Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 14 Sep 1998 08:52:30 -0400 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Before you make judgments, I think you ought to try to find out who
applied. Perhaps a larger majority of large and/or east coast museums
applied than did small museums in other areas of the country.
Laura McMann Mahoney
[log in to unmask]
--------------
Is there something I don't understand about the program? The grants
were
announced this morning (imls.fed.gov) and, while I only had time for a
quick glance, large institutions seemed to get the bulk of the awards.
Not just in dollar terms, but in numbers of awards. For example, all
of the winners in Michigan were funded at the max and in Ohio, as
well. In Mass., most of the awards seemed to be at the max. This is
especially interesting since, at least in the history area, small
museums outnumber large one greatly. I have worked with both large
and small institutions and think that some wonderful small museums
that are extremely effective were overlooked (and are overlooked on a
regular basis for all sorts of Federal grant programs) while some
giant museums with ordinary programs and unremarkable collections are
funded, seemingly, every cycle.
My understanding was that institutions were judged in budget groups so
a
musecum with a $100,000 budget would not be measured by the standards
of a 2,000,000 institution.
There also seems to be a regional slant as well, with the East
getting the
lion's share.
|
|
|