Funding the Theatre of New York City
18
+ Department of Cultural Affairs, City of New York Funding the Theatre of New York City
description
Created as part of final project for Urban Affairs Capstone, Hunter College Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, Summer 2011. Department of Cultural Affairs was fictional client.
Transcript of Funding the Theatre of New York City
+
Department of Cultural Affairs, City of New York
Funding the
Theatre of New York
City
+Report Outline
Problem Statement
Recommendations
Major Findings
Context History and Economic Impact Financials
Solutions Status quo Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Other alternatives
Final recommendations
+Problem Statement
The New York City Department of Cultural Affairs does not allocate its resources in a manner that allows universal access among the theatres in New York City.
+Recommendations
Rotate funding for city-owned institutions biennially, funneling remaining funding towards smaller theatres
Target funding to new playwrights and composers, and theatres hoping to commission work
+Major Findings
Theatre receives large proportion of DCA funds
Money still overwhelmingly targeted to institutions in Manhattan Respondents in NYFA report identified
distance/location/travel as barrier to participation in cultural events
Institutions eligible for multiyear grants dominate funding
City-owned institutions exempt from funding policies
+Context: History & Economic Impact
“The American policy approach is to keep the government small and outsource as many programs and duties as possible into non-government institutions.”
Shows on Broadway grossed over $1 billion during 2009-2010 season Tourism from theatre contributes significantly to local
hotels, restaurants and other businesses
Expanding support to outer boroughs would boost BIDs and commercial districts surrounding theatres Improvements around BAM in recent years
+Context: Financials
Source: New York Foundation for the Arts
+Context: Financials
Source: New York City Independent Budget Office
+Context: Financials
Source: New York City Independent Budget Office
+Solutions: Status Quo
Funding priorities include Programs for culturally underserved populations Maintenance and subsidies of low admission prices Creation of new work and/or restoration of existing work
Range of grants Operating income <$250,000: $5,000 to $50,000 Operating income >$250,000: $15,000 to $300,000
Organizations eligible for multiyear award
+Solutions: Status QuoCity-Owned Institutions
+Solutions: Status QuoAnalysis
33 City-owned institutions exempt from funding policies 6 City-owned institutions offer theatre programming
Multiyear grants account for 33% of total funding
Elimination of line-item funding pattern leveled playing field for non line-item organizations
Manhattan favored heavily over other boroughs
Peer-panel review system & competitive grants work with applicants at the borough level
+Solutions: Alternative 1Rotate Funding of City-Owned Institutions
Group institutions into two or three groups and rotate biennially Keep funding of each group steady Arrange organizations in group so remaining funds are
steady
Funnel remaining funds towards smaller theatres
+Solutions: Alternative 1Analysis
Alleviates dominance of city-owned institutions Larger organizations may have more foundation and
individual donor support
Steady stream of remaining funds allows for sustainability among organizations
Reaction from city-owned institutions Number of groups Period of time spent without city funding
+Solutions: Alternative 2Target Funding to Cultivate New Works
Establish competitive grants specifically encouraging development of new works Individual fellowships for playwrights and composers Funding for theatres hoping to commission new work
Consider reducing capital support
Look to foundations for models and/or partnerships Harold and Mimi Steinberg Charitable Trust 1971 Rockefeller Foundation report identifying group of
theatrical entrepreneurs
+Solutions: Alternative 2Analysis
It has “become harder and harder to raise money for the one thing that the theater is supposed to be doing – which is new productions.”
Benefits of competitive grants open to all institutions Allows larger theatres with tradition of encouraging new
works access to funds
Government agencies previously criticized for being “art cop”
Possibility of negative reaction from theatres previously benefitting from generous capital support
+Solutions: Other AlternativesOverview and Analysis
Increased funding Not economically feasible Theatre already takes 2nd largest share of DCA funding
Partnership with corporations with a history of supporting cultural events Willingness to sponsor controversial works Willingness of non-profits to partner with corporations
Partnership with commercial producers to support smaller theatres How far would Disney go?
Willingness of non-profits to partner with Disney and other commercial producers
+Final Recommendations
A combination of alternatives 1 and 2, working within budget, would address most fiscal and artistic needs
Reevaluate practice of multiyear grants
Work with directors of city-owned institutions to determine best patterns for rotating funding
Consider round table or panel discussions with leaders of all non-profit theatres to understand and meet unique funding needs
![UNDG JOINT FUNDING APPROACHES Orientation session for Donors Joint Funding sub-committee [New York, 5 November 2014]](https://static.fdocuments.in/doc/165x107/56649d825503460f94a67b4a/undg-joint-funding-approaches-orientation-session-for-donors-joint-funding.jpg)
