Arts Service Organizations: Invisible Infrastructure in an Era of Retrenchment
Alejandra Duque Cifuentes
While obvious, it is essential to acknowledge this research is contextualized by the moment we are in – have been in – for a while now. We are not in neutral times. Across the United States, freedom of expression is under attack. Books are being banned. Artists are being silenced. Public funding is shrinking. War, genocide, and climate collapse have become the backdrop to everyday life. In this moment of crisis, I believe it is not only valid but urgent to understand and protect the infrastructure that supports cultural workers and creative communities.
This research is not agnostic. It refuses the narrative that says ASOs are peripheral, expendable, or interchangeable. It insists that if we are to meet the needs of artists and arts entities within a capitalist economy – especially those pushed to the margins – we must start by naming and understanding the systems that support and oppress them. And if those systems are crumbling or unjust, we must organize to rebuild them with care, clarity, and accountability.
Over the past decade, I’ve worked at the intersection of arts service, advocacy, and philanthropy, stewarding institution-led advocacy for artists and arts entities through the winding landscape of philanthropy-in-flux. Reeling from the impact of the pandemic and equally volatile recovery efforts, arts workers, arts entities, and the creative industry are at an important crossroads: Are the systems and structures we’ve made serving us? Aand does the current crumbling of the arts sector present an opportunity to build a new, more equitable and functioning infrastructure that truly meets the needs of artists and their communities?
In that time, one thing has remained consistent: the foundational, often invisible and always evolving, role played by Arts Service Organizations (ASOs). These entities – network builders, resource providers, advocates, and cultural stewards – have been critical in holding together the fragmented infrastructure of the arts, especially during times of crisis. And yet, despite their vital function, ASOs have remained largely unexamined as a field. There has been a dearth of knowledge on their history, structure, purpose, and definition. Before we could build anew or contend with the inequities of the current system, it felt necessary to understand how we got here.
So, in May of 2023, in collaboration with senior research and planning consultant Carrie Blake and guided by an advisory cohort of arts workers and researchers, we launched Part 1 of Understanding Arts Service Organizations in a Changing Arts Ecosystem. This multi-phase national research initiative asks a deceptively simple question: What are ASOs? In answering it, we hoped not only to document their history, structure, and evolution, but to reveal the strategic necessity of investing in ASOs as anchors for a thriving, equitable cultural sector.
Phase 1 Methodology
The study aimed to provide baseline data on three aspects of ASOs: typology framework, history and impact, and evolution. In answering this question, we conducted a literature review, hosted industry-wide focus groups and interviews, and manually classified the IRS records for over 17,000 nonprofit entities whose NTEE codes [1] were most likely to include ASOs. Our goal was to organize existing data on ASOs in order to understand what new data we need to collect to better understand them. The outcome was an online open-source database, the National ASO List and Data Tool, released on May 31, 2024, with details on 4,860 verified [2] arts service entities that were operational in the United States and its territories from 2018-2022, and a corresponding full-length report and executive summary released in October 2024, which can be found by visiting ADC Consulting to review the full research, "Understanding Arts Service Organizations in a Changing Arts Ecosystem."
Findings
What we learned in Phase 1 revealed that while the concept of arts service has existed for as long as humans have made art, the particular legal, fiscal, and service model that is associated with the term “ASO” today was a product of four critical factors:
The rise of the 501(c)(3) model and the crystallization of the nonprofit industrial complex.
The overarching political and economic shifts in the U.S. in the 1980’s that led to the decentralization of government and reduction of social infrastructure, paired with an increasing push for capitalist growth and gain (not very different from what we are experiencing today).
The impact of the 1990’s culture wars and the shift away from individual artist support forced the institutionalization and hyperprofessionalization of artistic practice.
The role that private philanthropy played (and continues to play) in responding to those shifts through institution building (like the establishment of Theatre Communications Group and Dance/USA) has come to shape the sector today.
As a result, ASOs rose as a type of invisible infrastructure whose primary function is to “serve the artists, arts workers, and entities that deliver the arts as experiences, goods, services, and meaning to communities of all types and geographic locations.” This refined definition of ASO, as posited by the research, is intentionally broad. Data reflected in the National ASO List and Data Tool revealed a typology framework so diverse that it is not possible to “identify a single all-encompassing definition or set of characteristics that apply to all ASOs." The ASO typology framework that emerged includes three components: structure, community, and services.
Structure refers to an ASO’s mission focus, fiscal/legal model, and location.
Community refers to its service area, constituency type, and discipline.
Services refers to the actions, programs, and/or offerings they provide to artists, arts workers, or art-making entities.
This framework points to the nuanced and distinctive role that ASOs have played within the arts ecosystem, namely as network builders, knowledge hubs, accessible funders, next-generation supporters/trainers, and advocates. During the COVID-19 pandemic, these roles evolved significantly as ASOs expanded their regranting, research, and advocacy functions in response to the dire needs of individual arts workers and entities. Many, forced to contend with the demand to act more like social service providers, formed groundbreaking partnerships and adapted to leadership and staff turnover in the midst of a digital revolution and increased demand for their services.
Given the often reactive nature of their work, ASO leaders and workers consistently reported several needs and issues that are impacting their sustainability and ability to serve their constituents. For example, while the primary role of ASOs is to connect constituents, ASOs themselves are often disconnected from one another. As one ASO leader put it: “The resource gap is connectivity. We live in towns and counties that have all these structures that separate us. We could do so much if there were a tighter glue, a tighter sense of community. It's not helping us to just work in our silos.” [3] Some might be unsure of their identity and/or struggle to articulate their role in service to the sector (or what they communicate doesn’t appeal to or appease the general public’s understanding of the role they play in making art possible). As a result, there is a level of duplication and overlap within the broader set of ASOs that present opportunities for greater knowledge sharing, resource pooling, organizing, and collaboration.
Like the entities and workers they serve, ASOs often experience limited capacity, resource gaps, under-capitalization, and labor challenges – a reality that is further problematized when they are forced to compete for similar resources as their constituents, further exacerbating sectoral inequity. For example, a state arts advocacy ASO shared: “We are primarily a member organization, so organizations pay dues to us, and that makes up the bulk of our income. We also have grants and contracts. Of course, during the pandemic, a lot of those organizations could not pay us, so we spent down all our savings. Now we are hand-to-mouth like most other 501(c)(3)s. We are really reliant on organizations across the state to pay their dues; it’s hard to imagine that being sustainable forever.” [4]
Lastly, and importantly, the research points to the ongoing impact of systems of oppression within ASOs, either in the experiences of their workers or the ways they contribute to and/or mitigate these impacts in the sector. For example, some entities rely on volunteer labor or pay their workers well below market rates and/or living wages. ASO workers also contend with the same power dynamics impacting all nonprofit workers as they navigate the influence their boards, funders, and donors have on their day-to-day operations. These issues are further exacerbated in more resourced ASOs, where larger wage gaps exist between the C-suite and the lowest-paid employees. Another example of this is reflected in the power dynamics that exist between very large national ASOs serving the most powerful and highly resourced entities, and smaller, less resourced ASOs that are typically deeply connected to everyday artists and more local or discrete communities. Some focus group participants noted the ways in which larger national ASOs often failed to address inequity in their systems and/or absorbed large portions of the available resources in the sector, which were often redirected to the most resourced arts entities or artists. As a result of their size and longevity, these entities were deemed “too big to fail” while smaller ASOs were unable to access more substantial support.
All of this insight naturally leads to more questions: Is the work ASOs are doing meeting the needs of the sector? Is it time to re-evaluate the ways by which artists, arts workers, and arts entities are supported? And, if so, how? Phase 2 [5]of the research study, which largely involves conducting national quantitative research through a survey to capture new data not otherwise available or easily accessible through public data sources, will publicly launch in early 2026.
Evolving Research into Action
So, what does this mean for philanthropy, and how can this research be of use?
The findings of Phase 1 offer a set of tools and questions to guide funders, policymakers, and advocates who seek to deepen their investment in the arts ecosystem.
Here’s how this research can support your work:
Map the field. Use the National ASO List and Data Tool to identify and explore the ASOs operating in your region or are aligned with your funding priorities.
Strengthen local infrastructure. Understand where services are concentrated and where they’re missing—informing regional strategy, equity goals, and resource distribution.
Build connection. Use the data to connect individual artists or cultural institutions to relevant ASOs—supporting collaborations, organizing, and community-rooted work.
Refine your language. Ground your strategies in data-driven insights about ASO structure, service models, and impact—helping you communicate your work more clearly to grantees, partners, and the public.
And, more than a technical resource, this research offers an opportunity for reflection:As the United States enters another era of political, social, and economic instability, what role will funders play in defending cultural infrastructure? Will ASOs continue to be pitted against the very artists they serve for limited resources, or can philanthropy recognize them as essential, interconnected parts of the ecosystem? Pandemic-inspired initiatives, regranting programs, and crisis-driven collaborations that quickly dissolved continue to leave behind an echo of a potential for real change that now feels… illusory. Ultimately, as each member of the arts ecosystem considers their role in protecting and supporting artists and arts entities through this time, it will be crucial for philanthropy to be a part of the conversation.
What’s Next
The COVID-19 pandemic exposed deep fractures in our cultural systems, but it also sparked glimpses of what could be possible when we act in solidarity, move resources with urgency, and trust the leadership of those closest to the work. That moment is not gone. It is waiting. The research shared in Phase 1 is not just a record of what exists – it is a call to action. A call to protect the infrastructure that sustains creative life. To invest in those who make art possible, not just those who make art. To see ASOs not as inconvenient intermediaries, but as co-conspirators – as relationship-holders and system infrastructure – in the fight for a healthier, more just cultural future.
As we enter Phase 2 of the research this year, we encourage philanthropy's participation in a few ways:
Read the full report or executive summary
Engage with the National ASO List and Data Tool
Sign up to receive updates on the research
Submit an expression of interest to participate in primary data collection efforts
Share details on the research with your grantees and constituents
Connect to any or all of these activities by visiting Phase 1 Research resource page.
NOTES
[1] Codes selected from the National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities include the following: A01 Alliances & Advocacy, A02 Management & Technical Assistance, A03 Professional Societies & Associations, A12 Fund Raising & Fund Distribution, A19 Support N.E.C., A26 Arts & Humanities Councils & Agencies, A60 Performing Arts, A90 Arts Services, and A99 Arts, Culture & Humanities N.E.C.
[2] Phase 1 research team developed an initial working definition of ASO as the filter to narrow the list: "An arts service organization is an entity with a mission and/or programs in service to artists, arts organizations, and/or the arts sector." A team of five research assistants scrubbed the records to ensure inclusion of organizations that met this working definition. Entities were first verified to confirm their existence, activity, and web footprint. Each organization that met the working definition was then researched and coded to identify the nature of its arts service focus.
[3] Quote edited for brevity.
[4] Quote edited for brevity.
[5] This phase will also give ASOs the freedom to self-classify across the data points from Phase 1.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Alejandra Duque Cifuentes is a nonprofit leader and advocate working to advance a more just, equitable, and inclusive arts and cultural ecology. She has 15+ years of experience in strategy, general management, fund development, community organizing, arts education, professional development, and artistic production.
She is known for her ability to get results and draws on her deep relationships to drive accountable collaborations.
Alejandra is the former Executive Director of Dance/NYC and currently sits on the board of Nonprofit New York. She is also a member of the leadership council of Creatives Rebuild New York, a $125 million program.
Now based in Lacey, Washington, Alejandra is the founder and principal of ADC Consulting, working with a team of highly skilled collaborators to serve her clients well.
ABOUT THE COVER ART
We Aint Getting Nowhere Unless We Go Together (2022) by Rozalina Burkova for Fine Acts x OBI, modified by Grantmakers in the Arts (2026). Find more of her work at @rozalinaburkova.
The original work was commissioned as part of Bridging & Belonging - a creative collaboration between Fine Acts and the Democracy & Belonging Forum, an initiative from the Othering and Belonging Institute (OBI) at the University of California, Berkeley. Learn more at fineacts.co/belonging.
