Arts Research and Current Situation of Arts and Cultural Development in New York City

2. TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 2
STATE OF THE ARTS 4
Patricia C. Jones, Alliance for the Arts
WHO PAYS FOR THE ARTS?—2010 12
Michael Hickey, The Municipal Art Society of New York
THE ECONOMICS OF THE NONPROFIT ARTS SECTOR IN 19
NYC—A LOOK AT THE ECONOMIC IMPACT
Anne Coates, The Municipal Art Society of New York
ARTS
FINANCIAL CONDITION OF NEW YORK CITY NONPROFIT 20
ARTS AND CULTURE ORGANIZATIONS
Hilda Polanco and John Summers, Fiscal Management Associates
FUTURE OF NYC ARTS RESEARCH: A POSTSCRIPT 24
DIGEST
Lane Harwell, Dance/NYC
Anne Coates, The Municipal Art Society of New York
METHODOLOGIES 25
2012
APPENDIX 28
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 29

3. Introduction
Arts Digest
2012 When we look at the conversation about resilience and livability across the economic downturn, which began in 2008 and cut deeply into the arts
globe, the highest-ranking cities boast a rich, vibrant and diverse cultural community. They also tell a story that illustrates that despite challenges,
life. New York City is no exception. Arts and culture have been central to The we now see signs of recovery and hopefulness.
Municipal Art Society of New York’s (MAS) mission since its founding in 1893
There are many indicators of resilience and sustainability discussed
by architects, painters, sculptors and civic leaders to create murals and
here—among them financial health, attendance, number of programs and
monuments for New York’s public spaces. This thread of cultural activity has
workforce. Overall, what we see is that despite the recent long economic
been carried through the Adopt-a-Mural and Adopt-a-Monument programs,
downturn, the nonprofit arts community is scrappy and nimble. Art making
our tours, our collaboration in Place Matters with City Lore, advocating for
and audience building have continued at the highest levels of creativity and
good design over the years, and perhaps most recently through Tribute in
excellence, and New York City’s cultural community has been doing a terrific
Light, a spectacular public art project done with Creative Time.
high-wire act in keeping their doors open during these difficult past few years.
In 2011 MAS forged a new collaboration with the Alliance for the Arts that
Each of the four articles in this collection reports on analysis that uses as its
would continue the strong legacy of research, advocacy and convenings
sole data source the Cultural Data Project (CDP). The CDP is a longitudinal and
stewarded by that organization. From 1977 the Alliance was our city’s
granular data set maintained by the Pew Charitable Trusts and is emerging
leading researcher of arts and cultural activity.
as the national standard for data collection in the arts and cultural sector.1
As MAS is no stranger to the arts, neither is it a stranger to research. With The analyses presented in this collection are varied, demonstrating not only
deep roots in evidence-based work to support its advocacy, in 2010 MAS the depth of information available but also the different ways of interpreting
embarked on a new longitudinal measurement: the MAS Livability Survey. the data to weave a narrative of the resilience of the nonprofit arts sector.
In 2011, the Survey identified that New Yorkers in many parts of the city— This collection looks at the economics of the arts, the sources of income, the
especially outside Manhattan—are not satisfied or do not connect with general state of affairs, and some new ways of measuring the financial health
their local arts and culture offerings. With our deepened arts advocacy of the nonprofit cultural organizations that make this city so very livable.
and research capacity, it is now possible for MAS to further examine this
What is impact and how do you measure it? New measures of impact are
challenge to livability in New York. And, in assuming this agenda at a time
in the works all around us—whether it be the vibrancy indicators being
when tools for data collection and analyses are shifting and strategic
developed by ArtPlace to measure its investments in creative placemaking
policymaking and fund development are critical, MAS has the opportunity to
and therefore the impacts of these efforts on communities (which is at the
be of great service to the cultural field and our city.
heart of MAS’s livability agenda), or the intrinsic impact model developed by
MAS is pleased to publish this collection of research, which taken together WolfBrown for Theatre Bay Area, looking at this heretofore elusive impact,
tell a story about the nonprofit arts community during the challenging now quantifiable. It’s tantalizing to think about how this would be employed
1 for every discipline, and we look forward to it.
2
1 The CDP enables arts organizations to enter financial, programmatic and operational data into a standardized online format. A number of funders in New York, among them New York City’s Department of Cultural Affairs and the
New York State Council on the Arts, now require their applicants to complete CDP profiles as part of their funding applications. Organizations can then use the CDP to produce a variety of reports designed to help increase
management capacity, identify strengths and challenges and inform decision making. The CDP licenses data for research purposes; MAS and the Alliance both obtained licenses to do the research contained in this publication.

4. The impacts of arts and cultural activity are many, and not all explored While this collection focuses on nonprofit cultural groups, we recognize
here. We at MAS felt that a state of the arts could not be offered without the finely woven network of goods, services and workers connected to this
an economic impact piece but say wholeheartedly that it is not the only sector. We also know that the nonprofit arts sector is closely connected to
Arts Digest impact to be considered. the commercial one, often serving as a pipeline of work or talent.
2012 Who Pays for the Arts? underscores what we all know: the face of At the same time that there has been a proliferation of new arts groups
funding cultural activity has changed. More and more, especially for the entering the market and joining the ranks of 501(c)(3)s, there has been a
INTRODUCTION
largest groups, earned income has outpaced contributions; but even for profound philanthropic shift since 2008 in a host of different ways—giving
the smallest organizations (as studied in the aggregate) it is a significant levels, giving priorities, business models for grantmaking, among them.
piece of the funding pie.
There is a great story of opportunity to be told here—to leverage the
The Alliance’s State of the Arts looks at a broader swath of cultural activity extraordinary public/private partnership in support of the arts (combined
than do the others, embracing the full potential of the data offered by the with an ability to earn revenue) and to stimulate and nurture creativity and
CDP. Its report includes organizations whose offerings include cultural engagement with one of New York City’s greatest assets: its cultural life.
activity, but not exclusively. These groups applied for support to one of the
There is a growing opportunity for short-, medium- and long-term
funders requiring use of the CDP and therefore appear in the data for the
collaboration, partnership, merger and adoption of programs of one
study years. It is a great reminder that cultural activity in this city happens
organization to another, as MAS has done with the Alliance for the Arts.
in many places beyond performance spaces, museums and historic
houses—including libraries, parks, media organizations (nonprofit television, And, there is an opportunity for new, or renewed, support for the arts—in
radio and online media) or higher education institutions that see arts and the form of philanthropic investments to ensure the cultural field’s resilience
culture as a key piece of their offerings. through support for general operations, cash reserves and capacity building.
We believe that the livability of this city—of any city—relies heavily on As MAS addresses our city’s resilience in all of its work, we have put the
a vibrant cultural life. In addition to publishing updates to the traditional arts—and their vibrancy, resilience and sustainability—at the core of our
portfolio of Alliance research, all of which we believe are important to work. This collection of research informs our work going forward, and we
understanding the nonprofit arts sector and its contributions, impacts, hope it is of equal use to the cultural community and its supporters.
opportunities and challenges, we asked Fiscal Management Associates We hope you see in the data not only the challenges our arts and cultural
to help us think about what new indicators could be developed to help institutions face, but opportunity to strengthen the field. At MAS, we are
us understand the health of the nonprofit arts field, which would, in turn, committed to advancing arts and culture to improve the livability of our
help inform our work to support the arts in MAS’s livability agenda. We city, and to engaging policymakers, funders, sister advocates and the
are pleased to include those here. wider cultural community in this effort. This digest establishes important
We encourage our readers to take in the whole picture presented here, benchmarks and is only a starting point for discussion about where we are
through four different lenses. Each tells an important part of the story now as a field and for where we are going.
about this field’s activity, impact and sustainability. There are a few Vin Cipolla, President
cautionary moments, to be sure; we hope that they will be viewed as The Municipal Art Society of New York
3 tools for nuanced understanding of some of the particular challenges
that the cultural community faces.

5. State of the Arts
Patricia C. Jones, Alliance for the Arts
Arts Digest
2012 The Alliance for the Arts is pleased to be able to present this first the commercial theater, film, visual arts and music companies they have
comprehensive look at the State of the Arts, a review of the economics, spawned or influenced—play a critical role in the city’s economy. The 1,325
services and well-being of more than 1,300 nonprofit arts organizations organizations that have contributed to this study have a combined annual
based in New York City. The Alliance has been producing reports on the arts revenue of nearly $5.5 billion; while the majority are based in Manhattan,
in NYC, New York State and the metropolitan region since 1977, including they are located in all five boroughs and in every City Council district.
the influential 1983 The Arts as an Industry. This is the first time, however,
Arts Organizations by Discipline and Borough
that we have been able to provide a comprehensive portrait of the city’s
arts organizations over a multiyear period, thanks to the data collected by Organization Type BRONX KINGS NEW YORK QUEENS RICHMOND TOTAL
the Cultural Data Project. Community Arts 4 19 39 14 4 80
Education & Instruction 7 21 71 3 4 106
It is particularly fortuitous that these data are available now, starting with
History 4 7 19 7 5 42
FY2008, for this has been a tumultuous period for the city as a whole,
including the nonprofit sector. Media Arts 3 28 82 3 1 117
Science & Nature 4 5 8 3 2 22
This report could not have been completed without the unstinting help of the
Museums & Visual Arts 6 15 77 12 3 113
staff of the Cultural Data Project for reports and data analysis; it was made
Dance 2 30 93 4 1 130
possible by funding from the New York Community Trust and the Booth
Music 9 32 135 15 8 199
Ferris Foundation and the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs.
Other Performing Arts 5 23 59 6 2 95
The State of the Arts will be the final report by the Alliance for the Arts
Theater 6 39 184 17 5 251
which is shutting its doors by the end of this year. After 35 years serving
Councils, Services & Support 2 15 100 9 0 126
New York City’s cultural community, the board of trustees has decided that
Other 0 12 30 2 0 44
the Alliance’s services to the field can best be fulfilled by the adoption of
Total 52 246 897 95 35 1325
key programs by two other critical NYC institutions—WNET for our online
Source: Alliance for the Arts, Cultural Data Project
cultural information services through NYC-ARTS and the Municipal Art
Society for our advocacy, research and convenings. We know that they will But this situation is relatively recent—before 1960 only 153 (11.5%) of the
both continue as strong stewards of our programs. current nonprofits were in business. In the next 20 years, coinciding with the
formation of the National Endowment for the Arts and the New York State
Summary Council on the Arts, twice as many organizations (323) were formed, and
New York City, home to more than 1,300 nonprofit arts organizations, is another 535 came into existence between 1980 and 1999, at a time when
arguably the cultural capital of the United States. And these nonprofits—and
4

6. the NYC Department of Cultural Affairs, recently formed as an independent vast majority of this income went to the 113 largest organizations—$4.604
agency, expanded City funding to include organizations not located on billion. The remaining 1,212 organizations received some $831 million, with
Arts Digest City-owned property. Even with the economic ups and downs of the past $546 million contributed and $285 million earned in their latest fiscal year.
2012 decade, another 309 groups were started just in the 11 years since 2000.
EXPENSES
The arts (including universities with a strong arts focus; zoos, parks and Total expenses for all groups totaled $5.150 billion. Again, the majority of
STATE OF THE ARTS
botanic gardens; public television and radio; historic houses and history this total was spent by the 115 largest groups (total expenses of $4.381
museums; and community arts programs) now permeate every facet of our billion). So 8.6% of the organizations were responsible for 85% of total
lives, and small organizations abound. In New York City, 406 groups (31% expenditures and 86.7% of total income.
of the total) have budgets of less than $100,000, and another 421 have
The largest expense category for all organizations is personnel, ranging
budgets between $100,000 and $500,000. At the other end of the scale, the
from a low of 43.6% of total costs for groups under $100,000 to a high of
113 organizations with budgets of more than $5 million a year comprise
59.6% for large organizations with budgets between $1 and $5 million. The
just 8.6% of the total number of groups, and another 238 have budgets
smallest groups spend just under 11% on salaried employees, and the most
between $1 and $5 million.
on outside artists/performers, 24.5%. The two largest budget categories
In spite of this diversity, the largest groups receive the lion’s share of both spend the most on salaried employees—48% and 47.3% respectively—and
earned and contributed income. In the latest fiscal year reported, the the least on outside artists/performers (3.3%) and professionals (3.8%), as
113 largest groups earned 89% of the total earned revenue for all 1,325 they were able to bring most of these functions in-house. This pattern held
organizations and 80% of the total contributed income. They also received true across all disciplines, in varying degrees. The smallest organizations
88% of all NYC government support and 85% of government support at also spent the largest percentage on administrative and programming costs.
all levels. The 974 groups with budgets of less than $1 million a year But with total expenses of just $19.2 million for 406 groups, none of these
brought in just 3% of the total earned revenue and 6.2% of all contributed categories represent a substantial expenditure per organization, where the
income, even though together they represent 73.5% of the total number average budget size is just under $50,000.
of groups in the city.
New York City’s arts groups as a whole weathered the recent financial
This study looks at the total impact of all 1,325 groups, but also breaks out storm in reasonably good shape. Income surpassed expenses by nearly
the data by budget size and discipline category. For those 535 groups which $285 million overall last fiscal year, and while most of this surplus was
reported fiscal data for 2008, 2009 and 2010, we look at the impact the current earned by the largest groups ($224.5 million) groups in every other budget
recession has had on their finances and the services. category had surpluses ranging from 2% to 26% of income over expenses,
with the smallest groups faring the best.
The Economics of the Arts
EMPLOYMENT
REVENUE
Personnel costs are the largest single expense for all arts organizations
For the 1,325 NYC arts organizations in this study revenue was nearly
in NYC—artists and independent contractors for the small organizations
evenly divided between earned income of $2.707 billion and contributed
5
(under $500,000), salaried employees for the largest ones. In total, cultural
income of $2.727 billion the same year, for a total of $5.435 billion. The

7. organizations employed 120,283 people in their latest fiscal year—23,310 full- PRODUCTIONS
time and 32,905 part-time employees, and 64,068 independent contractors. In their latest fiscal year, New York City’s 1,300+ arts and culture
Arts Digest These numbers translate to 40,410 full-time equivalent employees and organizations presented:
2012 represent just over 54% of total expenses. In addition, arts groups depend on
‡ 20,119 live productions
another 82,855 full- and part-time volunteers and 16,684 board members.
STATE OF THE ARTS
‡ 56,446 performances
Only 12.6% of the smallest organizations reported any full-time employees; ‡ 4,242 exhibitions
14% reported employing 308 part-time employees; 85.5% reported hiring ‡ 89,879 classes and lectures
10,234 independent contractors, most of whom were artists or program- ‡ 3,058 tours
related (9,880). Many of these smallest groups also reported full- or part-time ‡ 6,973 world or national premieres
volunteers, with 112 groups (27%) using 283 full-time volunteers and 308 ‡ 10,821 workshops or readings of new works
organizations (74%) using nearly 8,000 part-time volunteers. At the other end
of the spectrum, the largest organizations reported employing nearly 19,000 ADMISSION PRICES
individuals full-time and almost 20,000 part-time, most either artists or The median ticket price across all arts groups and for all types of events
program-related. Just over 100 of the organizations with budgets more than (excluding workshops) is $18.40, ranging from a low of $5 for history groups
$5 million reported also hiring more than 16,000 independent contractors, to a high of $20 for performing arts organizations and a $10 average for
including nearly 15,000 artists or program-related individuals.Almost half museums. For children, seniors and students median prices are lower,
(47%) of all groups now offer health insurance and make a contribution averaging $10 a ticket. The spread of prices can be extreme—from a low of
toward the cost; 21% offer some form of pension or retirement plan. $1 a ticket to highs over $1,000.
Combined with the large number of part-time and independent workers, this
MEMBERSHIPS AND SUBSCRIPTIONS
means that most individuals working for most arts groups are adequately
Memberships and subscriptions remain the primary way many individuals
compensated, either salaried or with full-time employment or benefits.
support the arts groups of their choice. The arts community has just under
The Arts and the Community 2 million members and subscribers. Museums have the largest number
of committed supporters in the form of members—more than 420,000.
ATTENDANCE
Media organizations, including libraries, public television and public radio,
More than 35.5 million people paid to attend arts events offered by New
have a strong membership base of over 408,000, and science and nature
York City arts groups, and groups reported a total audience of 155 million
organizations follow with 243,446 members. The performing arts, which
for free events—including public radio and TV. Most were offered by
used to depend heavily on a strong subscriber base for much of their
Manhattan-based groups, but more than 2.5 million people attended paid
financial stability, appear to be less dependent on subscribers today. Music
events in Staten Island, 4.2 million in the Bronx, 6.7 million in Queens and
organizations, ranging in size from the Metropolitan Opera and the New
7.7 million in Brooklyn. The largest number of attendees visited museums,
York Philharmonic to 64 groups with budgets under $100,000, have a total
science centers, and zoos and botanic gardens (nearly 9.6 million paid
subscription base of just 108,344, while dance groups have only 11,451
visitors to museums and 7.3 million+ to science or nature centers.
subscribers. Theater companies fell in between, with 92,418.
6

8. VOLUNTEER SUPPORT income from 2008 to 2009. Contributed income dropped in nearly all
Volunteers are critical to all arts groups, but especially to those with categories—especially in individual and foundation support—but the biggest
Arts Digest budgets under $500,000. Six hundred groups—308 with budgets less than impact was in investment income where groups of all sizes experienced
2012 $100,000 and 291 with budgets between $100,000 and $500,000—reported substantial losses in both 2008 and 2009. Investment losses in 2008 totaled
having nearly 39,000 full- and part-time volunteers, as compared to only more than $77 million, a loss that grew to more than $1.171 billion by 2009.
STATE OF THE ARTS 3,500 employees. In addition, the smallest groups had nearly 3,000 board While all types and sizes of organizations experienced investment losses,
members, or almost 10 times as many board members as staff, making most smaller groups had less to lose; the largest losses were sustained
most of these groups largely volunteer directed and led. Again, the largest by the largest visual and performing arts organizations, which together
organizations had the greatest number of volunteers per organization, with accounted for $62.6 million in losses in 2008 and $1.146 billion in 2009.
67 groups reporting a total of 18,192 volunteers, and all 113 reporting a total
Luckily, most groups did not have to sell their investments in order to
of 3,748 board members, for an average of 33 members per organization.
meet their expenses, so the total realized investment losses in 2009 only
PROGRAMS FOR CHILDREN amounted to $93 million, as compared to more than $1 billion in unrealized
Arts education and other programs for children continue to be an important losses. By 2010 many of these investments had begun to turn around,
function of many groups. Some 10.25 million children and youth attended giving groups a positive return in 2010, for a total of $454.5 million in
events or visited arts groups in the study year, with 3 million attending investment and interest income, both realized and unrealized. Removing
theater performances and another 1.5 million visiting science centers, zoos all investment and interest income from total earned income in each of
and botanic gardens. Besides encouraging children to visit their institutions the three years would have given these 554 groups $962 million in earned
individually, with family or friends, many organizations offer education income in 2008, $966 million in 2009 and $954 million in 2010. Admission
programs for school groups or take programs to the schools. A total of income grew over these three years, but this increase was offset by
122,634 school groups visited organizations in their latest fiscal year, and decreases in most other categories.
organizations offered 7,505 off-site programs in the schools. A majority of
Contributed income also fell in most categories over the past three years;
these programs were offered by visual arts groups, particularly science and
the one bright spot was government support, particularly NYC government,
nature centers and museums and galleries. Education organizations and
which increased its support to these arts organizations by more than
museums offered the largest number of in-school programs, 2,078
$50 million from 2008 to 2009 to a total of $295 million. City support to
and 1,057 respectively.
the largest organizations increased even more—$78 million or 44%—
Recession Trends: 2008–2010 increases that were offset by decreases to smaller organizations. While
the total fell back somewhat in 2010 as the City faced its own economic
Five hundred fifty-four groups reported data for each of the past three years,
problems, it still represented a 12.6% increase over 2008 and did much to
2008, 2009 and 2010. Thus, we can track the impact of the recession on a
offset losses in other categories. State government support fell across all
significant number of arts groups and extrapolate to the field as a whole.
budget categories, to $40.8 million in 2009 from $52.2 million in 2008, but
INCOME recovered partially to $45.3 million in 2010. Federal government support
7
In general, 2009 was a very difficult year for all groups, no matter their budget increased in 2009 and 2010, from $33.4 million in 2008 to $43.7 million in
size. Groups experienced substantial decreases in earned and contributed 2009 to $58.4 million in 2010.

9. At the beginning of the recession in 2008 these 554 organizations as a increased by 27% over the three years and the number of program
whole were still operating in the black—income exceeded expenses by personnel increased by 20%, though the full-time equivalents in these two
Arts Digest $169 million. By the following year, income had dropped by more than categories dropped by 15.5% and 13% respectively. Total volunteers grew
2012 half, but arts groups had not, as a whole, been able to reduce expenses. from 29,000 to 40,000, most to help with programs; measured as full-time
Expenses actually increased by $75 million, resulting in a net loss of over equivalents, the number of total volunteers also increased from 3,500 to
STATE OF THE ARTS $1.3 billion—most of which, of course, was due to unrealized investment 6,700, an increase of 92%.
losses. The biggest losers were museums and galleries, science and nature
ATTENDANCE
centers and presenting organizations.
Even while these groups were struggling to raise funds and keep costs
By 2010, as investments began to turn around, total income had once under control, they were managing to increase their programming and
again reversed and even increased over 2008 to $2.7 billion. At the same reach significantly larger audiences: between 2008 and 2010 the number of
time, organizations were able to reduce some expenses, so that their total attendees at all events, paid and unpaid, increased from more than 43 million
expenses totaled under $2.4 billion—a decrease of just under $64 million— to nearly 81 million, and the percentage of the audience who attended for free
resulting in a net surplus of $332 million. increased from 51% to 74%. (It should be noted, however, that nearly half of
the increase in the audience for free events came from media organizations,
EXPENSES
including public TV and radio.) The number of attendees at paid events actually
One of the problems facing many arts groups is their high percentage of
dropped slightly over the three years, from 21.3 million to 20.9 million. This was
fixed costs. As Professors Baumol and Bowen famously wrote in their study
especially true for Manhattan-based organizations, where paid attendance
of the performing arts in 1965, you can’t cut the number of players in a
fell from 8.97 million in 2008 to just over 7.89 million in 2010. Subscribers also
symphony to make an orchestra more efficient. But groups did cut some
decreased, particularly for dance, music and theater companies. The number
full-time employees—mostly in administration and fundraising—and hired
of performances, exhibitions, lectures and commissioned works all increased
part-time employees instead. While they hired more artists/performers
slightly over the three years, although touring—which is particularly expensive
and other program contractors, they gave them fewer hours, resulting
and often sponsor-dependent—fell by 80%.
in a 7% decrease in spending on outside artists/performers and an 18%
decrease in program personnel funding over the three years. But facility
and administrative costs are harder to cut. Nearly all disciplines and budget
sizes saw an increase in facility expenses.
PERSONNEL
Although total salary costs increased slightly from 2008 to 2010, the
number of full-time employees fell by more than 10%, partially offset by
a 5% increase in part-time employees, particularly artists and program
employees. Groups also turned increasingly to independent contractors—
both artists/performers and program personnel—in order to continue
8 their programming at stable levels. The number of these artists/performers

10. Arts Digest 2012
STATE OF THE ARTS
Characteristics of CDP New York City Arts Organizations
Community Arts & Education Visual Arts (History, Science, Nature, Museums, Galleries) Performing Arts Service, Support and Other
Community Science & Museums & Other Service/
Education Total History Media Arts Total Dance Music Performing Theater Total Other Total
Arts Nature Galleries Arts Support
Total Number of Orgs 80 106 186 42 117 22 113 294 130 199 95 251 675 126 44 170
Smallest 31 18 49 6 34 1 8 49 42 97 28 96 263 27 18 45
Small 20 28 48 17 50 1 35 103 52 63 18 85 218 43 9 52
Medium 10 11 21 4 10 1 18 33 16 13 10 30 69 21 3 24
Large 14 38 52 9 15 7 26 57 15 19 28 31 93 25 11 36
Very Large 5 11 16 6 8 12 26 52 5 7 11 9 32 10 3 13
Borough Location
Brooklyn 19 21 40 7 28 5 15 55 30 32 23 39 124 15 12 27
Bronx 4 7 11 4 3 4 6 17 2 9 5 6 22 2 0 2
Manhattan 39 71 110 19 82 8 77 186 93 135 59 184 471 100 30 130
Queens 14 3 17 7 3 3 12 25 4 15 6 17 42 9 2 11
Staten Island 4 4 8 5 1 2 3 11 1 8 2 5 16 0 0 0
Average Expense ($) 1,561,714 6,592,825 4,428,906 2,227,310 5,297,173 29,858,710 9,906,145 8,468,035 1,298,309 2,902,894 5,406,233 1,249,834 2,331,491 1,536,018 1,581,172 1,547,705
Total Expense ($) 124,937,101 698,839,403 823,776,504 93,547,026 619,769,199 656,891,625 1,119,394,406 2,489,602,406 168,780,184 577,675,935 513,592,121 313,708,402 1,573,756,642 193,538,288 69,571,580 263,109,868
Total Revenue ($) 151,576,444 771,156,990 992,733,434 126,232,739 641,124,384 561,272,370 1,344,738,144 2,673,367,637 179,067,508 442,727,063 567,158,844 360,143,450 1,549,096,865 192,905,228 96,905,820 289,811,048
Earned/Contributed 36%/64% 76%/24% 69%/31% 21%/ 79% 24%/ 76% 38%/62% 64%/36% 47%/53% 62%/38% 43%/57% 38% / 62% 54% / 46% 46% / 54% 38% / 62% 38% / 69% 36% / 64%
Subscribers /
Subscribers/ 46,260 /
46,260/ 19,236/ 65,496/ 1,200/
1,200 / 67,023/
67,023 / 0/ 22,130/ 90,343 / 11,451/ 108,344 / 26,643 / 92,418 / 238,856 / 28,482 / 658 / 29,140 /
Members 47,786 7,721 55,507 33,436 408,235 243,446 420,349 1,105,466 3,624 102,391 48,278 41,450 195,743 158,464 16,621 175,085
Paid Attendance 462,924 559,604 1,022,528 1,615,079 1,422,021 7,331,129 9,590,792 19,959,021 1,987,918 1,924,604 3,035,250 6,054,569 13,002,341 882,083 640,555 1,522,638
Children Attendance 135,801 294,892 430,693 669,472 624,916 1,545,568 863,002 3,702,958 358,004 274,415 680,941 3,029,263 4,343,623 1,486,121 291,175 1,777,296
Number of School
939 8,356 9,295 15,010 10,750 29,725 27,997 83,482 1,246 5,214 4,496 4,186 15,142 13,313 1,402 14,715
Groups
Off-Site School
131 2,178 2,309 407 398 242 1,507 2,104 427 504 348 742 2,021 906 165 1,071
Programs
9

11. Arts Digest 2012
STATE OF THE ARTS
Characteristics of CDP New York City Arts Organizations, continued
Community Arts & Education Visual Arts (History, Science, Nature, Museums, Galleries) Performing Arts Service, Support and Other
Community Science & Museums & Other Service/
Education Total History Media Arts Total Dance Music Performing Theater Total Other Total
Arts Nature Galleries Arts Support
Total Personnel
69,424,917 459,314,469 528,739,386 46,412,306 341,451,424 375,406,663 488,799,850 1,252,070,243 107,990,875 358,303,587 225,533,026 173,138,345 864,965,833 102,459,877 38,396,893 140,856,770
Expenses ($)
% of Expenses 55.6% 65.7% 64.2% 49.6% 55.1% 57.1% 43.7% 50.3% 64.0% 62.0% 43.9% 55.2% 55.0% 52.9% 55.2% 53.5%
Facilities
27,325,048 103,543,240 130,868,288 20,442,038 81,982,986 86,771,604 210,664,882 399,861,510 20,516,257 45,791,472 175,125,322 43,336,928 284,769,979 21,946,605 8,637,609 30,584,214
Expenses ($)
% of Expenses 22.0% 15.0% 16.0% 22.0% 13.0% 13.0% 19.0% 16.0% 12.0% 8.0% 34.0% 14.0% 18.0% 11.0% 12.0% 12.0%
Programming
6,837,261 37,823,430 44,660,691 7,958,832 111,755,840 35,625,322 134,986,829 290,326,823 24,019,783 45,277,221 52,371,179 73,229,151 194,897,334 19,603,257 3,365,919 22,969,176
Expenses ($)
% of Expenses 5.5% 5.4% 5.4% 8.5% 18.0% 5.4% 12.1% 11.7% 14.2% 7.8% 10.2% 23.3% 12.4% 10.1% 4.8% 8.7%
Administrative
21,349,875 98,158,264 119,508,139 18,733,850 84,578,949 159,088,036 284,942,995 547,343,830 16,253,269 128,303,655 60,562,594 24,003,978 229,123,496 49,528,549 19,171,159 68,699,708
Expenses ($)
% of Expenses 17.1% 14.1% 14.5% 20.0% 13.7% 24.2% 25.5% 22.0% 9.6% 22.2% 11.8% 7.7% 14.6% 25.6% 27.6% 26.1%
Total Employees 4,140 13,106 17,246 1,941 6,480 8,801 12,006 29,228 5,995 15,303 25,158 19,778 66,234 1,615 5,9961 7,576
Artists/Performers 1,966 6,676 8,642 876 1,349 459 1,838 4,522 3,586 10,370 17,124 11,394 42,473 3,657 664 4,322
Program 1,598 4,853 6,451 792 4,026 5,523 7,560 17,901 1,728 3,362 6,212 6,642 17,943 1,601 614 2,215
Fundraising 57 286 343 70 258 359 567 1,254 151 342 284 323 1,100 184 29 213
General Admin 519 1,291 1,809 203 846 2,460 2,042 5,551 531 1,230 1,538 1,419 4,717 518 308 827
%FT-%PT-%IC 26-22-52 24-32-44 24-29-46 27-28-45 50-16-33 42-26-32 42-18-40 43-21-36 11-38-51 11-35-53 6-17-77 6-43-51 8-31-62 16-19-65 34-19-47 20-19-61
Board/ 1,037/ 1,500/ 2,537/ 738/ 1,343/ 627/ 1,939/ 4,647/ 1,164/ 2,149/ 1,241/ 2,429/ 6,983 / 1,848/ 669 / 2,517/
Volunteers 1,676 12,951 14,627 2,015 3,694 4,517 4,827 15,053 2,031 20,436 5,138 13,193 40,798 7,605 4,772 12,377
Total Events 5,818 19,575 25,393 3,104 62,240 5,007 18,226 88,577 9,151 12,067 16,726 36,125 74,069 21,200 2,399 23,599
FY 2008 - FY 2010
Trend Dataset
Expenses % Change 11.8% -4.0% -2.1% -13.2% 15.7% 0.3% -1.7% -0.6% -1.2% -10.7% 15.7% 6.3% 5.2% 0.0% -63.1% -17.2%
Expenses % Change
75.5% 6.4% 13.7% 8.0% 11.1% -5.6% 4.8% 2.6% 1.6% 0.6% 18.6% 25.1% 14.4% 3.2% -51.0% -9.8%
Total
Revenue % Change
(excluding unrealized 36.3% -4.1% 0.7% 8.4% 27.3% -44.4% -43.4% -39.7% -17.2% -25.8% 4.4% 8.5% -3.0% -3.0% -58.1% -17.5%
investment income)
Paid Attendance %
-24.0% -3.0% -6.8% 0.4% 168.2% -0.9% 10.7% 5.3% 3.0% -37.0% -16.6% -1.7% -9.4% 18.3% -24.8% 8.8%
Change
Source: Alliance for the Arts, Cultural Data Project
10

12. CONCLUSIONS New York City’s nonprofit arts are a critical component of its role as an
It is clear from the information presented here that the nonprofit arts international creative center. The large institutions, which account for
Arts Digest in New York City are both a robust economic generator and a source of most of the public and private support, are major tourist attractions and
2012 services used by New Yorkers citywide. Thanks to support from all sectors— serve millions of visitors; the small- and mid-size organizations are critical
government, foundations, corporations and especially individuals—the arts to their communities and are often the innovative engines that drive new
STATE OF THE ARTS have survived the economic recession and are continuing to offer a wide work and open new artistic possibilities. Yet, the majority of workers in the
range of free and low-cost programs. field are underemployed, with most working part-time or as independent
contractors, and rarely receiving adequate benefits.
However, there are some issues that should be kept in mind. First, an
unprecedented number of nonprofit arts organizations have come into If NYC is to retain its preeminence as the nation’s cultural capital it will
existence over the past 20 years. A total of 578 of the current 1,325 need to find better ways to retain the artists and other employees who are
organizations (44%) were founded between 1992 and 2011. Groups with critical to that role.
budgets under $5 million are already competing for a comparatively small
Everyone concerned about the continued health of the cultural sector—
portion of total arts revenue. If groups continue to form at the pace they
government, funders, corporate leaders, policymakers and individual
have over the past few decades, it is hard to see where the increased
supporters—need to think carefully about new approaches to strengthen
funding necessary to support them will come from.
the entire sector. We hope that this report has offered some insight into the
Those groups with budgets under $100,000 survive thanks primarily to strengths and weaknesses of the sector, and that it will help all of us ensure
individual support (from board members and volunteers as well as audience its future health.
and contributors) and government support. While few have paid staff, Patricia C. Jones is an independent consultant who is currently serving as the Interim Executive
Director of Eyebeam Art + Technology Center. She led the Alliance for the Arts as Executive
they spend an average of 29% of their expenses on administrative costs.
Vice President from 1977-1990 and served as a trustee from 1990-2011. She is currently the
Given the increasing competition for limited resources, this may be an Alliance’s Acting Executive Director.
opportune time for funders and policymakers to consider innovative ways © 2012, Alliance for the Arts/The Municipal Art Society of New York. All Rights Reserved
to encourage the sharing of administrative costs and management staff,
including strategic mergers and other forms of collaborative behavior.
Although the field has bounced back from the enormous deficits of 2009,
it will take time for many of groups to recover from investment losses.
Luckily, while most groups had substantial realized losses from investments
and interest ($93 million total), this sum was dwarfed by unrealized losses
of more than $1 billion. But the extent to which the largest organizations
depend on investment income is something to be concerned about in the
future, as is the management and investment of those funds.
11

13. Who Pays for the Arts?—2010
Michael Hickey, The Municipal Art Society of New York
Arts Digest
2012 Historically, Who Pays for the Arts?1 has attempted to answer the analysis (see the Methodologies section on page 25 for greater detail), but it
fundamental question of how nonprofit cultural organizations in New York also illustrates an important reality: the overwhelming majority of New York
City earn their daily bread. New York City is host to a tremendous variety City cultural organizations are relatively small and locally based.
of cultural partners. They range from very small organizations run on a
Overall, income from all sources was as follows:
shoestring budget by a single dedicated artist, to major cultural institutions
with hundreds of millions of dollars in total annual income and hundreds ‡ Earned income represented 53% (or $1.3 billion) of total income for
of specialized staff. They also vary tremendously by geography, creative New York City nonprofit cultural organizations in 2010
aesthetic, operational structure and purpose. Naturally, making comparisons ‡ Private contributions were 30% (or $750 million)
among such a wide array of organizations is challenging. Nonetheless, Who ‡ Government contributions were 17% (or $420 million). Of this
Pays for the Arts? offers a valuable framework for observing trends, and amount, New York City funding represented $292 million in income, or
raises important questions for future researchers to consider. 12% of all revenues reported.
Summary Findings These percentages are all consistent with the 2010 Who Pays for the Arts?
report (which looked at 2009 data), with private support being down slightly
Similar to previous iterations of Who Pays for the Arts?, this analysis
(2%) from the prior year, and government support increasing slightly (3%)
focuses on a single year of activity—from January 1 to December 31, 2010.
from the same period. Note: the inclusion of capital commitments in the
This creates a useful snapshot, and provides a basis to compare trends
2010 data for this report may impact comparisons to prior years’ studies
within the sector year over year.
when capital commitments were not included as income.3
For the first time, this analysis makes use of data provided through the
Average Income by Type and Size—2010
Cultural Data Project (CDP), analyzing 723 organizations2 that reported
total income of nearly $2.5 billion in 2010. As in prior versions of this
report, the majority of total income went to a small group of very large
organizations. Just five organizations (all with annual incomes of more than
$100 million) accounted for nearly $1 billion of the total (or 40%), and just
40 organizations (all with budgets more than $10 million) accounted for $1.9
billion of the total (or 76%). Indeed, average income for all organizations in
2010 was $3.4 million, while the median income was less than $250,000,
indicating that all revenue categories were strongly skewed by these very
1
< $100K $100K - $500K $500K - $1M $1M - $5M > $5M
few large organizations. This is important because it poses challenges for
Public Funding 9,444 53,060 125,458 392,877 5,305,559
Private Support 18,229 94,891 244,073 762,507 9,345,129
12 1
2
3
Who Pays for the Arts? was previously published by the Alliance for the Arts, now adopted and published by MAS.
Please see the Methodologies section beginning on page 25 for important details about this data set.
Please see the notes regarding the impact of capital contributions in Methodologies.
Earned Revenues 16,995 107,276 342,152
Source: The Municipal Art Society of New York, Cultural Data Project
1,048,046 17,241,662

14. While there are important similarities among organizations of all sizes touring, royalties, publications, interest on investments and miscellaneous
(for instance, all categories rely heavily on earned revenue as their primary income) on overall income appears to indicate that many groups have
Arts Digest source of income), there is still significant variation between the ranges (for developed strategies to support their operations through alternative (and
2012 small organizations, 38% of total income came through earned revenues, frequently entrepreneurial) means.
while this number was more than 50% for the very largest organizations).
Total Income by Percentage—2010
WHO PAYS FOR
THE ARTS?—2010 On the other hand, private contributions from individuals, foundations
and corporations make up a more substantial portion of income for the
very smallest organizations ($18,000 on average). This may simply indicate
that smaller organizations have fewer opportunities to maximize earned
revenues in comparison to larger groups, and must therefore rely more on
private support to help sustain their operations.
For smaller organizations, public support appears to play a slightly more
important role in comparison to their larger peers. A more detailed analysis
below shows that sources of public support (city, state and federal) can vary
greatly by organizational size.
The map in the Appendix shows that the great majority of organizations Source: The Municipal Art Society of New York, Cultural Data Project
captured by CDP are located in Manhattan, including the subset in this
Even within the category of Earned Income, there is significant variation by
report. Note that there are important exceptions not captured in this report,
organizational size.
as many cultural organizations and entities are not part of the CDP data
set (including for-profit cultural entities, individual artists and many small Average Earned Income by Type and Size—2010
cultural nonprofits that choose not to participate in CDP).
The detailed income analysis below looks more deeply at variations among
organizations by size, and also begins to examine how geography affects
the distribution of income streams.
Earned Revenues
As noted above, earned revenues are the primary source of income for
the nonprofit cultural sector. A more detailed breakdown of subcategories
Source: The Municipal Art Society of New York, Cultural Data Project
within earned revenues offers some useful insights. As in prior years,
Admissions, Support from Individuals, and Other Earned Revenues are For the very largest organizations Admissions and Other sources of income
the three leading revenue categories. The major impact of Other Earned account for nearly 75% of total earned revenues, while for the very smallest
13 Revenues (comprising space rentals, merchandising, food services, parking, organizations they account for barely 50%. For all organizations Tuition

15. and Workshops and Contracted Services made up 25%–33% of all earned on average for the very largest groups). The chart below further breaks out
income, with the exception of the very largest groups, where these two Other income into a number of subcategories by organizational size, and
Arts Digest categories combined shrink to just over 5%. Intuitively, one expects that the top three subcategories are highlighted.
2012 organizations vary their revenue strategies based on their size and capacity.
Percentage of “Other Income” by Size and Category—2010
It is striking, however, that those organizations with more than $5 million in
$100K- $500K-
WHO PAYS FOR annual income appear to have a very different strategy in comparison to <$100K $1M-$5M >$5M Total
THE ARTS?—2010 $500K $1M
their smaller peers—relying much more heavily on both Admissions and
Miscellenaeous Earned 21% 14% 9% 17% 32% 31%
Other income rather than classes, workshops and contracted services.
Gift Shop & Merchandising 6% 10% 7% 3% 28% 25%
As in other aspects of this analysis it’s important to view the scale of this Rentals 20% 25% 24% 31% 14% 15%
variation. The chart below provides average income in each of the earned Touring 21% 28% 13% 18% 7% 8%
revenue categories by organizational size. This is telling for several reasons. Dividends & Interest 1% 4% 3% 11% 7% 7%
For smaller organizations, earned revenue streams are fairly consistent Concessions 4% 1% 1% 1% 7% 6%
across all five categories, while for larger organizations there is substantial Parking 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2%
variation between categories. Importantly, for very large organizations Gallery Sales 12% 6% 34% 3% 1% 2%
admissions and other income are dramatically larger on average than Special Sponsorships 4% 6% 3% 3% 1% 1%
for their peers. Indeed, even as income in all categories grows larger, Advertising 6% 3% 3% 5% 0% 1%
Admissions and Other income appear disproportionately higher for those Royalties 2% 3% 0% 2% 0% 0%
organizations with more than $5 million in annual income. Media Subscriptions 2% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0%
Average Earned Revenues by Size and Category—2010 Gains on Investment 1% 0% 2% 4% 0% 0%
$100K- $500K- Grand Source: The Municipal Art Society of New York, Cultural Data Project
<$100K $1M-$5M >$5M
$500K $1M Total
On average, Miscellaneous Earned income totaled 31%, Gift Shop sales
Admissions 5,269 22,852 63,222 252,769 6,104,121 604,986
totaled 25%, and Space Rentals totaled 15%. Overall (with the exception
Fundraising & Events 2,354 14,570 85,820 228,728 2,239,066 257,009
of Miscellaneous Income), Space Rentals and Touring generated the
Contracted Services 3.721 20,060 57,005 147,293 519,003 87,440
most other income for smaller organizations; with gallery sales providing
Tuition & Workshops 2,008 18,650 54,862 158,084 730,160 107,127
an important supplement (a remarkable 34% for mid-size organizations
Other 3,642 31,145 81,243 261,171 7,649,312 746,612
between $500,000 and $1,000,000 in annual income). For the very largest
Avg Total Earned 16,995 107,276 342,152 1,048,046 17,241,662 1,803,264
organizations, after miscellaneous income, gift shops and merchandising
Source: The Municipal Art Society of New York, Cultural Data Project
were the most lucrative (accounting for more than 40% of all revenues
The category of Other income remains a significant source of revenue for in this subcategory).
organizations of all sizes, and indeed ranks as the largest earned revenue
Note that in 2010, the very largest organizations showed losses on Realized
category for 4 of the 5 income ranges. Larger groups collect nearly one-third
Gains on Net Assets (totaling more than $2 million in losses). Under better
14 of their income from Other earned revenue sources ($7.6 million annually

16. market conditions, it’s conceivable this source would have ranked higher in The chart above breaks out average private support according to budget
Other Income for entities with more than $5 million in total annual revenues. size. Note that that the very smallest organizational category and the
Arts Digest One would expect wide differences in the earned revenue strategies very largest were particularly impacted by support from individuals. One
2012 between small and large organizations, but these dramatic differences speculates that those organizations with more than $250,000 in annual
are worthy of further analysis. revenues more easily qualify for foundation and corporate support (in part
WHO PAYS FOR because many require a formal audit, an important accountability measure),
THE ARTS?—2010 Private Contributions while the very largest organizations appear better able to secure large
Support from individuals, corporations and foundations remains a crucial contributions from high-net-worth supporters.
element to overall organizational income. In 2010, organizations in the
data set collected nearly $750 million in private support, which comprised,
Income by Borough
on average, 30% of all revenue. Smaller organizations surpassed other The chart below indicates the percentage of each income source by New
categories by generating some 40% of their total income through private York City borough. Manhattan appears to have stronger earned revenues
sources, while the very largest organizations relied on private support for in comparison to other parts of the city. Possible reasons for this could
less than 25% of their revenues. Indeed, in the analysis there is a clear include that Manhattan-based organizations command higher ticket
trend between the size of the organization and its reliance upon private prices, or attract more rentals, or are better able to maintain significant
support (the clearest of all three major revenue categories: earned, relationships with corporate partners and foundations via proximity. While
private and public). such answers are beyond the scope of this report, they could be fruitful
areas for further analysis.
Average Private Support by Size—2010
Income by Borough—2010
Foundations
Corporations
Individuals Government Support
Private Support
Earned Revenue
< $100K $100K - $500K $500K - $1M $1M - $5M > $5M
Foundations 6,388 48,361 141,812 395,731 2,193,895 Source: The Municipal Art Society of New York, Cultural Data Project
Corporations 1,541 12,288 23,598 89,636 1,093,652
Individuals 10,370 34,243 78,663 277,140 6,066,582 Manhattan cultural organizations represent the overwhelming majority of
Source: The Municipal Art Society of New York, Cultural Data Project groups included in this study (68% of all those captured). It appears that
Manhattan does have a higher concentration of these groups than the
15

17. other boroughs of New York City, although it is also possible that many on average than their peers, while Bronx groups appear to receive more
groups located outside Manhattan do not submit profiles to the CDP for funding on average from state sources. City support appears comparatively
Arts Digest various reasons. Nonetheless, this study shows 87% of all income reported well distributed among Bronx-, Brooklyn- and Manhattan-based groups,
2012 being earned by Manhattan-based organizations. with organizations in Queens and Staten Island receiving less than
organizations in the other three boroughs. These differences may be
Similar to overall income trends, the analysis shows that Manhattan-based
WHO PAYS FOR affected by variations in average organizational size, among other issues,
THE ARTS?—2010 organizations also receive the majority of public support dollars.
and would benefit from further analysis.
Government Support While it’s difficult to tell how representative this data set may be of all
Total Government Support by Borough—2010 cultural activity, it clearly indicates that revenue concentrations
# Groups / All Public Total Federal Total State Total City vary considerably geographically alongside the concentration of
Borough Support Support Support Support
cultural groups themselves.
Bronx 32 21,146,650 3,456,090 3,759,400 13,806,660
Trends in Income: 1995–2010
Brooklyn 128 67,660,056 5,363,801 9,356,142 52,839,510
Historically this report has examined income trends by comparing only
Manhattan 491 303,691,545 54,823,252 43,057,915 205,543,463
organizations for which data is available each year studied from 1995 to the
Queens 50 18,088,450 1,932,152 2,252,064 13,878,054
present. Surprisingly, over the years this comparison group has dwindled in
Staten Island 22 6,927,840 206,303 584,895 6,123,708 size from 374 originally to 114 organizations at present. This bears a closer
Total 723 417,514,541 65,781,598 59,010,416 292,191,395 look in subsequent analyses.
Source: The Municipal Art Society of New York, Cultural Data Project
Because fewer organizations are being counted, less income is being
recorded and analysis may therefore significantly underreport actual
Average Government Support by Borough—2010
revenue trends. Furthermore, this 114-member subgroup appears to
# Groups / Avg Public Avg Federal Avg State Average City
comprise larger organizations (as measured by overall income), which may
Borough Support Support Support Support
skew analysis and cause findings to inaccurately represent income trends
Bronx 32 5% 35% 34% 24%
among all types of organizations, especially those that are smaller.
Brooklyn 128 16% 14% 21% 23%
The trend analysis also attempts to compare organizations that have
Manhattan 491 73% 36% 25% 23%
reported their income over the years through several different sets of
Queens 50 4% 12% 13% 15%
data. As noted above (and as detailed in the Methodologies section), in the
Staten Island 22 2% 3% 8% 15% current study capital contributions may be counted as income (whereas in
Source: The Municipal Art Society of New York, Cultural Data Project prior years capital contributions were not). It is expected that this would
cause income trends for the 2010 study group to be somewhat inflated
While the majority of public support still flows to Manhattan, this appears (especially from public sector sources, which tend to be larger
16 to occur because Manhattan-based groups receive more federal dollars contributors to capital projects).

18. Income Sources for Trend Sample for Specified Years from 1995 to 2010
(in 2010 Dollars)
Arts Digest
2012
WHO PAYS FOR
THE ARTS?—2010
1995 1997 1999 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Government $146 134 142 118 115 117 125 127 126 288
Private $314 354 380 320 312 335 355 352 333 345
Contributions
Earned Income $349 425 497 610 653 703 757 800 858 747
Source: The Municipal Art Society of New York, Cultural Data Project
Overall the study group shows a modest increase in total income from 2009
Summary Comments
to 2010 (up 4.8% to $1.38 billion); the trend is quite mixed, with Earned
The overwhelming majority (71%) of cultural organizations captured by CDP
Income dropping by almost 13% in the same period, while Government
in 2010 have budgets under $1 million in annual income. If we add those
contributions were up nearly 130% from the prior year. As noted above,
organizations under $5 million in annual income, this includes fully 91% of
the reduction in Earned Income may reflect the smaller population of the
all organizations in this study. While there is substantial variation among
survey, while the increase in Government support could reflect the inclusion
this population of small to mid-size cultural organizations in all income
of capital dollars as income.
categories, there are even greater variations between this 91% and the
While this analysis provides some useful indication of changes within the remaining 9% of very large nonprofit culturals.
nonprofit cultural sector, further study would appear necessary. Overcoming
There are a number of areas where these differences are particularly
the challenges of comparing groups across multiple years presents certain
pronounced, and where further study could provide some compelling
difficulties, yet it seems an important aspect of understanding how the
insights into observed differences:
nonprofit cultural sector is responding to changing economic conditions, or
adapting new income generating strategies. ‡ Large cultural nonprofits have developed endowments that provide
17 significant sources of ongoing operational support and stability, even