Why I Can't Get a Job, Even One I Don't Want

Everyone knows the economy is tough right now, especially in nonprofit organizations. Donations are down, foundation funding is down, and needs are way up. I have been out of work for going on 5 months now and it has been, to say the least, depressing. And the thing is, it is not because there are no jobs out there. To date, I have applied for approximately 55 jobs - for nonprofit jobs of all genres, for adminstrative assistant jobs, to food service jobs, etc. I have also had 12 interviews, including 3 second interviews. Some days I'm tired of telling you all how great I am.

Probably 5 jobs were for arts organizations and probably 2 were jobs that were ones on par with my skills and qualifications. Most of my interviews have been for administrative/entry level positions. The interviews mostly consist of the interviewer telling me I'm overqualified. Seriously? But look at the great bargin you'd be getting! I'd rather take an entry level job in a nonprofit than flip burgers or make espressos (which I will probably be doing next week). The scary thing is, I'm not getting hired, even for jobs I'm overqualified for. I have 5 years of fundraising experience for God's sake! But that is where I think the problem lies. Organizations are still weary of the economy. They don't know if they can committ their funds to a new position or a position they laid off in the last year because they are still paralized with fear that the money won't come in. So instead, they are creating entry-level jobs (because they can pay less) to try and ease the work load of the remaining employees,who are drowning. And if you don't have a 10 year track record of bringing in more than $500K, they don't want to hire you for a Director of Development job. So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that being mid-level sucks, especially now. I am trying to stay positive and hope something will work out. Otherwise, I will practice saying "do you want a breakfast pastry with that?".

Reasons I am considering leaving the arts

I have been reading a couple blogs on Arts America for the National Arts and Humanities Month. To be honest, I didn't know there was a National Arts and Humanities Month but I have been re-Tweeting it on my Twitter to hopefully spread the word. It made me think about my roll in the arts and how it has changed, even in the last 3 years.

I have gone from being a dancer to being an arts administrator and dancer/choreographer to being unemployed because my arts organization made cut backs. And as much as I love the arts, I began questioning weather or not I should continue to pursue my career in arts management.

1. I have a young son. This is still relatively new to me. My husband works odd hours and I am beginning to wonder if the time committment is too much. Not just that the hours are long, but a lot of events take place in the evenings and on weekends. Already my son is in daycare as many hours as I am at work (plus the time it takes me to commute) and do I want to spend more time away from him and pay for additional child care on the weekends when I am at work?
2. Do I want to continue to have a job where changes in the economy make my job unstable. No job is really 100% secure, but people like to take the axe to the arts when the budgets are tight.

I am still looking for work in the arts and I hope that I can find a job that is flexible and fulfilling but definately some questions to consider and how do we make these options better to keep more people in arts administration?

Making Nonprofits into For-Profit

I read this article in Business Week about organizations that started out as nonprofit and now have a for-profit branch to support them or became for-profits. I thought the idea was fascinating, even if I didn’t understand some of the technical aspects of it. It made me think, what would arts organizations look like if they were for-profit? Arts organizations seem like a money-losing business. If we had to make it work as a for-profit, what would we be doing differently?

Education is a huge part of what makes arts organizations nonprofit and, as an artist, I know that there are many of us that don’t like teaching. One reason I decided not to make my living as a dancer was that I don’t like teaching and I knew I would have to do that in order to make dance my living (or work a crap job with flexible hours, like waitressing - which I did for a year in NYC and I am over it). Some people do it and love it, but I am not one of them. At the arts organizations I’ve worked for, it is usually like pulling teeth to get artists to get their education credits in. And while education is one of the most talked about areas for funding purposes, it is usually the one with the smallest budget and the smallest staff.

So if we took out the education portion of our organization and focused solely on performing, it becomes the entertainment industry. No different than a rock concert. In competition with that genre, how would we do things differently? The budget would definitely shift. I think from a marketing standpoint, this would force marketing to edgier, broader, and more up to date. It would be great to see what a company would do when they put serious money in their marketing.

Could we afford to pay our artists union salaries? Probably not. Would we be more creative with our sets, costumes and amenities? The biggest question is would the artistic quality of the performance change? That questions leads me to think of the Ballets Russe, a company funded by an impressario, Diaghilev, which made the most fabulous works of art of it's time. The most amazing dancers, choreographers, set designers, composers, costume designers collaborated and made a profit (although probably not a huge return on investment). It has the possibility of being amazing.

Not that nonprofits are looking for ways not to make a profit, they are mostly trying to not have a deficit. On the other hand, I think arts organizations could do it and survive. Maybe just asking the questions could change our mindset and change our results.

Nonprofit compensation

I recently saw this on slate.com about nonprofit CEO compensation. I liked the responses that Patty and Sandy gave to the question of "is $200,000 too much for a nonprofit CEO to make?"

I often get frustrated when people get critical of nonprofit salaries. A lot of people think if you are doing something for the good of mankind, then you should be happy with the knowledge of a job well done. That's all fine and good if you are independently wealthy but running a nonprofit is full time plus job. I also know that when there are more opportunities than resources, an organization can run a pretty shabby business (and it is a business even if it is not making money). If you don't have the infrastructure, they can't make the programs work. When people say they only want their money to go to programs, they are saying "I want you to do great work for free". Let's be realistic. Nobody asks doctors to do their job for free and they are helping people and making the world a better place.

I'm glad people are asking the questions. I think they just don't know how nonprofits work. But if people don't ask questions, things could get out of control. Hurray for people investigating where there money goes. If only people were as interested in where their money goes in the financial market.

Lowering the Charitable Deduction Tax Break

So, if you have been following some of the new stimulus info, there has been talk about lowering the tax credit for wealthy people making gifts to charity http://philanthropy.com/news/updates/index.php?id=7301

There is much discussion about weather this will affect charitable donations or not. I've got to say that this is pretty much crap. I know the money is going to fix the health care system, which I agree needs some serious help, but let's be real here, it will affect charitable donations. I heard one of the arguments that this would not really impact nonprofits was that it wasn't going to be implemented until 2011 and by then the economy will have turned around. I'm sorry, I don't see your logic. "Well, we are going to take $5000 away, but it's no big deal because it won't be for 2 more years". Granted, some wealthy people do not worry that much about the tax implications, but let's be honest; their net worth is down, their taxes are going up and now they do not get as big of a deduction on their donations.

There was a survey stating tax deductions are at the bottom of the list of reasons people give. But in a survey I conducted on donors a couple years ago, only something like 7% said they give because of name recognition. However, I notice when their names are not on the honor roll (or are incorrect), they call pretty darn quickly to complain. My point being that no one is going to say they give for tax deductions or recognition, even though they do. It doesn't mean they don't care about the cause, but they might not give as much if they weren't getting a little incentive in return.

Now, I think Obama is great, but I think this idea stinks. Why are you hurting the organizations that are already hurting? I encourage everyone to check out Americans for the Arts and the Independent Sector to help in whatever way we can to come up with an alternative.

Good News!

Good news for the arts, as the latest version of the Recovery Plan includes funding for the NEA!!! Check out the details http://philanthropy.com/news/updates/index.php?id=7126

Also check out Americans for the Arts to make sure this stays there!