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.