The Ripple Effects of Equity in Arts Funding

In yesterday’s post, I asked readers to reflect on the ripple effects of the equity we say we want in arts funding. More funding for organizations that aren’t currently receiving significant support means redistribution. Redistribution means some organizations—especially large, legacy institutions—will get less so that others can finally get a foothold. That’s uncomfortable for many people, but unless funders increase the amount they’re granting significantly, the large organizations can’t receive the same amount AND distribute to new grantees as well.

Today, I want to spotlight who stands to benefit when we embrace that shift.

In a recent piece for HowlRound, Roman Sanchez offers a powerful reminder that the U.S. theatre landscape is not defined solely by the large, name-brand institutions many of us associate with national stature. Across the country, small, grassroots organizations are not just surviving—they’re thriving. They’re building community, taking artistic risks, and centering voices that have too often been marginalized.

These companies are exactly the kinds of organizations that benefit when foundations and public agencies rethink how they distribute resources. They are agile, responsive, and deeply rooted in their communities—but they rarely receive the kind of multi-year, general operating support that helps build long-term stability. It got me thinking – will that start to change in a significant way? We know that funding has shifted in the last five years, but will it stay that way? Will that funding grow over time, as is needed if the organizations grow? That is exactly the kind of change that an equity-focused funding model would look like: funders making the commitment to support and grow the theaters that Roman is highlighting just like the.

Of course, as I said yesterday, this redistribution is not without trade-offs. Larger institutions are feeling the pinch, and many are understandably concerned about how to sustain operations as foundational support shifts.

But it’s also worth remembering something we often overlook in these conversations: large institutions have more tools at their disposal. They typically have full development teams, donor bases, naming opportunities, rental income, and, crucially, more ability to generate earned revenue through ticket sales, education programs, and ancillary services. These organizations—unlike many grassroots groups—have more ability to buffer funding reductions where as the funding that a foundation or government source can be the yeast these small companies need to grow. Remember – that’s how these large companies got started, back in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, with grants – sometimes very significant, multi-year – grants from foundations like the Ford Foundation and government funders like arts councils.

As Roman shows in his piece, grassroots theatres are not charity cases. They are vital contributors to our cultural ecosystem. They’ve done a lot with very little for a long time. Imagine what they could do with a little more.