• Home
  • About
    • About this Blog
    • About Andrew Taylor
    • Contact
  • Subscribe
  • Other AJBlogs
  • ArtsJournal

The Artful Manager

Andrew Taylor on the business of arts & culture

GETTY: Some capital ideas

August 25, 2004 by Andrew Taylor

Any extended conversation of nonprofit cultural enterprise will eventually wind its way to a certain business term: undercapitalization. The term and the challenge certainly came up often at the Getty Leadership Institute/National Arts Strategies roundtable I attended back in June. The general gist of the conversation is that the nonprofit arts lack sufficient capital to really do what they need to do, leading them down all sorts of dysfunctional paths as businesses that only get worse over time.

Capital is most simply described as ‘wealth used or available for use in the production of more wealth.’ It’s the stuff (money, equipment, land, buildings) that an organization uses to do what it does. According to the About.com definition:


Capital is something owned which provides ongoing services. In the national accounts, or to firms, capital is made up of durable investment goods, normally summed in the units of money. Broadly: land plus physical structures plus equipment.

According to the GLI/NAS briefing for the conversation, the method of securing and building capital is a key difference between nonprofit and for-profit creative enterprise:


The inescapable difference, it could be argued, is that where you generate surpluses rather than deficits, you have the possibility of a level of capitalization that allows you to invest in your future. Where you do not, then securing the funds required for investment in people (including, not trivially, health benefits), in infrastructure, in marketing, in product development is significantly compromised. This simple difference informs not only the chosen legal structure but the culture of the organization.

Labeling any business as ‘over,’ ‘under,’ or ‘adequately’ capitalized is, of course, fairly subjective. Arts organizations, especially, could always use better facilities, more cash reserves, larger endowments, better office equipment, and the like. Yet so many continue to produce despite this lack of capital that it’s easy to wonder why it’s such a big deal.

For those managing, staffing, governing, or supporting a nonprofit cultural organization, it is a big deal, whether they recognize it or not.

Lack of adequate capital usually shows up as a series of symptoms, rather than an obvious disease: facilities become ragged and unrepaired, staff look increasingly burned out, training and professional development opportunities are ignored or discouraged, marketing budgets are cut, office equipment is crashing or straining with older software and not enough disk space. It can be like running a marathon without enough body fat to burn in the attempt — eventually your body starts eating at the muscle itself for fuel.

For commercial firms, the profit margin on their sales will often feed capital savings or investment (so they can become more efficient at selling what they sell). For nonprofits, costs of production are almost always higher than earned income (which is why they’re nonprofits), so there is no profit margin to siphon over to capital. One response is to build endowments — a specialized form of capital available to nonprofits — or to construct ‘working capital reserves’ (ie, restricted cash accounts that can be borrowed against and repaid). But more often than not, nonprofit arts groups just let their staff eat the difference, in more work, less training, less health insurance, and lower pay. Worse, they apply for more project grants to fill the hole, which often only support project costs rather than overhead, leading them to stretch themselves even thinner and dig the hole deeper.

There are good reasons that nonprofits don’t or can’t capitalize like for-profits do, and these will come in a future post. But in the meantime, just understanding and recognizing the structural problem can be an essential first step.

For some great resources to learn more about capital structure in nonprofits, take a look at Hidden in Plain Sight: Understanding Nonprofit Capital Structure from the Nonprofit Finance Fund, or Nonprofit Capital: A Review of Problems and Strategies from the Rockefeller Foundation and Fannie Mae Foundation.

Filed Under: Getty

About Andrew Taylor

Andrew Taylor is a faculty member in American University's Arts Management Program in Washington, DC. [Read More …]

ArtsManaged Field Notes

#ArtsManaged logoAndrew Taylor also publishes a weekly email newsletter, ArtsManaged Field Notes, on Arts Management practice. The most recent notes are listed below.

RSS ArtsManaged Field Notes

  • Minimum viable everything July 1, 2025
    Getting better as an arts organization doesn't always (or even often) mean getting bigger.
  • The rise and stall of the nonprofit arts June 24, 2025
    The modern arts nonprofit evolved in an ecology of growth. It's time to evolve again.
  • Connection, concern, and capacity June 17, 2025
    The three-legged stool of fundraising strategy.
  • Is your workplace a pyramid or a wheel? June 10, 2025
    Johan Galtung defined two structures for collective action: thin-and-big (the pyramid) or thick-and-small (the wheel). Which describes your workplace?
  • Flip the script on your money narrative June 3, 2025
    Your income statement tells the tale of how (and why) money drives your business. Don't share the wrong story.

Artful Manager: The Book!

The Artful Manager BookFifty provocations, inquiries, and insights on the business of arts and culture, available in
paperback, Kindle, or Apple Books formats.

Recent Comments

  • Barry Hessenius on Business in service of beauty: “An enormous loss. Diane changed the discourse on culture – its aspirations, its modus operandi, its assumptions. A brilliant thought…” Jan 19, 18:58
  • Sunil Iyengar on Business in service of beauty: “Thank you, Andrew. The loss is immense. Back when Diane was teaching a course called “Approaching Beauty,” to business majors…” Jan 16, 18:36
  • Michael J Rushton on Business in service of beauty: “A wonderful person and a creative thinker, this is a terrible loss. – thank you for posting this.” Jan 16, 13:18
  • Andrew Taylor on Two goals to rule them all: “Absolutely, borrow and build to your heart’s content! The idea that cultural practice BOTH reduces and samples surprise is really…” Jun 2, 18:01
  • Heather Good on Two goals to rule them all: “To “actively sample novel experiences (in safe ways) to build more resilient perception and prediction” is about as useful a…” Jun 2, 15:05

Archives

Creative Commons License
The written content of this blog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Images are not covered under this license, but are linked (whenever possible) to their original author.

an ArtsJournal blog

Copyright © 2025 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in