|
Posted April 30, 2003
Investing in Culture: Innovations in State Policy
A Report by the NCSL Cultural Policy Working Group
Introduction
As representatives of the public trust, state legislators strive to serve their constituencies well and spend tax dollars wisely. One way to measure the value of state policies is to examine outcomes relative to inputs or, in other words, ask what results are achieved by providing funding for such activities. In doing so, policymakers across the country are finding that a relatively modest investment in culture frequently pays big dividends.
Recognizing the breadth of the cultural community, the term culture, as it is used throughout this report, includes four different fields-arts, folklife/heritage, historic preservation and the humanities. These fields are thought to be a sample, rather than an inclusive list, of the cultural community.
Cultural agencies serve diverse groups of people of all ages and income levels. Cultural agencies serve both cities and rural areas. These agencies help make culture accessible and enhance the lives of those who otherwise would not have the opportunity to participate in cultural activities. In addition, culture offers intangible benefits. It helps create a community soul and develop a real "sense of place." All these things combine to result in better, more livable communities.
A thriving cultural scene is more likely to attract the highly coveted, and very mobile, knowledge-based worker (workers who rely on intellectual power instead of physical power). This is particularly important to state policymakers who are striving to improve their state's economic vitality. In the space of a single generation, work and the workforce have changed dramatically. Knowledge has supplanted labor-intensive careers as the preferred path to economic growth and stability, and human capital has become the primary determinant of a region's economic health.1 Surveys indicate that knowledge-based workers place a high value on quality of life. Recognizing the value of the cultural sector to the quality of life, a number of states have become cultural leaders through innovative state policies.
New research on state cultural policies is presented in the publication, Policy Partners: Making the Case for State Investments in Culture. This publication is the outcome of a study launched in 2001 by the national culture program of The Pew Charitable Trusts. The goal of the study was to identify mechanisms, ideas and practices that could advance state-level cultural policy. Representatives from the arts, folklife/heritage, historic preservation and the humanities participated in the study. The findings are framed as five premises.
|
1. |
To have clout in the policy arena on a par with other sectors, the cultural fields must develop alliances and craft unified messages that effectively communicate the value of culture. |
|
2. |
Cultural collaborations can build on examples of policies from other states along with proven strategies for navigating the political arena. |
|
3. |
Success in moving policy forward at the state level requires specific capacities, including an understanding of the state's current political and economic climate. |
|
4. |
National culture organizations are essential partners in policy work at the state and local levels. |
|
5. |
Policy organizations and opinion leaders from the policy community could become champions for cultural goals. |
This report discusses selected approaches to advancing state-level cultural policy that are featured in the Policy Partners publication.
How Cultural Programs Meet State Policy Goals
Times have changed in the cultural arena. Gone are the days when art was created simply for arts' sake. Today, society likes its art to contribute to civic life. Fortunately, the arts are well-positioned to meet this challenge; as a strong cultural agenda can help states meet the following policy goals:
- Accessibility and participation,
- Diversity,
- Economic development,
- Education and youth at risk,
- Revenue generation,
- Rural development,
- Tourism, and
- Urban revitalization.
THE STRUCTURAL MAZE OF CULTURE
The structure and placement of cultural agencies within state government is not always conducive to collaboration or development of a unified message. Representation of culture at the state level is haphazard at best. Although every state has a state arts agency as part of state government, its placement within the state departments varies considerably. State humanities councils, by contrast, are private, nonprofit entities, although they may receive public support. Statewide preservation offices are nonprofit entities, but state historic preservation offices are part of state government. State-level presence in folklife might be situated within any number of state agencies. Other types of state-level organizations include citizen advocacy groups; artists' organizations; humanities centers at public universities; state archives, museums and libraries; and heritage organizations.
For example, in the arts domain alone, a 2000 survey by the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies found that state arts agencies fall within state government as follows. |
|
|
State Agency
|
Number
of States |
|
|
|
Education |
2 |
|
|
|
Higher Education |
1 |
|
|
|
Cultural Affairs |
8 |
|
|
|
Commerce / Economic Development |
4 |
|
|
|
Department of State |
6 |
|
|
|
Independent Agency |
23 |
|
|
|
Other |
6 |
|
|
A WORD ABOUT EARMARKING
Earmarking taxes is a popular way to raise revenue, but how well it works is subject to debate. As a rule, earmarking is not considered by most fiscal managers to be characteristic of sound, comprehensive fiscal policy. By removing revenue from the general fund, earmarking limits spending decisions. Good budget practices rely on the ability of policymakers to review revenues annually and appropriate funds according to their availability. The philosophy underlying this practice is that if the program is worthwhile and has constituent support, the legislature will fund it.
On the other hand, program directors, whose interest is to ensure a minimum amount of funding for a program, can make a case for earmarking. In the early 1990s, as well as in 2002, state funding for the arts decreased substantially, illustrating how difficult it is for arts councils to develop and maintain programs when funding varies dramatically from year to year. Earmarking a small tax, especially in a state that has no history of strong support for the arts, can protect a worthy program.
An alternative funding source, provided it grows and does not replace existing funding, will help insulate a vulnerable area from economic instability. However, a stagnant revenue source may ultimately be detrimental to the recipient if policymakers assume the program is "taken care of" by its dedicated revenue source and, therefore, reduce other general fund support.
Earmarked revenue streams ideally should be related to the beneficiary. For example, entertainment taxes and admission fees often are used to fund tourism and the arts.
The following questions are useful in weighing whether to earmark alternative revenue sources.
- Is the revenue source stable?
- Will it grow with the economy?
- Will the aggregate level of funding decrease or remain the same if general fund appropriations are cut as the result of an earmarked funding source?
- Will it raise so much money that other programs also will want to participate?
- Will the arts be perceived as less important or a nonessential state service if general fund appropriations are lost and replaced with a dedicated source?
|
For more information about the report, please contact mandy.rafool@ncsl.org.
 Arts & Historic Preservation Menu Page
Visitor counts for this page.
|
