Read First: Part 1

1.0 Introduction

Part 1 of this research showed that the Twin Cities (Metropolitan area) received approximately 24%-36% more funding in absolute terms than Metro Detroit, but, this disparity is unevenly distributed, with Detroit nonprofit arts and culture organizations of over $1M/year doing relatively well, and small nonprofits, individual artists, and other grassroots organizations doing significantly worse. In addition, the composition of the funding is noticeably different, with the Twin Cities having approximately 240% more discretionary funding than Metro Detroit.

In Part 2, we will compare the two art and culture ecosystems in terms of (i) the distribution of nonprofits by revenue size, (ii) the nature of support for creative individuals and community-based art and culture nonprofits, and (iii) the total combined nonprofit art and culture revenue.

2.0 Distribution of art and culture nonprofits by revenue size

The above graphic shows the distribution of arts and culture nonprofits in the Twin Cities and Metro Detroit. It shows a broadly similar number of small (<$100k per year) organizations but a progressively increasing disparity (in favor of the Twin Cities), which peaks at a 278% difference for nonprofits whose revenues are $1M-$2M per year. This exponential falloff is consistent with the funding profile shown in Part 1; if a Metro Detroit art and culture nonprofit can’t get to $100k/year, it can’t get to $250k/year, and if it can’t get to $250k/year it can’t get to $500k/year; consequently, the gap will continue to increase. Eventually, a point is reached where, for very large nonprofits, the better funding for these organizations, combined with their capacity to pursue large individual and corporate donors, reverses this trend, and the disparity starts to decline.

The relative scarcity of Detroit art and culture nonprofits in the range of $250k/year to $10M/year means that more funding concentrates in fewer organizations. As the following Pareto chart shows, in Metropolitan Detroit, 90% of the combined revenue is accounted for by the 19 largest organizations. In contrast, in the Twin Cities, 90% of the combined revenue is shared by 55 organizations. As can be surmised from the Pareto Chart, this more abrupt decline in organization size will ultimately result in a small nonprofit art and culture economy in Metro Detroit; this report will investigate this further in Section 4.0.

The two lists of organizations in this analysis are based on the art and culture nonprofits identified as receiving funding from any of the philanthropic and public sources described in Part 1. To identify (the minority of) organizations that receive their funding entirely from other sources, a search was conducted on ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer based on the keywords ART, THEATRE, FILM, CINEMA, MUSIC, PHILHARMONIA, PHILHARMONIC, SYMPHONY, SYMPHONIC, OPERA, DANCE, and CHOIR. Undoubtedly, this process still overlooks some organizations, but this is not expected to impact the conclusions.

3.0. Support for community-based organizations and individual cultural producers.

Two noteworthy differences between funding in Metro Detroit and the Twin Cities relate to how they support community-based organizations and individual cultural producers.

3.1 Community-based organizations

In this section, we consider two distinct types of community-based art and culture organizations: those that relate to a specific locality (or geographic area) and those that relate to a particular cultural group. So, for example, the Warren Symphony Orchestra might be an example of the former (Warren being a suburb of Metro Detroit), and the Somali Museum and Cultural Center might be an example of the latter (Somalis being a significant minority population in the Twin Cities).

As the above image shows, Metro Detroit has more of the former (local) arts organizations, whereas the Twin Cities has more of the latter (culturally specific) organizations. There is also a significant difference in the age of the organizations, with the Metro Detroit local arts organizations being significantly older (median age 46 years) than the Twin City culturally specific organizations (median age 13 years). Despite the Twin Cities cultural organizations being younger, they are better resourced (median revenue $250k/year) than the Metro Detroit local arts organizations (median revenue $153k/year).

In summary, the Twin Cities has better-funded, younger organizations that address the needs of specific cultural groups, whereas Metro Detroit has less-well-funded, older organizations based in specific locations. There is value in both types of organizations, but overall, we might conclude that the Twin Cities funding is better equipped to respond flexibly to contemporary community needs.

3.2 Support for individual cultural producers

Individual cultural producers create projects that strengthen the nonprofit art and cultural ecosystem by directly reaching new audiences and providing programming at larger arts organizations. As the above graphic indicates, support for individual cultural producers is far more widespread in the Twin Cities (478) than in Metro Detroit (43), with approximately 11 times more artists receiving funding in 2024. This disparity is due to greater funding specifically put aside for individual artists, and greater flexibility in allowing individual artists (and fiscally sponsored projects) to compete for other funding.

4.0 Total revenue

The total annual revenue for art and culture nonprofits is estimated to be ~$377M for Metro Detroit, and ~$747M (or 98% more) for the Twin Cities. On a per capita basis, the total revenue is around 144% more. It is impossible to definitively attribute the cause(s) of this large disparity, but the above analysis creates a very plausible case that the more comprehensive art and culture investment strategy in the Twin Cities is the major contributor. Although total revenue by itself is not (for many people) the ultimate objective of art and culture, it is a credible indicator of overall activity, and hence the Twin Cities’ high ranking in the national arts vibrancy index can be, at least in part, traced to its more effective art and culture investment strategy.

Copyright Essay’d 2025