What's Capital Got To Do With It?

Grantmakers in the Arts started to look at how organizations are capitalized in 2010.  This was inspired by member studies that reported that a majority of their grantees were under-capitalized…meaning their didn’t have enough resources, primarily financial resources, to fulfill their missions over time.  Big surprise?  Not for anyone working in the nonprofit world for more than six months.

This year, we’ll present seven Conversations on Capitalization and Community workshops for funders throughout the country. These “conversations” focus on the local economic situation for nonprofit art groups in specific cities and states and what funders can do either collectively or individually to mitigate financial issues.

There is a fear that this focus on finance is detrimental to small organizations or organizations and artists working in and from what is described as marginalized or under-served communities. In actuality, the driving factor behind our bringing this topic forward for funders is that if organizations are not capitalized properly, which includes having financial growth that results in long-term debt and exceeds what the local environment can support, then all funding to all sized organizations is in jeopardy. (This is when we start talking about “right-sizing” and the assessment of “legacy funding.”)

Our “conversations” will give funders an opportunity to evaluate how their individual practices are adding to the stability of artists and arts groups in their communities. Or, it will point out that there are changes that need to be made in order to support artistic endeavors that represent the demographics of the community in which the funder operates.

Bottom line, no matter how large or small the grantee or the funder, money management is important. Artistic excellence (however that is defined locally, and that’s a whole other discussion) is critical. But as critical is the ability to successfully offer that artistic programming to the community they wish to serve. This means we have to figure out how organizations function in today’s economy that gives them the greatest ability to adapt and thrive.

This is different in every community and state. We can talk in general terms, which is what GIA did with its National Capitalization Project Report that made general recommendations for funders. But, our greatest success as artists, arts organizations and arts funders, will come if we understand how our actions affect the local eco-system.

I like to use the term “eco-system” because it signifies that we work within a larger system where everything is interconnected. And indeed we do. Artists and community pass freely between the defined “boxes” that arts administrators and funders work within. The latter work in a world defined by government regulations, union requirements, and boards of trustees. But the reality is from arts in our schools, (K-12 through higher ed) to amateur community arts to the professional stages and exhibit halls of our major institutions, we are all one eco-system of artists and audience producing and sharing the product in whatever form it might take.

So the health of the eco-system is affected by any imbalance within that system. Like the rest of America, the nonprofit arts sector will be rewarded if we start thinking about the financial health and well-being of the “We” instead of the “I.”   That’s what our work in capitalization is all about.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Thank you Roberto

I haven't read Aristotle since college but I LOVE that you have defined our state of affairs in his definitions of economics. More Oikonomia and less Chremastistics...perfect.

Thanks for yes words and

Thanks for your words and yes.. to the eco-system frame!! The hot-button word in your blog is "We" and how it is defined. Paying attention to the meaning of “We” is not always easy, especially in the era of privatization of the pronoun “We”, which is too often reduced to a meaning of me and my friends and not the secular “We” that includes people you don’t know - slippery for sure. As you know, for public art funder, the charge as is to serve the broad public in all its complexity. It includes the small, mid and large budgeted organizations, the white gloves and the anarchists; the hermetic artists and the community artists; the cultural tourists and the neighbors….

You get it, the “We” as in “We the People”. So the entanglement of capitalization and the "We", "We(s)" in our sector feeds the conversation about ethics and equity - some other juicy words. The financial health of our sector is tied to not only to the meaning of "we" in our missions and relationships but also our understanding of economic life and economic meaning – which another story but to draw out this commentary a bit more here’s my riff on it from a recent essay of mine:

“ …When describing economic life, Aristotle uses the terms Oikonomia and Chrematistics. The word economic is derived from Oikonomia, defined as the management of the household. Household had an expanded meaning that included family, land, language, country, community resources, etc., especially with a view to productivity and the maintenance of the use-value of these resources for the long run. On the other hand, there is Chrematistics, which refers to the manipulation of property and wealth so as to maximize short-term monetary gain through the mechanisms of speculation and debt—through acts of money begetting money.

The management of resources for family and community for the long haul (Oikonomia) and the study of money—how to get it, use it and calculate it for short-term gain (Chrematistics)—are very different things. Our society is preoccupied with the later, not the former. Where is the nonprofit arts sector in this set-up? How are cultural policies created to support various meanings of economic life, ones that privilege business models or exchange relationships? Are policies being constructed to create complicity with the work of money begetting money (the dominant U.S. business model) or exchange relationships, the commons?”

Ok – enough see what you triggered!!!

All the best
Roberto Bedoya

Post new comment

(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.
(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.
(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.