Can you grow a garden in a toxic habitat? A case study for arts nonprofit growth.

*Please enjoy this piece written for a Seattle University MFA in Arts Leadership Independent Study Final Project in 2022. Scroll to the bottom for recommendations, an organizational checklist, and references.

Let’s talk about growth for the performing arts because the very purpose of a nonprofit organization (which anecdotally I will say is maybe probably 90% of the performing arts sector’s business structure) is to not make a profit. 

Of course, there are plenty of benefits to having a 501c3 structure for arts and culture projects. The community can hold an organization accountable through its financial transparency and representation on a Board of Directors that passes budgets, strategic plans, and hires/fires the organization’s leadership. The single largest benefit, in my opinion, is that a nonprofit structure allows for a project to not be profitable. So, for a ballet company that cannot sell out the house for each performance but needs to perform the production for three weekends, the organization can rest easy knowing they can supplement the income lost from ticket sales via grants and individual contributions. Donors benefit from a nonprofit structure, as well, through their donation’s ability to be written off and for the philanthropy-minded wealthy class, individuals and families benefit from putting their wealth into a Foundation where they avoid capital gains taxes. 

Okay, so if there are tons of community, individual, and organizational benefits, why is growth such a tough thing to do for a nonprofit? 

In an economy that favors rapid, consistent, and expensive growth, arts organizations are pressured to either grow or fold. Simply maintaining annual programming year over year has become almost a death wish for arts projects because year over year services, products, and real estate are becoming increasingly more expensive. So growth, instead of being an intentional one-time endeavor, becomes an annual consideration. But how does an arts organization do so when it consistently operates on a “catch-up” structure rather than a generative one? 

Let’s explore how annual growth, the tiny lil increases needed each year, as well as intentional one-time growth, truly starts and ends with the community.

My grand thesis for this essay, should you venture to read the whole thing, is that arts nonprofit organizations are required (YES REQUIRED) to ensure artists can work and live in the greater community they serve. In doing so, organizations can more organically remain responsive to a volatile, profit-driven, and resource-deprived environment. Arts organizations are the garden bed while artists are the seeds. Community support becomes the source of water, sun, and care.

Seeds can’t sprout if the garden bed is not tended to. The case for artist support in a cost prohibitive world.

Marcie Sillman wrote for Crosscut an article detailing the current state of the contemporary dance scene in Seattle back in 2022. She wrote, “Emerging artists learned they could find affordable space in this historically blue-collar city, and Seattle was far enough from art world capitals like New York, Tokyo and Berlin that it gave artists the chance to try — and fail — outside of the glaring spotlight.” (Sillman, 2022). This attracted young, ambitious, and national talent to a city that, in just the nearly ten years I’ve been here, has seen dramatic shifts in affordability and access to reliable transportation. 

Similar data to consider is from an Artsfund Cultural Impact Study from that same year (2022), which amplifies the financial hardship experienced by arts organizations throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and the perceived value the arts add to the city of Seattle as a whole. The study unpacked, “Across 121 reporting organizations, there was a $95.9 million (21 percent) decrease in overall revenue and $68.5 million (20 percent) reduction in operating budgets in 2020 alone.” As a result of these financial losses, the study found that even with doors to theaters and venues reopening in 2021 and 2022, the public still is hesitant to return to in-person events, making earned income particularly difficult for venues and spaces. (Artsfund Cultural Impact Study, 2022).

On top of these studies and articles released on the tail-end of the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, Margo Vansynghel, who you will see quoted in this article quite a bit, just published an MJ Murdock Charitable Trust funded article for the Seattle Times interviewing artists’ for their salaries, expenses, and overall comfortability living and working in Seattle. She interviewed the highly regarded artist Scott Méxcal who reflected, “There was an Amazon recruiting video that came out years ago now that touted Seattle as a vibrant creative city to lure top talent to move here. Big Business, the tech sector and developers all profit from the creative efforts of Seattle’s artists, but they aren’t reinvesting in the creative life of the city in a sustainable way.” (Seattle Times. July 17, 2024). It is tough to build a career tailor made to ones own creativity, a thing that at our lowest moments feels like a tool for corporate greed. So for artists, it’s critical that arts organizations offer the freedom, flexibility, and pay needed to sustain their practices where they practice. Arts organizations offer perhaps the only opportunity for play in a profit-driven, resource-deprived ecosystem.

Global consultant and founding director of AEA Consulting, Adrian Ellis, is known for saying, “the common challenge facing all cultural organizations, regardless of brand or size, can be boiled down to relevance to the changing world in which they operate,” (Ellis, 2017). Remaining relevant is a key lifeline for any arts organization. By prioritizing and thinking about artists as part of its community, the organization has a responsibility to them; paying artists a living wage directly supports the greater community who benefits from the art produced. It goes beyond the marketing or the branding or even the budget size. What connects people to the transformational powers of the arts other than the artists?

Keeping supporters supporting… remaining relevant is harder than we think.

Ellis points to a social framework that identifies key access points an arts organization and its programming opens to its communities. Through shared identities, standards of practice, a shared knowledge base, leadership and grassroots support, and secured funding in a policymaking environment, the work of an arts organization can be dynamic and accessible for the community(ies) it serves. The phrase, “authentically meaningful and of interest” sticks out as important. Ellis points to a North Star for the performing arts, or dance in particular, as leaning heavily into what the artists are needing regularly and through ongoing feedback to produce their imaginative work. An organization may be only as valuable as the art’s connection and impact within the community. 

Ellis writes, “A key implication arises — as society changes, arts organizations have to find new ways to engage with new audiences, and if they fail to do so, then they experience a crisis in their legitimacy, and one that might ultimately come to threaten their tax status. The arts engagement agenda is driven by both the need for a viable business model and a new need to demonstrate public benefit,” (Ellis, 2017). According to this observation, arts engagement is dynamic and must remain responsive to the world around it. Operating in a silo or in a world separate from reality can only cause the fateful loss of an organizational tax status, something that ultimately hurts artists and their communities more than any other type of business closure.

Let's talk about the financial implications of growth, whether percentage by percentage each year or one-time intentional growth, and what financial analysts have to say about those planning processes. The regulations in the nonprofit sector are very supportive of not growing. (Are we surprised?) However, grant opportunities and federal funding are typically granted to programs that will increase impact and reach a new community or a subsect of the community the organization’s mission vows to serve. Interesting from an article unpacking whether or not an arts organization should grow (linked here) written by William Foster and Gail Fine, is the fact that the ten (10) largest organizations in the US were founded in the year 1903. Here’s what I find most interesting about that (looking at the most viable ways an arts organization can grow):

 “We identified three important practices common among nonprofits that succeeded in building large-scale funding models: (1) They developed funding in one concentrated source rather than across diverse sources; (2) they found a funding source that was a natural match to their mission and beneficiaries; and (3) they built a professional organization and structure around this funding model.” (Fine & Foster, 2007). 

I have a comparison to make here that I will offer knowing it will receive judgment - There is no difference between a company that goes public and a nonprofit growing to maintain a large-scale funding model. Both are solely focused on revenue. The third point offered above points to this fact. Building a professional organization and structure around the organization’s funding model implies that fundraising and revenue teams make up a majority of the annual operations. When a company goes public, they similarly build budgets and annual plans prioritizing profits first. 

The performing arts industry is famously sick. It’s ill. The cost, alone, to produce a performance will never be cheaper than what it can bring in through earned revenue channels, i.e. tickets. So, is it truly even growth if arts organizations accomplish all three of the practices identified in Fine and Foster’s research if doing so just results in finally balancing the checkbook? How does supporting artists factor into these business considerations?

CASE STUDIES

Here are some case studies of projects and organizations on the precipice of growth. Each of the below examples seek to unpack why these types of arts programming work or don’t work. (Identified below are different types of arts projects and organizations; a fiscally sponsored LLC dance project, a traditional arts nonprofit organization, and a museum nonprofit. These were identified because of their cultural relevance in 2022, as well as their trajectories since.)

Emma Lawes and Maya Tacon - One, Two, and Three (Interview from 2022)

Emma Lawes and Maya Tacon, two Seattle dance and movement artists, came to this town freshly graduated from their undergraduate dance degrees at Purchase and University of the Arts, Pennsylvania. The two collaborated on three evening-length performances called One, Two, and Three performed at the new 10 Degrees event space in Georgetown, Seattle, throughout the 2021-22 year. These performances, by and large, have been a success: Seeing sold-out shows each run and a successful merchandise launch. Each program featured a roster of Seattle-based performers who are all uniquely exploring new and evolving movement languages. The two also collaborated with local DJ calico on the sound design, melding a more pop, house, dance vibe with the performer’s music. 

I spoke with Emma on a sunny, Seattle summer day, about the process of producing One, Two, and Three. 

Liz - What was the impetus for producing these shows? What inspired the format, the community aspect, the venue selection, and curatorial process?

Emma - It was all kinda selfish: What I wanted to be doing with my dancing wasn’t really happening so after some time with Maya and the incredible movement artists working and living in Seattle, we decided this version of a show was the thing. Maya was really enamored with blending nightlife and performance together and initially wanted to bring her brother, who’s a DJ (based in the East Coast) to Seattle to create the soundscape. We all quickly found out that the biggest value of our show together wasn’t the show itself, but the community aspect: Getting artists who are operating outside of an institution to make something for this performance. Maya’s brother felt like it was important for the DJ to be part of the Seattle scene so he connected us with Jacob Zimmer (calico) who became an incredible collaborator. 

The two producers have had lovely freelance careers in Seattle dancing with Kate Wallich’s YC II, Beth Terwilleger’s The Gray, Markeith Wiley, Zoe Scofield, and many many more. While performing, the two realized something that they, and others like them, really needed: Mentorship and challenging performances. Emma pioneered a mentorship program in collaboration with Velocity Dance Center that paired emerging dance artists with established Seattle dance artists in an effort to provide ample support and resources for artists hungry to be challenged (One on Ones). Maya, too, is deeply embedded in the community as an incredible Dance Church instructor and pilates teacher, keeping Seattle fit through holistic conditioning and trendy fun. To say the two are deeply involved in Seattle’s dance scene, both emerging and curious, is an understatement. Emma Lawes and Maya Tacon are loyal, committed, and inspired to make a difference within the dance community. As a result, when they produce shows meant to feature and uplift contemporary dance in Seattle, they work. 

So, what’s next for them? When I asked Emma about the financial success of the shows, she responded, “We were able to pay our artists generously but there was no profit. You know this, Liz, but to make money we have to do so much more work and we just don’t really know what to prioritize first,” (E. Lawes, personal communication, August 6th, 2022).

In this project, the fear of making the next big leap isn’t driving growth or the desire to make something bigger or more. Instead, for Emma and Maya, they’re simply eager to expand their impact to reflect even the voices they’ve gotten to know. This is why this project, these performances work. At the core of the why lives a rooted desire to present artists seeking an outlet. Their goal has never been to make money or to start a thriving profitable business. (Even though we sure do want some profitable, thriving product as a result.)

Using Ellis’ framework for assessment:

• Is there a shared identity? Yes. Emma and Maya represent and overlap with the majority, if not all, of the members of the field and have not been working in isolation.

• Is there a standard of practice? Yes. The two have created consistent performance structures that utilize the same ever-evolving criteria for artist selection that never appears to favor one type or style of dance over another.

• Is there a knowledge base? Yes. The movement languages and dynamic communities each of the artists call upon share the desire to be performed and celebrated. And people in Seattle know Emma and Maya to be committed to doing good, authentic work rooted in community values.

• Is there leadership and grassroots support? Yes! Under the two’s leadership, the pair has secured a circle of supporters who, like me, are hungry to support and advocate for a new wave of community-based performances. 

• Is there a funding and policy making environment? This one is a little nebulous. I think they’d like to have a secured, dedicated source of funding and an environment where they can make some structured decisions. If they ever decide to hire folks in the process of producing the shows, they’d be tasked with getting this very piece of the framework addressed. This is their growth opportunity. 

Check out how far they’ve come since our initial interview - https://www.coseattle.dance/. Since this piece was written, the two have produced a total of ten (10) performances and have hosted one (1) fundraiser, their second coming up in September, 2024. The two have even created a new production opportunity with Co- Presents where instead of a community sourced performance, they commission two (2) artists for three (3) evening length performances. 

TU Dance and Bon Iver - Come Through

Minneapolis-based dance company, TU Dance, sparked a fire in national dance communities with its collaboration and shared tour with Justin Vernon of Bon Iver in 2018. Originally commissioned by Liquid Music, a leading producer of contemporary music in St. Paul, Minnesota, Come Through became a national celebration of how live music and musicians can uplift and support dance, and vice versa. I witnessed the impact of this production at the Paramount Theater in Seattle back in December 2019. The most interesting part of the whole production was that the majority of the audience were music-lovers first, dance-lovers second. As I was walking out of the Paramount, I heard more times than I can count how many people were surprised that dance was part of the show and how delightful it was. Emmet Kowler writes a review of Come Through for Minneapolis’ favorite radio-station, the Current;

“As a theatre and dance lighting designer by day and a music photographer by night, I found it immensely gratifying to see this band and dance company - both so highly regarded in their respective lands - tackle Come Through. The work is willing to create a sense of wonder and puzzlement, and to let us sit in it; to bend and stretch and pull our expectations and assumptions; to keep us waiting until the very end for something that just might tie it together.” (Kowler, 2018).

At the conclusion of the initial tour, the company was primed for success. The company was gaining national attention, securing touring opportunities that rival those of Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater (who’s going to Paris for a week+ in October, 2024). With the height of the company’s social influence came the awful and harmful actions of Uri Sands, the company’s Artistic Director and choreographer of Come Through, and husband of the company’s co leader, Toni Pierce. Check out the Dance Magazine article on the situation here. While there were real strides towards growth for the organization, the allegations against one half of the company’s leadership halted those leaps. Sands stepped down from his position and Pierce assumed the role of Artistic Director, now holding the keys to the company on her own. 

What happens now? TU Dance was able to tap into an audience that, like Emma and Maya, was hungry for the collaboration, excited to see a blended audience, and were eager to attend a similar performance again. But, what does that mean for the company moving forward, if the once respected choreographer is gone? Is growth still a possibility? And if so, what kind of growth?

Using Ellis’ framework for assessment:

• Is there a shared identity? Yes. TU Dance will always have a place in the Minneapolis dance scene. The company is one of very few Black-led organizations in the city and has an incredible pedigree, lineages that span from home-grown Minnesota roots to professional affiliations with Alvin Ailey in New York. Additionally, the company approaches their dance holistically and presents themes that are relevant, enticing, and nuanced.

• Is there a standard of practice? Yes. The company has a school, dancer selection process, and a philosophy around sharing and teaching dance that supports growth in their dancers, students, and administrators.

• Is there a knowledge base? Yes. This may not be the most important for TU Dance, but their lineage from Alvin Ailey and from Loyce Houlton (Minnesota born and bred educator and founder of Minnesota Dance Theatre) make them highly regarded in the Minnesota dance scene. They have star power and a warm place for the city in their hearts.

• Is there leadership and grassroots support? Yes! Their place as a Black-led organization in a historically white city, on top of the incredible quality of work they produce, is appreciated by both aspiring and emerging dance artists and funders alike. 

• Is there a funding and policy making environment? This has shifted with the ousting of Sands. Now, there are policies in place for more human resource-centered issues. The company will always have secured funding sources. Minneapolis has a lot of money to give to its arts! (I know this personally having grown up there!)

In the case of TU Dance, the growth they are seeking may not be externally facing. And, while the fast-moving corporate American mindset may not be in alignment here, the opportunities TU Dance is taking to grow itself from its own internal practices is what will prime them for external growth, whether touring again, more collaborations, or increased programming to support more choreographers. Their larger community is eagerly waiting!

Check out TU Dance’s progress since 2022 on their site linked - https://www.tudance.org/.

Museums of Museums (MOM) - Amazon vs Microsoft

The last case study to examine in this framework is a debacle with Seattle’s now defunct Museum of Museum’s call for Microsoft and Amazon employees who also happen to make art in 2022. Greg Lundgren, the museum’s founder, released a call for artists with a graphic design featuring Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos in boxing garb, calling employees at each of the two tech companies to submit work for a tech-worker specific art show. The response from the arts community was less than excited.

A Crosscut article details the responses from the community, one of which came from local writer and curator Sharon Arnold. Arnold says, “I think the community has animosity towards tech workers, because they represent gentrification and an abject refusal to participate in the arts,” (Vansynghel, 2022). In response to the community’s vocal outpouring of dislike for the show’s call, Lundgren pulled the show completely with an incredibly long and detailed Instagram caption. In that caption, Vansynghel pulls out some of the key points, “It was a prompt meant to kickstart a nuanced discussion about the complicated relationship between regional artists and our two largest tech employers and maybe break some stereotypes around what a ‘tech worker’ is, Lundgren says.” What the community had to say in response to Lundgren’s response, in fact, is the most interesting part: They questioned why he pulled the show altogether. 

In the plot twist of the century, the very community expressing dislike for the way a new initiative or program is announced may not be arguing for the program to not exist altogether. Instead, the community acted as an accountability partner in asking for the call to be reimagined, remarketed, or rebranded to better facilitate a bridge between artist-workers and tech-workers. Lundgren reacted to the outpouring of dislike in what looked like defensive ways rather than approaching the community to figure out how best to accomplish such a divisive new program.

Let’s look at how Ellis’ framework can help by reimagining the call for tech-worker-artists:

• Is there a shared identity? There can be. The initial call for submissions encouraged competition and exclusivity for a specific sect of Seattle’s larger arts community to participate. Not good. What if, instead, the call for artists was centered on a theme of curiosity? Do you ever wonder what the backend capabilities of Amazon’s deep web interfaces are if used to generate colors, shapes, and sounds? If an Amazon employee who’s deep in A.I. creates art using A.I., what conversations arise around the value of machine learning in arts landscapes when approached with such expertise? Or maybe a theme calling for all types of artists working in different industries; so the call for tech-worker-artists sits alongside nurse-artists and barista-artists. If the call for submissions centered around the notion that more art and artists is best for the city rather than asking them to fight it out for only one winner, would the call have successful? The shared identity here is that everyone can be an artist and make beautiful, shareable work. So why ask any artist, regardless of where they work, to fight it out?

• Is there a standard of practice? With the show’s cancellation and museum’s closure, it seems like no. I wouldn’t be surprised, however, if there were really lovely practices within the museum’s staff and organizational structures. However, the reality of Seattle’s ever increasingly expensive real-estate proved too volatile for MOM’s experimental approach. Art should be able to make mistakes and stir the status quo without threat of closure and oftentimes even the best standards of practice can’t weather external threats.

• Is there a knowledge base? Yes. Maybe to the organization’s detriment! The community is incredibly observant and intune with what opportunities are useful, not useful, and harmful. MOM might have lacked a finger on the pulse of the artist community in Seattle and could have utilized the shared knowledge outside its doors a bit more. 

• Is there leadership and grassroots support? Not sure on this one. MOM seemed like an organization with grassroots support, perhaps not enough of it. Or perhaps it had plenty of grassroots support, just not plenty of high-net-worth support. 

• Is there a funding and policy making environment? From my experiences, the two words “funding” and “policy” are strongly disliked amongst artists. Mostly because artists so frequently just don’t have the funding they need or would like to create. Like Emma mentioned above, in order to make money, there’s a lot of work needed to start seeing the payoffs; artists more often than not just don’t know where to start, what to prioritize. 

MOM attempted to grow into a new phase of life by welcoming a whole new set of deep pockets to the space. What they didn’t anticipate, however, was the community’s outcry for better planning. Before attempting to grow, MOM could reflect on their current place in the city’s art scene and refocus what makes them useful for artists. 

Go check out their site - https://www.museumofmuseums.com/ - and read up on their mission, vision, and values. Also check out a lovely article that has optimism at its core in the announcement of the museum’s permanent closure - https://www.kuow.org/stories/museum-of-museums-announces-permanent-closure. And, too, the Seattle Times article announcing the closure - https://www.seattletimes.com/entertainment/visual-arts/seattles-museum-of-museums-closing/.

So how can an arts organization grow? Here are some recommendations for those first steps.

Recommendations:

In times of financial hardship, of unknown external threats, of veering from the strategic plan, identify the key recipient(s) of programming. Who benefits from the organization and its work? Answer “why do we exist” through addressing what the recipient(s) are needing most.

When the organization cannot carry out its mission due to external threats, gather key stakeholders to redefine what the mission is and who it centers. Utilize key community members, donors, staff, and the Board to assess what draws them back to the organization: Hear from them impactful experiences and ask why it was valuable? Know what impact your work is having.

Vision decision: Encourage staff to make decisions! In times of hardship, especially, ensuring each individual involved in the organization knows the “why” behind the whole operation and trusting each stakeholder to act in the vision of the organization, will only result in positive responses from the community. 

A checklist of questions to answer:

Is there buy in from your community and constituents to introduce new programming and new performances?

Is there demand in the community you serve? 

Do you have major donors and foundations willing to express financial support for your work? 

Is there a well-communicated vision for the work the organization is tackling?

Lastly, has the organization asked directly what their community needs?

Taking stock of what needs the project, program, or organization addresses for the intended community should be at the heart of every conversation centering growth. The proof is in the pudding and the chicken definitely comes before the egg!

References:

(2018). National Endowment for the Arts: Strategic Plan FY 2018-2022. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts. 

(2020). 4Culture Strategic Plan: King County's Cultural Plan. Seattle: 4Culture.

(2020). The Practical Guide to Corporate and Foundation Giving. iWave. 

(2022). Tips and Tricks to Minimize Donor Fatigue. MightyCause. 

Ellis, A. (2017). Building the Field of Arts Engagement: Prospects and Challenges. San Francisco; The James Irvine Foundation. 

Enamhe, B. (2010). Budgeting as a Strategic Tool for Development in the Arts. Global Journal of Humanities, Vol 8, No 1&2, 2009: 45-49. www.globaljournalseries.com. 

Foster, W., & Fine, G. (2007). How Nonprofits Get Really Big. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 5(2), 46–55. https://doi.org/10.48558/FD5G-HC38

Kowler, E. (2018). Review: Bon Iver and TU Dance 'Come Through' at the Palace Theatre. Minneapolis, Minnesota: The Current. 

https://www.thecurrent.org/feature/2018/04/20/review-bon-iver-and-tu-dance-come-through-at-th e-palace-theatre 

Sillman, M. (2022). Seattle was once a hub for contemporary dance. What happened? Seattle, WA.  Crosscut.https://crosscut.com/culture/2022/05/seattle-was-once-hub-contemporary-dance-what-happened

Singh, H. (2012). Strategic Partnering: Drive Growth and Reduce Risk. Pennsylvania; University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School of Business. 

Vansynghel, M. (2022). MoM’s ‘Amazon vs Microsoft’ exhibit sparks controversy. Seattle, WA. Crosscut.

https://crosscut.com/culture/2022/07/moms-amazon-vs-microsoft-exhibit-sparks-controversy

Vansynghel, M. (2024). Seattle’s too expensive for artists - what that means for the region. Seattle, WA. Seattle Times. https://www.seattletimes.com/entertainment/seattles-too-expensive-for-artists-what-that-means-for-the-region/