In April 2025, congressionally appropriated funding for state humanities councils was abruptly rescinded, and the nation’s principal cultural agencies—from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) to the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS)—became targets of an unprecedented effort to dismantle federal cultural infrastructure. These developments did not create the field’s precarity, but they have exposed it with new urgency. For over three decades, the humanities have operated within a cycle of financial instability, constrained by declining federal investment, uneven philanthropic support, and limited engagement from the private sector.Footnote 1
1. Introducing potential interventions for funding sustainability
This essay argues that the sustainability of the public humanities depends not solely on reaffirming their value in the abstract but in identifying and advancing concrete models capable of supporting that value in practice. Drawing on original interviews I conducted with executive directors from the Louisiana Endowment for the Humanities (LEH), the Minnesota Humanities Center (MHC), and Connecticut Humanities (CTH), this article identifies two distinct but complementary approaches to sustainability: an entrepreneurial model, in which mission-driven innovation generates new revenue and institutional autonomy, and a coalition model, in which broad-based alliances mobilize public funding through policy mechanisms such as state tax initiatives.
A critical structural gap also emerges from this analysis: The humanities lack a coordinated national apparatus for mobilizing private-sector and philanthropic investment. This partially stems from the distinct conceptions of federal cultural support that shaped the arts and humanities endowments in 1965.Footnote 2 At the time, the arts were regarded as having a substantially stronger institutional foundation for private philanthropy.Footnote 3 Accordingly, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) emphasized direct support for artistic production, helping catalyze entities like the Business Committee for the Arts (BCA), which increased corporate investment from roughly $22 million in 1968 to more than $3 billion by 2008 before merging with Americans for the Arts.Footnote 4 In contrast, the humanities never established a coordinating body comparable to the BCA. The NEH concentrated on strengthening the field’s infrastructure by cultivating a decentralized network of humanities councils to advance public engagement.
2. The national network of state and jurisdictional councils and federal funding
The state and jurisdictional humanities councils, established by Congress in 1971, emerged as a defining feature of the NEH’s institutional design, developed to bridge federal humanities funding and local public life across a geographically and culturally diverse nation.Footnote 5 Rather than concentrating resources within a select number of national institutions, this model distributed authority and programming capacity across all states and territories, creating a federated system of grantmaking and community engagement. By 1979, all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico had councils, while the remaining US territorial jurisdictions (Guam, the US Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa) were added by 1994.Footnote 6 Their purpose was to extend the reach of the humanities beyond universities and elite cultural centers, fostering locally responsive programming that could support folklife, historical understanding, civics, and community-based dialogue. They are the only national network of nonpartisan nonprofits dedicated to public humanities programming and grantmaking, essentially serving as microcosms of the broader cultural ecosystem in the United States.Footnote 7
Despite their ability to reach every jurisdiction in the country, the public humanities field continues to struggle with mainstream recognition and appropriately articulating its value to funders.Footnote 8 Moreover, the erosion of federal dollars compounds the resource problem in the sector. Adjusted for inflation, the 2024 congressional allocation to NEH was less than half of its 1980 level, and since the dawn of the “culture wars” in the 1990s, NEH and adjacent institutions have faced continual political threats.Footnote 9 As the largest provider of unrestricted operating support for the councils and a “facilitator” and catalyst for external investment, consistent federal funding is essential for sustaining the public humanities and advancing the bipartisan vision that established the federal government’s role in the culture sector.Footnote 10
The data in Figure 1 show revenue distribution clustered by the councils’ level of dependence on federal (NEH) funding. Most councils operate with less than a year in financial reserves, and 44 of the 56 councils depend on their NEH allocation for an average of more than 60 percent of their revenue, with relatively small contributions from private or earned sources of income.Footnote 11 Consequently, when that federal allocation is withdrawn or delayed, councils—and the communities they serve—face immediate disruption. At the same time, the absence of coordinated private-sector and philanthropic engagement has constrained the field’s ability to compensate for those losses and legacy funders like Mellon cannot fill that void alone.Footnote 12 In this context, the question becomes how the field can respond with models capable of sustaining its work under conditions of ongoing uncertainty.
Council revenue distribution, 2024.
Figure 1. Long description
The table contains eight columns and four data rows. The columns are Level of Council Need, Percent of Council Community, Number of Councils, F Y 24 N E H funds, F Y 24 All other Federal sources, F Y 24 State/Local government sources, F Y 24 Private sources, and F Y 24 All other sources.
* Critical (greater than 6 months): 39 percent of community, 22 councils. Funding: 72 percent N E H, 0.2 percent other Federal, 14 percent State/Local, 8 percent Private, 7 percent other.
* Intermediate (greater than 12 months): 39 percent of community, 22 councils. Funding: 61 percent N E H, 0.8 percent other Federal, 22 percent State/Local, 10 percent Private, 8 percent other.
* Extended (13 plus months): 21 percent of community, 12 councils. Funding: 59 percent N E H, 4 percent other Federal, 11 percent State/Local, 14 percent Private, 12 percent other.
* Grand Total: 100 percent of community, 56 councils.
3. Models of resilience: Entrepreneurial and coalition-based strategies
Nonprofit management research has shown that organizations with diversified revenue portfolios are generally more resilient to funding disruptions and better positioned to build long-term financial capacity.Footnote 13 Although many of the humanities councils with multiple streams of income established them well before the cuts in 2025, their efforts demonstrate that resilience can be cultivated through deliberate innovation. The next section highlights different approaches to address this issue of funding sustainability.
3.1. The entrepreneurial model
The entrepreneurial model, exemplified by LEH, is grounded in the capacity of humanities councils’ ability to generate new revenue streams by aligning their work with clearly defined societal needs. In response to the growing education crisis in Louisiana and research that correlated deep poverty in rural and urban communities to intergenerational illiteracy, LEH mobilized its institutional capacity to address the issue systemically. In 1991, it partnered with a local library system and launched Prime Time—a family literacy initiative designed to engage the family unit in shared reading and discussion. By focusing on the household as the primary site of intervention, the program aligned humanities-based inquiry with measurable outcomes tied to education and health.Footnote 14
Over the following decade, demand for the program grew steadily, prompting LEH to establish Prime Time as a subsidiary 501(c)(3) organization.Footnote 15 This symbiotic relationship allowed Prime Time to leverage LEH’s more than 50 years of infrastructure, networks, and leadership through shared executive and governance functions while advancing its own mission to improve literacy and support vulnerable families beyond the scope of the humanities council. As an independent nonprofit, Prime Time became eligible for additional state and federal funding, including Head Start grants, and expanded its primary revenue streams through affiliate fees, partnership contracts with school districts and related networks, and grants from corporations and foundations. Its model also proved readily transferable beyond Louisiana, as it addressed a universal need. To date, four additional states have adopted the turnkey program, and Executive Director Miranda Restovic remains confident in its continued growth.Footnote 16 According to Candid, the Prime Time based in Louisiana reported more than $10.7 million in gross revenue for fiscal year 2024.Footnote 17
The entrepreneurial model demonstrates how humanities organizations can position themselves within broader funding ecosystems by aligning their work with clearly defined social challenges that attract nontraditional funders. However, its success depends on leadership capacity, institutional flexibility, and access to networks that support scaling. These conditions are unevenly distributed across the country, underscoring the need for a national entity to coordinate private and philanthropic support for public humanities initiatives.
3.2. The coalition model
The coalition model achieves scale through collective action and public policy. In 2008, Minnesota voters approved the Legacy Amendment, raising the state sales tax by three-eighths of 1 percent for 25 years to support outdoor recreation, clean water, and arts and culture.Footnote 18 Of the resulting revenue, 19.75 percent, an estimated $1.2 billion over the life of the amendment, is allocated to the Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund (ACHF) to support the arts and preserve Minnesota’s history and culture.Footnote 19 As an ACHF partner, MHC awards and administers annual grants for humanities programming statewide and received a $21.4 million legislative appropriation for the 2025–2027 biennium.Footnote 20
Executive Director Kevin Lindsey suggested that the Legacy Amendment demonstrates how long-term sustainability can emerge from civic consensus. Its success stemmed not only from sound policy design but also from strategic coalition building. Environmental organizations, cultural institutions, and civic leaders united around a shared vision linking cultural investment to environmental conservation and community well-being. Lindsey observed that legislators are far less likely to dismiss a broad constituency than a single organization or cause. Although this coalition reflected Minnesota’s unique political context, he suggested that other states could develop comparable initiatives aligned with their own priorities and values. Such efforts require humanities leaders to think more expansively, forge cross-sector partnerships, and connect shared community interests.
Notwithstanding, statewide initiatives of that magnitude can be difficult to bring to fruition as they require sustained advocacy and coordination across multiple branches of government. Strategizing at the municipal level may offer more accessible, near-term opportunities to develop community-based funding strategies. Some humanities councils have opted for securing recurring state budget appropriations, and others, like Nebraska, established cultural endowments.Footnote 21 Regardless of the funding mechanism, CTH Executive Director Jason Mancini echoed Restovic and Lindsey in emphasizing the importance of engaging a broader coalition of stakeholders. Drawing on the Arts and Economic Prosperity report, he frames culture as a local economic driver by demonstrating how cultural events generate spending on things like food, parking, and retail.Footnote 22 Mancini explained that grounding cultural value in measurable impact translated to more robust legislative support and positioned CTH, in partnership with the arts council and other cultural organizations, to pursue a state meal tax allocation.
4. Key Takeaways
Although each model offers distinct pathways for cultivating partnerships and diversifying revenue, neither can substitute for consistent operating support. Restoring congressionally authorized federal appropriations are therefore essential to sustaining the public humanities sector.Footnote 23 More than 60 years after the establishment of the NEH, its vision of a national humanities infrastructure extending beyond elite institutions has largely been realized through the state and jurisdictional humanities councils.Footnote 24 Yet the complementary goal of mobilizing long-term private and philanthropic investment remains underdeveloped.Footnote 25 Completing this vision will require aligning humanities work more explicitly with pressing societal needs, working with funders to revise grantmaking strategies that respond to an increasingly volatile resource environment, and exploring the potential for a national coordinating entity, akin to the Business Committee for the Arts, that can cultivate broad-based private-sector support for the humanities.
Author contribution
Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation: Y.M.
Open access
