 188. the report works from what we found to be a narrow definition of cultural equity. other cities with equity based grant programs focus on a broader and inclusive definition that

includes people living with disability, economic status, age, formally incourseerated, citizenship status and other factors. the definition of cultural equity used in the report also discounts the contributions of organizations that are broadly multicultural rather than representing a single cultural identify. the san francisco dance festville being a prominent example of an entity that is not credited with service a cultural equity purpose, but the mission is to present the ethnic folk forums of various cultures. the report also does not count individuals artist specifically who may create art that has [inaudible] content that is not directly related to their cultural background. we feel

that is something that should be taken into consideration. and the report significantly minimizes the fact it is illegal to consider cultural identity croyitary you and awarding grarts and contract. as a result the city attorneys office advise said the cultural exequity grants program to revice some of their criteria regarding the cultural specificity of the eligible grantees. so, a result of the report is that it has somewhat undermined the purpose that it is supposed to be serving. again, i would like to mention that in our last cycle we did have 7 out of 9 new grantees that were cultural specific that is just a result of the normal process. getting

specifically to prop 209. that proposition amended the california constitution article 1 section 31 orphthe california cancitution and says the government shall not discriminate against any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national originateen in the operation of public employment erp public education or contracting. the grants are considered public contracts. >> mr. wong can i ask do you think there is preferential treatment based on the big 6 organizations? >> no i do not. i can see that point, but i don't believe it is preferential >> in looking at race, gender, ethnicity and national origin preferential treatment to me might not mean if