Claudia Bach

We might look more critically at how our current structure lumps radically different entities into this  single basket labeled the nonprofit arts organization: very large institutions such as the Metropolitan Opera or the Getty Museum; regional theaters and community art centers; tiny fringe theaters, artists’ start ups, and community festivals all share nonprofit arts organization status. Some of these, especially the longstanding institutions, seem to handle the 501(c)(3) structure with success. At the other end of the spectrum we find artistic work that seems to have woken up to find itself carrying a big heavy carapace made up of 501(c)(3) regulations and practices.

Perhaps it is time to stop assuming that one 501(c)(3) basket is the right container for all nonprofit arts entities. Maybe we can start to sort arts groups into a greater diversity of structures while still assuring that we have mechanisms to encourage artistic work and access. Here are some things I find interesting as we navigate this terrain. 

A more robust and flexible nonprofit fiscal sponsorship model might lighten the infrastructure demands of creating and presenting the arts. Not all arts endeavors have the capacity or need to create governance boards or to hire professional administrative staffs. Many of us can point to endeavors that took on nonprofit status because it was the only way to apply for a grant and then ended up haphazardly building infrastructure by default.

Access to fair market professional-level administrative functions as part of fiscal sponsorship—including bookkeeping, grant writing, management of membership records, human resource functions—would fit the bill for a variety of entities. In the Northwest, Shunpike is working to play this role as fiscal sponsor that also offers services to manage the business aspects of art. There is valuable ground to still be covered. If this model is bolstered it could mean that nonprofit corporate status is taken on with new gravitas and only by those organizations truly suited to it, rather than by every arts group.

Younger and more entrepreneurial arts leaders are stretching the boundaries while not breaking the bonds of nonprofit structure. This includes walking the talk of a more horizontal or non-hierarchical structure where boards together with other volunteers are engaged players in sharing knowledge and responsibility, creating a foundation, and connection to community that covers more ground. Here in Seattle, the Vera Project is an example I’ve been watching with increasing admiration over the last decade.

There is a need for counseling and support for arts nonprofits considering the precipice. Right now there are respected arts organizations standing on a ledge. There are strong voices saying we should haul them back to safety while others murmur that we should learn to be comfortable with a more ecological life-cycle model, letting these organizations die (hopefully gracefully) and add to a rich compost for the continuing cycle of art.

How can we best create a resource to help organizations constructively consider reconfiguration or closure? Some form of a regional counseling resource could be bring fresh ideas and information to conversations with board members and/or staff who may be exhausted, or provide tactical insight into the process for transition or closure. As a sector, we need to find better ways to avoid precipitous decisions and to share knowledge in an honest and constructive fashion.