C. The programs not only provide youth with experience in the arts and the humanities, but also deliver needed support services. While establishing independent relationships with participants, they include and work with parents.

D. These arts and humanities programs teach youth how to navigate other networks and advocate for youth with other community institutions.

E. No two programs are alike. Each program reflects its creator's mission and its community's specific circumstances. The individuality of each program is testimony to this field's ingenuity.

F. The arts and humanities programs in this report are located primarily in large cities. Many of them were created in the mid-1980s. Most programs operate with diverse but limited staff and on small budgets. Technical assistance efforts, perhaps supported by the corporate sector, community foundations or local arts and humanities councils, are needed to strengthen their administrative and fundraising capabilities.

G. Most program staff are trained, primarily by more experienced program personnel. Only one-third of the programs provide on-going training. Initiatives should be developed to enhance training and staff opportunities. For example, staff could learn from and train at other programs. Travel grants, paid sabbaticals, staff mentorship programs and performance exchanges could enrich existing programs.

H. Partnerships provide critical support, allowing limited staff to obtain much-needed resources. Most community arts and humanities programs described in this report were initiated by arts or humanities organizations. However, they operate in partnerships with other institutions such as schools, universities, youth organizations, churches, businesses and health, housing and social service agencies. Strategies to improve linkages among cultural programs and other community institutions would enhance coordinated responses to interrelated problems.

I. These arts and humanities programs provide vivid testimony on the difference they make in children's lives. These programs document their activities, assess program strengths and weaknesses, track the progress of individual participants and compare their goals with actual practices. A few programs have documented, with some caveats, the positive correlation between program participation and cognitive development, interest in learning, motivation, organization, self-perception and resiliency.

J. With increased competition for fewer resources, the pressure to demonstrate results is increasing. However, assessment takes time and money: commodities in short supply in these programs. Community arts and humanities programs need financial support and guidance to develop assessment tools that measure impact and improve program practices.

K. Ninety-five percent of the programs report that they have more than one source of funding; most programs report that their donors are local. City government supports 58 percent of the programs; local foundations provide support to 55 percent; local corporations, to 50 percent; and individuals, to 40 percent.

L. Government agencies--city, state and federal--are the most common source of funds, though most programs receive significant private contributions, including foundation grants. While 43 percent of the organizations have received or currently receive support from the National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities or Institute of Museum Services, many also receive funds from other federal departments, including the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Justice and Labor.

M. These community programs face their greatest challenge as potential government funding cuts make their financial futures more tenuous. While private foundations cannot assume total responsibility, their leadership and decisions are pivotal. Strategies for building support, including sustained general support, as well as identifying and generating new resources are urgently needed.