Facing a $5 billion deficit in next year's state budget, the folks in Springfield are in a cost-cutting frame of mind. No cows will be sacred. Both the governor's office and Legislature will be sorely tempted to slash state funding--especially of what they'll term the "non-essentials."

This report relies on material originally published in the 2002 report, Policy Partners: Making the Case for State Investments in Culture, prepared by Chris Dwyer and Susan Frankel of RMC Research. Policy Partners was the outcome of a year-long feasibility study supported by The Pew Charitable Trusts. The goal of the study was to identify mechanisms, ideas and practices that could advance state-level cultural policy, especially those policies that augment public resources for culture.

In 1998, The Pew Charitable Trusts commissioned Americans for the Arts and The Ohio State University Arts Policy and Administration Program to analyze public and private sources of support for arts and culture. This report is the result of that research.

This issue paper, National Investment in the Arts, is the sixth in the Art, Culture and the National Agenda series. Written by Dr. Bruce A. Seaman from Georgia State University, National Investment in the Arts looks at the ways in which the public sector supports the arts in America through direct grantmaking, tax policies, and other public policies. This issue paper, like others in the series, reflects the opinions and research of its author, who was informed by commissioned background papers and the assistance of the Center’s Research Advisory Council. The paper does not necessarily

Most of the formal studies of cultural policy concentrate on the role of central governments and their approaches to supporting the arts, creative industries and heritage. Less attention has been given to cultural policy at the sub-national level.

One organization has defined cultural policy as, “in the aggregate, the values and principles, which guide any social entity in cultural affairs.”

America's Cultural Capital focuses on four structural recommendations that are intended to improve federal policy making in the arts and culture.

Since the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, the federal government has been mandated “to be a good steward in managing the historic resources under its administration.” A large number of federal agencies are responsible for multiple use public lands, national parks, and military installations. Together, they own thousands of archeological sites, historic structures, and millions of historic artifacts and documents that comprise U.S. history and culture. Lack of leadership and funding, along with conflicting priorities, hinder the agencies’ abilities to

This is an excerpt from the City and County of San Francisco's Planning Code Section 429. It speaks to art works, options to meet public art fee requirements, recognition of architect and artists, and general requirements related to arts commissions in C-3 District.

The language of Proposal A is simple. A 0.5 mileage (50 cents per thousand dollars of taxable value) will be levied for home owners of the counties of Wayne and Oakland for the next 10 years, 2001 to 2010, to assist in the support of 17 cultural institutions. The tax will raise $44 million in 2001 and will be allocated to institutions based upon a three-year average of each group's operating expenses. While smaller groups should reap a low six-figure amount. Detroit Renaissance, a nonprofit organization made up of metro-area business and civic leaders (the bulk of which are suburban residents)