Transcript TV CSG Review - Public Television Affinity Group Coalition

TV CSG Review
Round Robin Meetings
OUTLINE FOR TV CSG REVIEW SECTION
I.
Review Previous TV CSG Policy Reviews
II.
CSG 101
III.
Review CSG Funding & NFFS History
IV.
Discussion
THE PUBLIC BROADCASTING ACT OUTLINES THE USE
OF PANELS TO REVIEW THE FUNDING OF STATIONS
AND THEY HAVE OCCURRED EVERY FEW YEARS
Public Broadcasting Act
Section (k) (6) (B)
…the Corporation shall
review periodically in
consultation with public
radio and television
licensees…
Past reviews
•
1996
•
1998
•
2001
AN ENTIRE CSG REVIEW CYCLE TAKES ABOUT A YEAR
TO COMPLETE
Proposed timeline for 2006-2007 Review
Panelists
convene &
discuss key
PTV issues
at Meeting 2
September 06
CPB and
Panel
consult with
system
April-May 07
System is
solicited for
input at
Round
Robins
Oct – Nov 06
Panel
adopts final
recommendations at
Mtg. 6
June 07
Panelists
review early
data and
determine
addt’l issues
at Mtg. 3
November 06
CPB Board
votes on
recommendations from
CPB
managemen
t
July 07
Panelists
review next
round of
data at Mtg.
4
January 07
Panelists
review next
round of
data at Mtg.
5
April 07
Any nonfinancial
changes are
implemented in
FY08 grants
Any significant
CSG formula
changes take
effect for FY09
September 07
September 08
THE 1996 REVIEW MADE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO
ENCOURAGE STATIONS’ SELF-SUFFICIENCY AND
INCREASE FLEXIBILITY IN GRANT DISTRIBUTIONS
1996 Review
Goal
Outcomes
• Adopt and
strengthen CSG
policies in the face
of Congress’s “zero
funding” threats
• Reduced base grant from .12% to .11% of
appropriation
• Stations with multiple transmitters
transitioned to one base grant
• New base grant policy in overlap markets
• New support funds established (Overlap
Fund, Transition Fund, Future Fund)
THE 1998 REVIEW MADE RELATIVELY MINOR
ADJUSTMENTS TO THE 1996 REVIEW IMPLEMENTATIONS
1998 Review
Goal
• Review and
evaluate 1996
review policy
changes
Outcomes
• Extended support funds
• Created Special Assistance Grants
(SAG) for small stations
• Reaffirmed 1996 base grant policies
• Eliminate capital funds from NFFS
THE 2001 REVIEW MADE MODEST CHANGES TO DEAL
WITH CONDITIONS WITHIN THE SYSTEM
2001 Review
Outcomes
Goal
• Ensure that all
types of stations
are supported at
the best possible
level
•
•
•
•
Created Distance Service Grants
Created Local Service Grants (replaces SAG)
Developed Program Differentiation Incentive
Extended Transition Fund (all stations with
< $2MM NFFS) and Future Fund
• Created Collaboration Fund
THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR THE CSG IS FEDERALLY
MANDATED
Federal Appropriation
6%
$412,000,000* (including interest)
System
Support
$25,600,000
No More Than 5%
CPB
Operations
$18,740,000
Not less than 89%
Station and
Programming Grants
$368,000.000
75% (of 89%)
25% (of 89%)
Television
Radio
$276,000,000
$92,000,000
75%
25%
Station Grants
Unrestricted CSG
$200,250,000
$62,300,000
Programming
Programming
$75,750,000
$7,730,000
Restricted CSG
$21,970,000
*For FY 2007
70%
7%
23%
COMMUNITY SERVICE GRANT POOL CALCULATIONS
TV CSG Pool FY 2007
$200,250,000
minus
Grants Distributed FY 2007:
• Base Grant Funds Distributed (153 Grants x $440K)
• Distance Service Grant
• Local Service Grant
($67,330,000)
($4,048,000)
($3,000,000)
Remaining Funds = Incentive Funds Pool = $125,872,000 FY 2007
INCENTIVE POOL DISTRIBUTION IS BASED ON NFFS
AND IS ABOUT 10 CENTS ON THE DOLLAR IN FY 2007
Incentive Funds Pool
FY07 Incentive Rate of
Return (IRR) Formula
FY07 IRR Formula
Calculation
Incentive Funds Pool
Total FY05 NFFS
= $125,872,000 FY 2007
$125,872,000
= IRR
$1,305,168,073
=
$.0964
FY 2007 Incentive Grant = $.0964 x Grantee’s 2005 NFFS
CSG BASE GRANT CALCULATION
Base Grant = .11% X Federal Appropriation
FY 2007 Base Grant =
.11% x $400 million
= $440,000
TV CSG FUNDS ARE DIVIDED INTO THREE CATEGORIES
Definition
Special
Grants/Funds
• Directed funds typically used to
support specific groups of
stations
Calculation
• Varies by program
– Distance Service Grant
– Local Service Grant
– Overlap Program Differentiation
Incentive
Incentive
Grant
Base
Grants
• Variable matching funds based
on NFFS and given to all
grantees
• Flat grant given to all qualifying
grantees
• Incentive Rate of
Return x Two-years
Prior NFFS
• .11% of appropriation
($440K per qualifying
grantee in FY 2007)
OVER TIME, CPB HAS MOVED FUNDING
FROM BASE GRANTS TO INCENTIVE GRANTS
Special Grants/
Funds
Incentive Grants
Base Grants
Total CPB TV CSG Grants 1997 – 2005
$ millions
$225
$11
$8
$3
$11
$10
$5
$150
$0.1
$71
$75
$2
$5
$124
$103
$107
$105
$112
$58
$59
$61
$63
$66
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
$92
$69
$71
$54
$49
$46
$52
1997
1998
1999
2000
$0
Source: CPB
CHANGES IN CSG AT THE STATION-LEVEL ARE A
FUNCTION OF CSG POLICY AND NFFS
CSG Policy X
• Size of federal
appropriation
• Base grant
allocation
• Size of incentive
pool
• Special fund
eligibility
NFFS
• Amount/growth
of NFFS (avg.
growth 1%)
Impact
• Change in
CSG (avg.
growth 6%)
STATIONS’ GROWTH IN CSG VARIES
BY SIZE
Small Stations
(NFFS < $3.5MM; 82 stations)
Medium Stations
(NFFS $3.5 < $12MM; 69 stations)
Station CSG, Indexed to 100, 1997-2005
Station designation based on 1996 NFFS
Large Stations
(NFFS > $12MM;23 stations)
System Total
1.7
7%
Large
6%
1.6
Small
System
5%
1.5
4%
1.4
Medium
3%
1.3
2%
1.2
1%
1.1
0%1
-1%
0.9
1997
Source: CPB
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
CORRESPONDING STATIONS’ GROWTH IN NFFS VARIES BY
SIZE
Small Stations
(NFFS < $3.5MM; 82 stations)
Medium Stations
(NFFS $3.5 < $12MM; 69 stations)
Station NFFS, Indexed to 100, 1997-2005,
Station designation based on 1996 NFFS
Large Stations
(NFFS > $12MM; 23 stations)
System Total
3%
1.3
Small
2%
1.2
Large
1%
1.1
System
Medium
0%1
-1%
0.9
1997
Source: AFR
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
STATE LICENSEES HAVE SEEN THEIR CSGs GROW AT A
LOWER RATE THAN OTHER LICENSEES
University Licensees*
Community Licensees
Station CSG, Indexed to 100, 1997-2005
State Licensees
System Total
8%
1.8
University*
6%
1.6
Community
System
4%
1.4
State
2%
1.2
0%1
-2%
0.8
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
*includes Local Authority
Source: CPB
NFFS GROWTH DIFFERS BY LICENSEE TYPE
University Licensees*
Community Licensees
Station NFFS, Indexed to 100, 1997-2005
State Licensees
System Total
1.3
3%
University*
2%
1.2
Community
1%
1.1
System
0%1
State
-1%
0.9
1997
Source: AFR
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
*includes Local Authority
DISCUSSION: SETTING GOALS FOR THIS REVIEW
• If we assume a flat federal appropriation, will
reapportioning the CSG or changing the PBS dues
calculation lead the system in a more positive direction?
How?
• Are there external forces or events that require our
attention?
• Are there pressing issues within the system that need to
be addressed?
• What parts of the CSG calculation or program deserve
panel attention? What parts of the PBS dues calculation
deserves panel attention? Top 3 priorities?