On Monday, February 9, 2026, the Culture & Arts Policy Institute testified before the New York City Council’s Committee on Cultural Affairs, Libraries and International Relations, chaired by Council Member Nantasha M. Williams, as part of the oversight hearing on affordability in New York City’s arts and cultural sector (Agenda Item T2026-0832).
The hearing brought together Council Members and sector voices to examine how affordability pressures are shaping the conditions for artists, cultural workers, and organizations across the city. In our testimony, we argued that addressing affordability requires more than funding alone—it also requires stronger cultural governance, better data, and a permanent research and evaluation capacity at the Department of Cultural Affairs to ensure public policy is measurable, equitable, and accountable. You can watch our full testimony in Youtube and read the transcript below:
Chair, Members of the Council, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Mauricio Delfin, and I am testifying on behalf of the Culture & Arts Policy Institute.
Affordability in New York City’s cultural sector cannot be addressed by funding levels alone—it also depends on how the City governs culture: how it designs, targets, and evaluates its interventions. At the center of that work is the Department of Cultural Affairs. If DCLA is expected to lead an affordability agenda as part of the City’s cultural governance, it must be equipped to operate as an evidence-driven policy agency.
Right now, DCLA is asked to make decisions about program design, equity, and impact without a permanent, in-house research and data unit—the kind other City agencies take for granted. As a result, the City relies on anecdotes and fragmented information, instead of being able to measure who is being served, who is underserved, and what outcomes its programs actually produce.
This is not a technical issue. This is a public accountability issue.
A serious research and data function would allow DCLA to identify disparities, adapt programs in real time, and strengthen the credibility of cultural policy in the budget process—where evidence increasingly determines what gets funded. This matters because affordability for artists and cultural workers intersects with housing, workforce development, public health, immigration services, small-business support, and neighborhood investment. DCLA cannot collaborate effectively across agencies if it cannot share and analyze information across municipal systems.
To make this real, we recommend that the City establish a permanent research, evaluation, and data division within DCLA, focused on four things: interagency data sharing, continuous sector-wide monitoring, applied policy research tied to budgeting, and public-facing transparency through regularly updated data. This should function as cultural governance infrastructure—not a temporary project and not a consultant-driven effort.
If DCLA collects information from the sector, it is also responsible for complying with the City’s Open Data Law and sharing appropriate data publicly. This is not just about transparency—it is about service delivery, accountability, and the Council’s ability to exercise oversight.
In closing, we urge this Committee to treat research, evaluation, and open data capacity at DCLA as part of the affordability agenda and the City’s cultural governance itself. If the City is serious about affordability, it must be serious about policy that is measurable, equitable, and accountable.
Thank you.