The Board of Best Intentions

There’s a stock nonprofit response to “we don’t have enough money,” which is to say “I wish the board could be more effective at fundraising.”

Because of this response, some board members have internalized the message: “We’d be healthy if I did my job better.” So in times of financial stress they tend to say, “I’ll just do my job better by finding the money.”

But there are reasons in every organization why the best intentions of board members to be more effective fundraisers haven’t yielded results. It usually isn’t due to a lack of passion or commitment to the issue. More often, it’s because competition for funding is fierce, and because building an effective fundraising system takes time and specialized skills, which may not be present in the organization.

The “Not Me” Board

Other board members facing the realization that “we need to raise more money” don’t necessarily include themselves as part of that “we.”

They resist the fundraising role, viewing it as a staff responsibility: “Isn’t this the executive director’s job? We aren’t grant writers!”

It may be that the board has grown complacent, and it is only recently that state and federal cuts have left major gaps in the organization’s budget. The sudden realization that funding is now in short supply poses a problem they’re not ready to solve because board members don’t see their own role as part of the solution. Assuming that staff will somehow take care of it is really another form of wishful thinking.

Getting Beyond Wishful Thinking

In fact, effective fundraising is a partnership between management and board members.

The systems, skills, and attitudes needed to plan and execute a sound fund development strategy take time to build and instill in an organization. In the meantime, nonprofits must be more effective at managing, rather than at wishful thinking, by assuming worst-case revenue scenarios until they have built staff and board fundraising capacity and a proven track record.

The performing arts world in the U.S. is undergoing tectonic shifts – economic, social, and technological. A 2010 RAND report observes that while a few very large nonprofit and commercial organizations are growing and thriving, many midsized organizations are struggling just to cover their costs and could be in danger of disappearing altogether. It is no wonder then that in order to cope and adapt, performing arts organizations have begun to experiment with shorter seasons, restructure their programming, or explore strategic partnerships.

This month’s launch of the Dayton Performing Arts Alliance is the result of a three-way merger of an orchestra, ballet, and opera in Dayton, OH, and an example of how organizations can take a challenge and – out of it – create something new. Local and Nonprofit Times coverage highlights the anticipated benefits of the merger, including: consolidating back office operations, marketing and ticket packaging, and of course new opportunities for artistic collaboration.

The Dayton merger also illustrates a characteristic that is key in the context of performing arts mergers: organizational identity. As Nonprofit Quarterly noted, “Just because they are getting hitched does not mean that the groups will lose their individual profile. Each organization will keep its own identity and gifts can be designated to donors’ favorite groups. They also each have their own artistic director.”

Although the Dayton Philharmonic Orchestra, Dayton Ballet, and Dayton Opera are now all part of the new Dayton Performing Arts Alliance, they remain an orchestra, a ballet, and an opera, each with its own artistic integrity and character. There is no need for them to relinquish their individual identities for the sake of the merger or a new name; the Alliance is an “additive” identity rather than a replacement.

East Bay Performing Arts performance of Carmina Burana in January 2012. Photo by Son Lu.

East Bay Performing Arts, in the San Francisco Bay Area, took a similar route. Having completed their merger in 2010, the constituent organizations – a symphony, a chorus, and a youth orchestra – continue to maintain their own names, websites, and artistic directors.

Identity can be a sensitive issue in merger negotiations, but essentially it matters less what you call the partners than what they can achieve together. Although the same might be said of mergers involving organizations in other fields, performing arts organizations have unique opportunities to leverage their differences for the good of the collective, introducing each of their respective audiences to the work of the other two, developing collaborative works, and offering their communities new arts experiences.

Attending an East Bay rehearsal of the choral work Carmina Burana earlier this year, it was easy to see how a bold partnership among diverse arts and styles can spotlight the best of each. Performed in January to fete the the formation of East Bay Performing Arts, the program featured musical direction by Oakland East Bay Symphony, Oakland Symphony Chorus, and Oakland Youth Orchestra, each in turn, taking an already iconic work and making it a grand and family-friendly treat.