To bring to life the concepts and ideas discussed in the Future of Philanthropy series, we bring together experts in the field who can offer first-hand experience and important insights on these topics. This Q&A focuses on the Arts & Culture nonprofit sector —and how a rapidly changing world is placing new and different kinds of demands on the fundraising leaders and teams within those organizations.
Panelist: Andrew Berg is the Chief Development Officer of Detroit Opera, where he brings 20 years of experience in development and nonprofit management. At Detroit Opera, he leads a team of seven staff members who are responsible for 60% of the operating budget; his personal portfolio focuses on principal gift prospects locally and nationally. Prior to his current role, Andrew served as Principal and Major Gifts Officer at Cranbrook Educational Community in Bloomfield Hills, MI. Previously, he served in a range of advancement roles at the University of Chicago over more than a decade: with progressive responsibilities working with students and supporters in stewardship and donor relations, with alumni in the social sciences, with parents and families in the College, and, ultimately, as Director of Development for the Tony Award-winning Court Theatre. He began his career in nonprofit management as a supervisor with the Red Cross in Louisiana following Hurricane Katrina. Andrew holds a BA from University of Michigan and a certificate in improvisation from The Second City Training Center. He serves as the Co-Chair of the Oak Park Garden Tour, Growing Verdant Vibrant Community, which he revived in 2024— a radically-inclusive grassroots initiative that showcases a diversity of approaches to greenspaces and landscape design at over 40 gardens in collaboration with a dozen partner organizations.
Panelist: Anne Fitzgibbon is a social entrepreneur with 30 years of experience in nonprofit leadership, public policy/government, and arts education. She founded the Harmony Program while working as a policy advisor in the administration of New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and was awarded a year-long Fulbright Fellowship in 2007 to study “El Sistema,” Venezuela’s world-renowned national youth orchestra system, and adapt tenets of the model to serve children in New York City. The Harmony Program harnesses the power of collective music-making to help children gain critical life skills and make meaningful peer connections—bringing music education directly into underserved communities across New York City. As a leader and innovator in the field of music education, Anne has led workshops for musicians, educators, and nonprofit entrepreneurs abroad and at home at universities and conservatories, including Princeton University, Oberlin College, the Manhattan School of Music, and others. Anne holds a graduate degree in Public Affairs from Princeton University and an undergraduate degree from Barnard College. She studied clarinet at the Juilliard School through the Columbia/Barnard/Juilliard exchange program.
Panelist: Jane Hargraft is founder of The Hargraft Group and a high-level strategist with more than 30 years of experience as a fundraising and communications professional. Before founding her own consultancy, Jane served as Chief Development Officer at The Cleveland Orchestra for five years and Vice President of Development at the Seattle Symphony for eight years. Before moving to Seattle, Jane spent four years as General Manager of Opera Atelier in Toronto, and prior to that, spent more than four years as Director of Development at the Canadian Opera Company. Jane has a BA Hons from Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. An accomplished athlete, Jane has completed more than 25 marathons and now competes in half Ironman and full Ironman distance triathlons.
Moderator: Anne Johnson brings 25 years of higher education and non-profit fundraising experience to the benefit of many of America’s most influential artistic and educational institutions. Combining her knowledge of the unique demands of organizational leadership with the principles of emotional intelligence, she works carefully and precisely with ALG clients and candidates to ensure placements lead to long-term success. She has managed a diverse portfolio of nearly 200 executive-level searches and placed leaders at the country’s prominent foundations, institutes, universities, liberal arts colleges, symphony orchestras, ballet and opera companies, and art museums. Prior to joining Aspen Leadership Group, Anne served as Chief Development Officer of the San Francisco Symphony as well as Associate Vice President of Development and Campaign Director for San José State University. Her leadership in fundraising has resulted in multiple CASE awards, including the 2008 National Circle of Excellence Award. She serves on several governing boards in support of her passions for the visual and performing arts, as well as regional and national animal welfare efforts.
Anne J: I want to start with an open-ended question that I’m always interested in hearing about from folks who are in leadership roles, and that is, what keeps you up at night as it relates to future challenges in philanthropy? I would love to get a broad perspective on that from your different vantage points.
Jane: Well, having been in performing arts for almost 30 years, and particularly with organizations that have a subscription-based model, a big concern from my point of view is the decline in subscriber numbers. Even though we seem to have bounced back from the pandemic, in terms of getting people engaged, there has been a seismic shift in subscriber behavior.
As one example, an organization I work with has seen as much as a 43% drop in subscribers. Lower-level and mid-level donations have declined at a similar rate. Higher-level donations have gone up, and per-household donations have gone up. The number of single-ticket buyers has doubled, but those ticket buyers are not as sticky.
So, there are opportunities to look at the value proposition for donation and how to create a stickier relationship that can translate into fundraising—I’m curious to know from Andrew what your experience has been like at the Detroit Opera.
Andrew: A lot of the things you’ve mentioned echo with what we’ve seen at Detroit Opera, particularly the decrease in unique donors compared to pre-COVID. At the same time, in this fiscal year, we’ve raised more than we’ve ever raised. First-time new-to-file donors in the third quarter were at the highest level we’ve seen in at least 20 years. So that’s great.
Plus, we have halted the decline in the number of donors this year. But those are massive demographic trends that are both national and local, and what keeps me up at night is the volatility. It’s the fact that the entire pyramid is much narrower now. We’ve had really great success, in particular, with institutional funding, but if one foundation board changes its priorities, that’s a huge liability on the funding side. And, you could say the same for the biggest individual donors as well. Because there is an increasing dependence on a smaller number of donors, that’s something that certainly does cause concern for planning.
Anne F: For me, I come at this from a very different place and a very different organization. We don’t rely on subscriptions at all, but we do rely on school partners who require resources to bring us into their communities. We subsidize some of this programming, but not all of it, so I’m always watching what’s happening at the local and state levels of government. Will schools be able to work with us? Will communities be able to subsidize the programs that they want to have?
So, the thing that keeps me up at night is: Who is making the decisions about the arts in their communities and schools? Because a lot of these folks need to be educated in the broad importance of what we do. We grow as an organization because people want to bring music into their communities, and I worry sometimes that my role has become less of a fundraiser and executive director and more of an advocate just trying to help people understand the value of music education.
One of the biggest fundraising challenges we face is that we need more multi-year funding and larger donations in order to do long-term planning. But those larger gifts come with their own risks as well as rewards. We were fortunate to receive a large infusion of funding over the last couple of years, but it’s time-limited, and the question is whether we can replace that money as we wean ourselves off that large donation. The Board is very excited about programming, because we have the money to be creative right now, and they’re less concerned than I am about future funding. They want to focus on the vision first and raise the money when we need it.
Anne J: Famous last words.
Anne F: Yes, I love the optimism! And I have a wonderful Board that’s really invested. But I worry a lot about the uncertainty out there and so many sudden changes in the funding landscape, like the recent loss of NEA funding for mine and so many other arts organizations. We’ve been fortunate to have some cushion over the last couple of years, but I’m holding my breath lately and trying to plan for the rainy day.
Anne J: That’s a good segue into the issue of volatility and uncertainty. What are you doing to address that in philanthropy?
Anne F: One of the things that we haven’t done as much of historically, but we’re doing more of now, is trying to secure a large number of recurring individual donations at every single level. Like I said, we all want to chase the big money and lock it in for the next three years. But at Harmony, we’ve had a core of really solid supporters, and every year they turn out for us. We’re trying to really dial up the intensity of our outreach and our year-round stewardship, trying to get people to invest in underwriting a site or underwriting an ensemble, but really get a large number of donations at every level, instead of focusing too much on securing the big one.
Anne J: That makes sense. Andrew, you also talked about the issue of volatility. Any thoughts on how to address that?
Andrew: Absolutely. Just to put Detroit Opera in some context, we’re in a transition period. We had a 50-year founder and then a 10-year leader. As such, many of our long-time Board members had a personal connection to the founder. Today, we’re now with our third administrative leader, who started a year and a half ago, and our second artistic leader, who started five years ago. All of the C-suite executives are relatively new, and they all have led either their own department or their own organization previously. So, we have a really strong pool of talent on the administrative and artistic leadership side.
What we’re really focused on is growing our donor base at all different levels, just like Anne mentioned. Part of that is driven by programming. We’re undertaking an innovative model starting next season that we’re calling “Big Questions,” and it’s a very different way of curating productions, programming, and partnerships. So, we’re examining one question across the season, and each of our operas and dances will be connected to that theme or explore facets of that question in collaboration with community partners who help create multi-disciplinary programming at the Detroit Opera House, in neighborhoods, and at various organizations and venues.
We hope that this model will allow us to have an ongoing conversation with our audience and reach donors who can be engaged more broadly and deeply across the course of a whole season. So, how can we find donors locally, regionally, and nationally who are interested in some of the themes that we present, questions that we ask, and stories that we tell, and then create and grow those relationships?
We’re also trying to engage younger people. We’re restarting a young-professionals version of our leadership annual giving society to focus on building out that pipeline of patrons who could be our major and principal gift donors down the road. It’s really an all-of-the-above strategy based on a mantra from one of my old VPs for development who said, “Engage to solicit, and solicit to capacity.” To that, I added a preface, which is, “Convert affiliation to affinity.”
Jane: I love that mantra. I have one that came from a previous boss of mine who always asked, “Is there any reason you would not ask for this gift today?” I love that. And if there isn’t, you should just go for it. But one of the challenges with the organizations I work with, around the sustainability of fundraising, is that it’s really hard to retain staff. If you’re not competitive financially, you really have to focus on staff who are mission-driven, because in the arts, a big part of the payoff is in the art itself rather than in your paycheck.
I have a person at one arts organization I work with who has been there for about 20 years and started in the ticket office, but has grown into a Major Gifts Officer. I love that kind of trajectory because it’s built on loyalty to the organization. This person wants to start a Planned Giving program because he recognized that the organization doesn’t have one, even though its core demographic is aging. So, we’re going to invest in that. And even though we cannot offer this person more money, because there isn’t really more money to give, they are going to lead it and get training from the Association of Gift Planners. Career growth and getting to do new stuff with big impact are a big part of the reward.
Anne J: That issue of staffing and future-proofing the organization was something we covered in the Future of Philanthropy. A lot of organizations are struggling with how to staff up to address immediate needs versus building out for future needs. What’s your take on that?
Jane: Well, the first thing is that if you’ve got high performers who want to grow and take on new projects, you have to keep the door open. They might say, ‘Hey, I see this gap. Can I fill it in?’ If there’s room for that, the answer is, ‘Knock yourself out!’ And if we can’t do that, we’re honest about it. But either way, it opens a dialog that says, ‘We care about you. We care about career mapping for you, and we care about you regardless of whether we’re able to keep you.’
Second, and this is a related point, as leaders, we have to accept the transitional nature of some of these roles. At a lot of arts organizations, there often just aren’t enough frontline fundraisers out there asking for money, given the volume of demand. But my expectation is that an entry-level person is going to come in and probably stay for two years, if we’re lucky. And then the mid-level fundraiser might stay for three to four years. For senior people, if you’re really lucky, it’s about five years.
I’m always very frank about the transitional nature of these roles, especially for early- and mid-career fundraisers, telling them that I see their job as an ‘X-number-of-years-job’—and I’ll say, ‘HR departments hate it when I do this, but I do it anyway.’ I’m very clear with them that I’d love to have them for two, three, or four years, even though I know that, at some point, they’re probably going to want to leave when they start to run up against limitations on the opportunities available to them at the organization.
Particularly with the entry-level people, I’ve had good success with this approach. We’ll have regular, very frank conversations about how they’re doing, and whether there’s a way for them to move within the organization. Can we promote them? Is there something else we can offer them? And if there isn’t, I’ve made a commitment to helping them find a job elsewhere, because we want them to succeed and maintain a good relationship with them—so that, at some point in the future, we might have a shot at hiring them back in the event there’s an opportunity that fits. And I’ve done that a number of times.
The last thing I’d add is that even though many arts organizations are short-staffed and have urgent, immediate fundraising needs, we have to staff up with the knowledge that there’s a built-in lag time to production. At one organization I work with, where we’re currently staffing up, the Board chair asked, “When are these people going to start producing?”
And that’s a tough question to answer. For example, I’m a very experienced fundraiser and I know which rocks to turn over to go looking for gifts, but when I started with the Toronto International Film Festival, it was a completely new art form to me, and it took three months to start getting traction. So, imagine someone who’s newer in their career, or who isn’t in a leadership position. The scale-up is probably six months at a very minimum.
Anne J: Andrew, does that resonate with you?
Andrew: Absolutely. We have a lot more money to raise, and now is the first time the development department has been fully staffed to pre-COVID levels. And as we built the new team, I was able to reorganize a little bit and try to find better alignment. But recently, my boss said to me, “This team structure makes sense on paper. But have we done a good job matching the opportunities with the passions of the people on the team? If we haven’t achieved the best fit, then let’s change it by being a little bit more creative.”
Anne J: Anne, there are a lot of smaller organizations like yours that don’t have larger staffs and development teams. How do you approach the staffing challenge?
Anne F: For a very long time, we were forced to bring on development staff without a lot of experience because that was all we could afford. I felt like I was running a job training program where I’d train the person to do the work, and by the time they learn how to do it, they’ve hopscotched to the next opportunity. Then we get to the place where we can afford the expertise, and the question becomes, ‘what’s the sweet spot where you can bring in the expertise you need and you can hold on to that person?’
Right now, I’m lucky enough to be in that Goldilocks zone where we have a terrific person with the right expertise, and I’m working with her to keep her happy and engaged. For her, it’s part compensation, but also definitely part flexibility. We’re living in a time where people can demand a certain type of work environment, and I have to admit, I have had to bend on that. I feel like there’s value in being in the same space, not just on Zooms, in addition to creating an environment where people feel appreciated and there are opportunities for development.
The other thing I’d add is that Andrew and Jane threw out mantras for fundraising, and mine is “create a culture of cultivation.” We’re a far smaller operation than Jane’s or Andrew’s, but at every level of the organization, there’s an opportunity to bring people closer to the work and to connect us to each other.
Everyone has limited capacity, and within a small organization, it becomes even more important that everyone plays a part. I have a Development Director and a Development Associate, and that’s it. To the extent that you get leverage by having every member of your staff thinking about creating that kind of culture, it helps.
Anne J: The importance of Boards and the shifting emphasis of Board work was also one of our topics in the Future of Philanthropy series. How are you thinking about the role of the Board now and in the future?
Anne F: Because we’re a small organization, we rely so much on our Board. Having the right Board helps us focus resources where we have connections. For example, with foundations, we’ll be much more productive applying to foundations where a Board member can make an introduction, compared to sending out blind letters of inquiry. You only have so much time as an executive director with a small fundraising team. So, it’s important to expand your reach, and that’s where the Board can help drive a higher rate of return on the invested time and effort.
One of the things we’re considering introducing is a day-long retreat where we can coach Board members on fundraising, because I think maximizing their contributions requires that we continually replenish their knowledge. And we’re really focused on trying to grow the Board, which is why we’ve created an Associate Board. It’s much easier for us to find young professionals who can maybe give $1,000 a year, rather than $25,000 a year, and they’re incredibly dynamic. Our hope is that we’re going to have an evergreen source of future Board members coming out of that Associate Board.
For organizations like us that don’t have robust fundraising departments, a Board is so critical to making introductions and making asks. So, we’re always thinking about new ways to grow our Board leadership while also creating this pipeline of people who are willing to help get out there and fund the organization.
Andrew: As far as Boards go, I think one of the biggest opportunities is being very explicit in information sharing. One of the things I instituted at Detroit Opera, and that I had done previously at Court Theatre, was to take a very data-driven approach to Board communications. One purpose is for them to see their engagement relative to their peers, and the other is to put our financial needs into the context of past, present, and future.
For example, I showed them how this season’s cost of one production—La Traviata—had changed since the last time we did it ten years ago. Opera is very labor-intensive and, adjusted for inflation, the core artistic expenses for this title increased by 41%, even though the overall annual operating budget was held to just an 8% increase, while Board giving actually declined by 1%. The message was: if you haven’t increased your gift to keep up with rising costs and inflation, then you’ve effectively decreased it. What does it mean for the Board to lead the way in philanthropy as the fiduciaries and funders of Detroit Opera?
Anne J: What was the response to that?
Andrew: Well, it was eye-opening for a lot of people. It began a dialogue about how the funding model has changed and how they can be helpful in addressing that. It also served to frame a conversation about hitting their personal record; I demonstrated that we could meet a very aggressive organizational goal if each of them gave at the highest level they had previously given. In response, over the past few months, the majority of our directors and many of our trustees have increased their giving. The right information, paired with individual conversations about matching their passions with institutional priorities, has led to deepened commitment and increased contributions.
Anne J: I want to touch on the subject of programming very quickly. Historically, in arts organizations, the artistic side comes up with the programming, and then development goes out and fundraises for it, right? Are we seeing a shift where development has a seat at the table and is having more strategic input into programming choices?
Jane: It’s interesting, in the majority of the organizations I’ve been involved with as the head of philanthropy, I’m not really at the table. I’m not at the meetings. I have lots of opinions; and I look at the data; and I know what sells. But the head of marketing is usually there to give input on programming a balanced season. The challenge is that typically you do about six productions, and you’ve really got to get the balance right. When I ran Opera Atelier, we did two productions, and I knew that for our artistic directors, their ideal program would be two French baroque operas. But you’ve also got to make artistic choices that can then attract both funding and audiences. Sadly, the audience for non-Mozart operas is just smaller. So, it’s a balance.
At the same time, I never want to be the tail that wags the dog. Because I think programming that follows funding can be problematic. Frankly, it can set a bad precedent among donors that if they give, then we’re going to program anything regardless of our artistic vision or principles. There has to be a balance, and sometimes you have to have a conversation with the donor that that’s not how it works at most organizations.
The only other thing I’d add is that I’ve always been very clear with every development staff – and the rest of the staff – I’ve worked with that the development team doesn’t actually “make” anything. We do the gala, and maybe we have a young patrons party. But we don’t make anything; we serve the art, and our education programs, and the finance department and so on. We need to know what everybody in the organization is doing—so that we can have open ears for funding opportunities. But we’re in a supporting role, not in a leading role.
Andrew: One of the things that’s been really fun for me in my arts roles, compared to my roles in education, is getting to sit at the table, even if it’s not as a decision maker. I can share with donors the genesis of the artistic idea; I can share that story. If I don’t have access to that story, it’s harder to be an effective storyteller. And I do think the other thing that we bring, as Jane mentioned, is perspective. Especially if you’re at a smaller organization, it can be helpful just being in the room to answer whether something makes sense. As in: could I pitch this to a donor? And at both of the arts organizations where I have worked, they’ve had really robust systems for decision making that balance artistic commitment with funding realities, all with a goal of long-term sustainability.
Anne F: At Harmony, we actually have our development director working very much in lockstep with our program team. She’s very involved in strategic planning. I can remember years when we would have our program team coming up with a wildly ambitious vision that we just didn’t have the money for. And on the flip side, you can’t have someone chasing funding for programs we can’t deliver. So, our program and development staff coordinate their efforts, and it’s been very helpful to us to have that development perspective in the room to say, ‘I see what the vision is, and maybe if we package it this way, I can get this funded. Or maybe we do this much, and then bite off another piece next year, I know funders who might be interested in that.’ We don’t have a marketing team. So, our development staff is also playing that role.
Anne J: The word sustainability actually is a good segue to the topic of younger donors and audiences. Since the title of this series is the Future of Philanthropy—how do you engage younger stakeholders, who are the future of the arts?
Andrew: This is something I think about a lot. Even with the disruption of the COVID years, we have seen an increase in engagement with young people, and more diversity across all measures: age, socio-economic status, race, education, marital status, home zip code, etc. So, our audience is changing, which is really great, and I think it’s because of the artistic programming. It’s what we’re putting on stage, and it’s attracting people that maybe didn’t see themselves as opera patrons before, or had never been to an opera, or had misconceptions about what it is, right down to how you’re supposed to dress for the opera.
We’re recasting opera as an art form where everybody’s welcome. You’ll see an opera by Puccini, but you’ll also see The Central Park Five, which won the Pulitzer Prize in 2020. You can have all of these things that make it exciting and relevant, and even in a Mozart piece from 1790, Così fan tutte, we completely reimagined for the AI age. A lot of people loved it and thought it was the best thing they’d ever seen. Some people didn’t, but the artistic risk-taking has been a part of our engagement strategy. How do we leverage the excitement of some of these newer patrons who maybe aren’t yet even philanthropic, but have to become our future patrons if we’re going to succeed? How do we keep our legacy or more traditional audiences and supporters engaged as well?
Anne F: We don’t have audiences, per se, but in terms of reaching younger supporters, I would say that at our recent gala, at least three of our Board members had their children there, either hosting tables or there with friends. They’re in their 30s, and many of them have capacity to give. So, I love that we’re building multi-generational support within our Board.
We also used a platform called Board Strong to build our Associate Board, and we found it incredibly helpful in connecting us to bankers, lawyers, and other young professionals. One of our Associate Board members is the artistic director of a hot, new Broadway show, and he’s going to host a Broadway night for us to try to double the size of our membership. And again, their giving capacity today might be only $1,000 a year, but over time, hopefully, they increase their giving capacity, introduce their friends, and help grow our community of supporters. So, that’s the way we’ve been trying to build a network of younger supporters.
Jane: Just to add to that, a couple of organizations I’ve been involved with really struggle with the Associate Board or younger donor programs. They can be a big administrative lift relative to the amount of funds they bring in. It can be a challenge, but it sounds like Anne has really cracked the code in terms of engagement. One of the things that we started at the Canadian Opera Company was a younger patrons’ program, which is important in an art form that’s generally seen as something for older people and one that upholds all sorts of barriers to participation.
We’re okay with it being a luxury brand, and as a young person, we want you to have a positive association with the brand. So, whether or not you come to concerts or operas, you can attend our Young Patron party, which is called OperaNation. The tickets are $125, and you dress up and come to the opera house. It’s got a beautiful glass atrium, and it’s a really fun party.
We see people in these young patron programs until they are 30 or 35, then people get married; they have kids; maybe they move away. We may not see them for 15 years, but as they get older, they come back. And that’s when we can really get engaged with them philanthropically. So, it’s a ‘yes’ that you have to do this stuff now—so that when they are philanthropically mature, they’re ready to come to the table. And it’s a 20- to 25-year play.
Anne J: I’d like to finish up with a look ahead to the future and ask, if you could pick one issue as the biggest future challenge for arts philanthropy, what would it be?
Jane: The biggest challenge facing the organizations I’ve been working with is delivering on your mission and vision and dealing with donor feedback on wokeness. At a lot of the organizations I’ve been involved with, there’s been a lot of work done in terms of inclusivity, and making sure that the staff, and audiences, and artists reflect our community. And these are, I think, goods in themselves that should be happening. But at this point in time, donors are not shy about saying, “I’m not going to support something that I don’t believe in politically.” And so, you have to navigate around that, which can be tough.
Anne F: I feel like there’s a role here in advocating more broadly for the impact of the arts in general, rather than seeing music education, for example, through a very narrow lens. I’ve applied for and succeeded in getting grants for music’s impact on mental health, and that’s a connection that deserves greater attention these days, as so many children are locked on their devices and struggling with mental health challenges. The arts also support community building and youth development. And if you study the neuroscience behind music’s impact on the brain, you realize music helps children develop the habits and skills that support learning. So, I would say, we need to help people who are decision makers and also grant makers really appreciate the broad importance of the arts.
Andrew: I’ll build on that. I think that, in the culture of philanthropy, there’s an increasing desire to quantify everything. But part of what makes arts and culture so magical is that you can’t count it. You can count patrons and students served, but you lose something when quantifiable metrics are the only measure of success.
I have a lovely 97-year-old donor who significantly increased her gift this year—and this is where the issues of age and taste come in—because we have an artistic director who’s presenting a very specific vision, and it’s innovative and exciting but not for everybody. This donor told me that music was transformational in her life, but that she recognized that for her grandchildren and great-grandchildren, music will look, sound, and feel different for them than it did for her. And that was okay. She just wanted them to have the opportunity to engage with art in a way that is meaningful for them. Those are the donors who make the difference. They’re giving because of the impact that they can have on everybody else, not just because it’s what they like. For the performing arts to have a bright future, we need more patrons and donors willing to make an investment.
Anne J: What a great story. This is why we do what we do, and that’s why you are all amazing people, to be working so hard in support of the arts in this time. Thank goodness for what you’re doing. I’m so grateful for your thoughts on today’s conversation. I truly am.
NEXT UP on June 3rd: Anne Johnson will offer closing thoughts for Arts & Culture organizations, based on her decades of experience as a fundraising leader and executive search consultant. The piece will summarize overall trends from all the articles in the Future of Philanthropy series and offer a brief overview of what may lie ahead for Arts &Culture fundraising teams.
Our newsletter subscribers receive additional content each month, in the form of top takeaways: action items and practical guidance for adapting to key trends and leveraging them in fundraising programs. In addition, newsletter subscribers receive job postings, industry insights, and firm news. To sign up, fill out the form at the bottom of this page.