Brief: Arts and humanities

Prepared from Grant Precedent, 2026-10-23; data as of precedent 2026-10-21, measures 2026-10-22.

Measures funders require

What you can collect, and how

Tier 1 is collected today from your own records. Tier 2 needs one free instrument. Tier 3 needs a partner under a data agreement. A measure that matches no rule has no tier.

What grantees achieved

Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Arts Education reported 349 results against targets over 14 periods; the median result was 100% of target (middle half 73% to 116%), and 47% met or exceeded the target. Source: Illinois Comptroller Public Accountability Reports, https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=601&FiscalYear=2022&ProgramAreaGroupID=3&ProgramID=1&UniqueProgramID=6011.

• Illinois Arts Council (FY2013): Total expenditures - all sources (in thousands); promised $ 399.2, actual $ 410.7 (103% of target); unit: $. Source: https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=503&FiscalYear=2013&ProgramAreaGroupID=4&ProgramID=10&UniqueProgramID=50310

Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Arts and Cultural reported 171 results against targets over 8 periods; the median result was 94% of target (middle half 53% to 100%), and 43% met or exceeded the target. Source: Illinois Comptroller Public Accountability Reports, https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=601&FiscalYear=2022&ProgramAreaGroupID=3&ProgramID=1&UniqueProgramID=6011.

• Illinois Arts Council (FY2019): Number of artists presented (in thousands); promised 7.0, actual 3.6 (51% of target). Source: https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=503&FiscalYear=2019&ProgramAreaGroupID=4&ProgramID=16&UniqueProgramID=50316

Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Arts and Foreign Language reported 126 results against targets over 8 periods; the median result was 100% of target (middle half 56% to 100%), and 55% met or exceeded the target. Source: Illinois Comptroller Public Accountability Reports, https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=601&FiscalYear=2022&ProgramAreaGroupID=3&ProgramID=1&UniqueProgramID=6011.

• Illinois Arts Council (FY2021): Average monthly full-time equivalents; promised 1.0, actual 1.0 (100% of target). Source: https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=503&FiscalYear=2021&ProgramAreaGroupID=4&ProgramID=17&UniqueProgramID=50317

Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Educational, Cultural and Public Programming reported 78 results against targets over 5 periods; the median result was 99% of target (middle half 82% to 112%), and 49% met or exceeded the target. Source: Illinois Comptroller Public Accountability Reports, https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=601&FiscalYear=2022&ProgramAreaGroupID=3&ProgramID=1&UniqueProgramID=6011.

• Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum (FY2024): Attendees at Annual Conference on Illinois History; promised 235.0, actual 175.0 (74% of target). Source: https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=506&FiscalYear=2024&ProgramAreaGroupID=4&ProgramID=3&UniqueProgramID=5063

Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Global Educational and Cultural Exchanges reported 30 results against targets over 5 periods; the median result was 100% of target (middle half 97% to 104%), and 63% met or exceeded the target. Source: OMB PART assessments (ExpectMore.gov archive), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10002335.2004.html.

• Global Educational and Cultural Exchanges (2007): Percentage of exchange participants who express satisfaction with the exchange experience based on an average of several program factors: 1) administration; 2) content quality; 3) range of experiences; and 4) relevance of program to professional or academic field.; promised 95, actual 93 (98% of target); unit: %. Source: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10002214.2004.html

Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Humanities reported 22 results against targets over 3 periods; the median result was 53% of target (middle half 41% to 75%), and 14% met or exceeded the target. Source: Illinois Comptroller Public Accountability Reports, https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=601&FiscalYear=2022&ProgramAreaGroupID=3&ProgramID=1&UniqueProgramID=6011.

• Illinois Arts Council (FY2015): Total expenditures - all sources (in thousands); promised $ 1,417.0, actual $ 1,060.0 (75% of target); unit: $. Source: https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=503&FiscalYear=2015&ProgramAreaGroupID=4&ProgramID=15&UniqueProgramID=50315

Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Arts Organization and General Operating Support reported 10 results against targets over 1 period; the median result was 85% of target (middle half 83% to 85%), and 10% met or exceeded the target. Source: Illinois Comptroller Public Accountability Reports, https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=601&FiscalYear=2022&ProgramAreaGroupID=3&ProgramID=1&UniqueProgramID=6011.

• Illinois Arts Council (FY2009): Average monthly full-time equivalents; promised 6.0, actual 5.0 (83% of target). Source: https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=503&FiscalYear=2009&ProgramAreaGroupID=4&ProgramID=1&UniqueProgramID=5031

Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Governor's International Arts Exchange Program reported 9 results against targets over 1 period; the median result was 100% of target (middle half 86% to 100%), and 56% met or exceeded the target. Source: Illinois Comptroller Public Accountability Reports, https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=601&FiscalYear=2022&ProgramAreaGroupID=3&ProgramID=1&UniqueProgramID=6011.

• Illinois Arts Council (FY2009): Total expenditures - state appropriated funds (in thousands); promised $ 698.9, actual $ 698.9 (100% of target); unit: $. Source: https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=503&FiscalYear=2009&ProgramAreaGroupID=4&ProgramID=11&UniqueProgramID=50311

Target-setting language with precedent

Each item comes from one funder, one program or one department; none is a government-wide rule.

No target-setting clause from National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities and Justice in the library yet; the items below are the nearest precedent.

• CDC DP-23-0002 applicant FAQ (2023): Quote: “you may enter a '0' and then TBD for targets in the work plan” — https://archive.cdc.gov/www_cdc_gov/healthyschools/nofo/nofo.htm
• EDGAR, 34 CFR 75.110(c) (2024): Paraphrase: An applicant that lacks a baseline explains how and when it will establish one. — https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-08-29/html/2024-17239.htm
• USDA FAS Food for Progress FY2025, applicant Q&A, questions 72-73 (2025): Paraphrase: Yearly targets may be written as percentage-point change when the baseline value is not known. — https://apply07.grants.gov/grantsws/rest/opportunity/att/download/348844
• Senior Community Service Employment Program, 20 CFR 641.720(b),(d) (current text): Paraphrase: Targets for program years 3 and 4 are negotiated before the third program year and adjusted by DOL's model. — https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-20/chapter-V/part-641/subpart-G/section-641.720
• AmeriCorps performance measures, 45 CFR 2522.640(a)(1) (current text): Quote: “Adjust your performance measure or target based on experience” — https://www.govinfo.gov/link/cfr/45/2522?link-type=pdf&sectionnum=630&year=mostrecent
• SAMHSA CMHS Infrastructure, Prevention and Promotion Overview Guide, v2.0, p. 9 (2022): Quote: “grantees can revise annual goals in consultation with their GPO during the first quarter of each fiscal year” — https://spars.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-01/OE%20SPARS%20CMHS%20IPP%20Overview%20Guide.pdf
• Promise Neighborhoods guidance document, third edition (2025): Quote: “target setting will be an iterative process throughout implementation as more performance data is available” — https://promiseneighborhoods.ed.gov/pdf/Promise_Neighborhoods_Guidance_Document_508c.pdf
• HRSA-26-057 ECCS SEED applicant FAQs, p. 6 (2026): Paraphrase: Baseline estimates are confirmed or updated within six months of award. — https://files.simpler.grants.gov/opportunities/45e009d7-46ed-482f-8aa7-02812f207f71/attachments/54ad1b19-2651-43c7-8ade-76203c7770d7/HRSA-26-057_ECCS_SEED_Applicant_FAQs.pdf
• DOL Training and Employment Guidance Letter 10-21 (2022): Quote: “if a grantee wishes to negotiate their performance targets” — https://www.dol.gov/node/165731
• NIH PAR-25-383, Section VI (2025): Paraphrase: Future-year milestones may be renegotiated based on prior-year data. — https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-25-383.html
• Arizona Rural Health Transformation, approved program narrative, pp. 20-22 (2026): Paraphrase: A baseline assessment is done after award, and targets are set from it. — https://www.azahcccs.gov/AHCCCS/Downloads/Initiatives/RHTP/Arizona%27sApprovedProgramNarrative.pdf
• HRSA Health Center Program (H80) patient targets, Primary Health Care Digest (2022): Quote: “confirm or request adjustment to their patient target by the deadline in their email” — https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USHHSHRSA/bulletins/3120df3

What reviewers penalize

These ten weaknesses recur in 17 published reviewer critiques, mostly U.S. Department of Education and NIH. The count is the number of critiques that name it, not a rate, and a reviewer comment is a judgment.

• Attrition or missing-data handling left unresolved (named in 7 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “the applicant did not address how missing data will be handled” U.S. Department of Education, Education Innovation and Research (EIR) Mid-Phase, WestEd, S411B220027, 2022, Technical Review Form, pp. 25, 29. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2022/12/S411B220027_WestEd_TRF.pdf#page=29
• Comparisons vulnerable to selection, contamination, baseline differences or incompatible data (named in 7 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “may require additional interpretation” National Institutes of Health, NIAID, K01 AI131895 (Rebeiro, Vanderbilt), applicant-authorized summary statement; a research application, pp. 5-6. https://beta.nih.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_media/2026-09/k01-rebeiro-summary-statement.pdf#page=6
• Feasibility assumptions or fallback arrangements unsupported (named in 6 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “no alternative analysis plan is provided” National Institutes of Health, NIDCD, R01 DC017174 (Heinemann and Cherney), applicant-authorized summary statement; a research application, pp. 3, 5-6. https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/sanitized-heinemann-cherney-summary-statement-redacted.pdf#page=5
• Implementation fidelity, thresholds or mediators inadequately specified (named in 5 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “Mediators are not described.” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Early-Phase, Education Development Center, U411C190275, 2019, Technical Review Form, p. 4. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2019/11/U411C190275-Education-Development-Center-Inc.-TRF-Tier-2.pdf#page=4
• Measurement tools insufficiently identified, supported or protected against reporting bias (named in 4 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “no detail is provided” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Mid-Phase, Niswonger Foundation, U411B170038, 2017, Technical Review Form, pp. 4-5. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2016/12/U411B170038_TRF.pdf#page=4
• Targets or success criteria missing, inconsistent or disconnected from the project (named in 4 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “lacks a specific number” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Mid-Phase, ASSISTments Foundation, S411B220024, 2022, Technical Review Form, p. 14. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2022/12/S411B220024_ASSISTments-Foundation-Inc_TRF.pdf#page=14
• Analysis procedures insufficiently specified for the stated questions or model (named in 4 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “methods of data analysis are not adequately described” National Institutes of Health, NIAID, R01 AI098472 renewal (Gandhi, UCSF), applicant-authorized summary statement; a research application, pp. 4-5. https://beta.nih.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_media/2026-09/2-R01-AI098472-06_Ganhdi_Summary.pdf#page=4
• Data protection, management or cross-site coordination incomplete (named in 3 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “The data management plan stops midsentence on page 125” National Institutes of Health, NIDCD, R01 DC017683 (Gifford and Camarata, Vanderbilt), applicant-authorized summary statement; a research application, pp. 9-10. https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/sanitized-giffordcamarataapplicationsummary-dc017683-01a1.pdf#page=10
• Feedback collection lacks a specified route into program decisions (named in 2 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “The applicant does not discuss how often the team will review data or implement changes.” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Early-Phase, Orange County Superintendent of Schools, S411C200130, 2020, Technical Review Form, pp. 16, 19. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2020/12/S411C200130-Orange-County-Superintendent-of-Schools-TRF.pdf#page=19
• Evaluator independence insufficiently explained (named in 1 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “The level of independence is not made clear” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Early-Phase, Research Triangle Institute, S411C220065, 2022, Technical Review Form, pp. 24-25. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2022/12/S411C220065_Research-Triangle-Institute-_TRF.pdf#page=24

Protocol skeleton

Draft text, edit before use

Measures: Were you able to carry out ALL approved project activities? (Yes/No); Describe the activities supported by this award.; Did the project encounter any challenges that impeded your ability to conduct the project as approved? (Yes/No); What did the project accomplish for your organization and other intended beneficiaries?; What were your intended learning outcomes for participants?; What tools or methods were used to measure participants' learning and/or project outcomes?; What were your results?; Number of individuals paid, in whole or in part, with project funds (NEA and cost share): Artists; Number of individuals paid, in whole or in part, with project funds (NEA and cost share): Others (non-artist employees, temporary staff, contractors); Did your project feature in-person, virtual, or a combination of in-person and virtual experiences with the arts?; In-person only arts experience: number of adults (18+ years) who directly engaged with the arts on site or in-person; In-person only arts experience: number of children/youth (0-17 years) who directly engaged with the arts on site or in-person; and 33 more listed above. Baseline: ____ months from award, using NEA FY27 Final Descriptive Report - Arts Education (OMB 3135-0140); NEH Performance Progress Report (PPR) web form in eGMS Reach (OMB 3136-0134). Targets: set from the observed baseline at month ____, or committed now as a change of ____ percentage points from baseline (see the USDA FAS and SCSEP precedents above).

Missing-data plan (how dropout and missing observations will be handled): ____

Comparison group or baseline (what you compare against and how the groups started): ____

Fallback if recruitment, data access or the first analysis falls short: ____

Fidelity threshold (what counts as full implementation, and how it is measured): ____

Instrument named, with its validity evidence and its rights (license) status: ____

Numeric target for each measure (a number, not a direction): ____

Analysis for each outcome (method, comparison, adjustment): ____

Data protection and data management (who holds identifiable data, where, for how long): ____

Feedback schedule (who reviews the data, how often, and what changes as a result): ____

Evaluator role and independence (who evaluates and how they are separate from delivery): ____

The text is copied or summarized from public documents. It is not legal advice.