I first started wondering about the viability and rationality of the non-profit field when I ran the American Music Center. (Actually, I started thinking about it when I was at Juilliard, and began to realize just how many trombonists were being graduated from music schools across the United States, into a distinctly smaller job market to say the least.)

I started at the AMC in 1997 and soon afterward began to notice what appeared to be an irrational growth in the number of non-profit arts organizations. It led to me my wise-crack that every time two composers had lunch, a new non-profit was created. It was an obscure take-off on the line from It’s a Wonderful Life: “Every time a bell rings, an angel gets his wings.”

Running one of the older organizations in the United States (a national service organization established in 1939), I was keenly aware of the competition for support for already existing organizations versus support for new enterprises. This issue becomes eves more pronounced when it involves the creation of programmatic and institutional redundancies. I often rationalized that particular concern away by focusing on the immense need that could not be met by established resources.

Of course there’s the other side of the coin to the issue of need: limited funding. So yes, while it was true that there is much more need than the constellation of organizations supporting that particular field, in this instance new music, could adequately address, expanding the field of organizations without thinking about sustainable capacities is problematic, to say the least–thus my questions about rationality.

So, what did I see occurring, exactly? Well, an expansion from an established group of organizations supporting composers and performers, as was the case with the AMC or say, Meet The Composer, or the American Composers Forum, to the creation of new organizations that would do it all better, but without real thought as to the ecology of the field. Newer, better, sexier, etc. Sometimes the project would be established through a foundation-supported-research initiative. While the organizations being created were to support artists in other disciplines, in addition to music, there was to be significant overlap.

In one of those instances I remember talking to a consultant who told me that they had just interviewed thousands of artists in America, and their research led to the conclusion that a new organization should be created.

I had quite a laugh, for anyone who works with individual artists knows that’s the very last thing they would ever say. They want the money, and often call into question the resources that go into such organizations. It is understandable, after all.

But yes, this new organization, which wouldn’t make all the mistakes the others had, was indeed created.

A cycle ended up being established: a new organization comes along supporting individual artists, including composers and musical performers, then another comes along, and then, yes, still another.

The theory behind all this was that more organizations would bring in more money to the field. And, the nuanced differences among the organizations would obviate issues of redundancies.

Did it work that way? Perhaps in the early years, when some special grants were made to get the new organization up and running. Eventually though, it’s the same pot of of money, and I don’t believe you end up with added capacity for the field that is so often touted. I tend to see a destabilizing effect.

Interestingly, I think that it is this very same approach that makes it so hard to merge organizations to create greater economies of scale.

What would I have preferred?

I would have preferred a siding towards supporting what already exists, while helping it to do more, better

With an expanding economy comes the lack of any real, hard, cold assessment as to whether the new venture is sustainable, and how it might help or hurt existing organizations that have significant overlap in mission and function.

It’s a bit of the often unrecognized cowboy mentality in the wild west of non-profits.

That brings me to “The Great Recession,” which appears to be in the process of creating the most significant course correction ever in this field.

No kidding, you may be thinking…

I thought the correction would occur in 2001. I am sure there were those who thought it would have happened in 1987. Particularly in New York, after the events of 9/11, it was a tough road to hoe for many organizations. I was still at the AMC and we administered an almost $4 million fund to support musical organizations and individual artists that had suffered losses as a result of the events of 9/11.

At that time, we poured over the books of all the organizations applying for grants, looking for which organizations looked to be particularly problematic. What I saw led me to believe that I  many organizations would go under. But, short-term money was granted to help bolster the field, and the economy recovered, at least we thought it did. Some of the money, notably emergency grants made on an anonymous basis by Mayor Michael Bloomberg became new sustained lines of funding.

Is the course correction occurring today? (Isn’t course correction a lame way to describe it?) Are we on the verge of a thinning of this sector’s herd, with perhaps a significant change in outlook for those thinking of starting new organizations, not to mention the broader effects of such a change on jobs and lives?

It’s funny, for I don’t worry so much for artists as I do for arts administrators. Generally speaking, most artists always have it tough, so what else is new?

Andrew Taylor had an interesting little blog on all this, essentially describing things as being “broken.”

Barry’s Blog had an interesting piece on the trend towards “visioning conferences.”

This week on AJ, there’s an online dialogue on the value of heritage and artistic engagement in a world where how we use culture is rapidly changing.

Neill Archer Roan, on his blog this week asks if the arts have anything more to say beyond “we’re important.”

In essence, what we’re experiencing is the one-two punch of rapid change in culture, technology, and more, combined with the great change in economy that has gotten lots people noticing, big-time.

The rapid change, well, I think the change has been there for quite some time. Is it increasing in complexity and/or speed? Perhaps. But I am sure the folks worried about the future of vaudeville thought very much the same thing.

I saw lots of powerful change taking place when I was at the AMC: the music publishers  implode; watching the music recording business decline; watching the challenges to artists making their way in the world grow exponentially; watching the purported divide between commercial and non profit begin to melt away.

At CAE, where I am today, the change has been faster and more complex than anything I have ever seen before. Much of this is regionally based, as the pace of change and upheaval at the New York City Department of Education is unique. That being said, what’s going on in K-12 education in New York, is making its way to most other urban school systems, not to mention some suburban and rural. It makes what’s happening in the music industry look like child’s play.

So, the change has been around us, all of the time.

I would argue (albeit an easy argument), that it’s the financial calculus that is most important right now. It’s pretty simple: there is only so much money that can go to support so many organizations and individuals.

It’s not to say that we’re alone in this, because we aren’t. This is happening to so many sectors of the economy: the supply of money and how it effects so very, very much.

The non-profit world has its own version of a free market, and many believe we should just let the market sort itself out. Let the thinning occur and then when things turn around, the organizations left standing will move forward.

And, then, when the economy grows again, will it be just like before, a wild west of growth in new organizations, devoid of context related to the overall fabric of the sector and the various submarkets/dis
ciplines?

Of course, that begs the question of what could be done differently? I would argue that the IRS and state attorneys general need to rethink the entire process that grants non-profit/charitable status. Perhaps there should be some sort of impact statement required, one that looks at the impact to other organizations and potential overlap/redundancies?

A sort of non-profit environmental impact statement

Perhaps there should be something more required that would push the organizations to address the question of sustainability, such as a a list of individual pledging specific dollar and time commitments for a fixed period of time?

Perhaps there should be some sort of cap on the number of non-profits allowed to start in any given year?

I know, most everyone is going to hate these ideas. I am not completely wild about them myself, but throw them out there for the hell of it.

Perhaps it’s a good time to rethink some of the underpinnings of the non-profit arts and arts education field, rather than simply allowing for a completely unfettered market, save the most minimal requirements by the IRS and state governments.