On a February evening, the key players of Milwaukee’s performing arts community – arts executives, corporate philanthropists and cultural aficionados – gathered in the Broadway Theatre Center.
Throughout the night, performances by actors, ballet dancers and musicians filled the hall with a magic that only the arts can conjure. The audience wasn’t there for a show, but rather to launch the 2025 campaign for the United Performing Arts Fund – the biggest funding vehicle for 14 of the city’s biggest and most prominent theater, music and dance groups.
The air at the cultural pep rally was upbeat, yet apprehensive. This year’s campaign is pivotal.
It’s time to pick your Milwaukee favorites for the year!
UPAF had already announced its target goal: $10.7 million, a 16% increase from 2024’s lower-than-usual result of $9.2 million. It would be the largest year-over-year increase in the nonprofit’s history but still short of the pre-pandemic yield of nearly $11.9 million in 2019.
RELATED READS: WHAT WILL EASE MILWAUKEE’S ARTS FUNDING CRISIS? COLLABORATION, LEADERS SAY
The ambitious goal wasn’t the only source of anxiety. Exactly how that money is split had changed again, and smaller groups feel they are getting the short end of the stick. Their board members, who do much of the solicitation, were grumbling. But none of them can afford not to play along, because UPAF is still the largest source of recurring annual revenue for every group.
Annemarie Scobey-Polacheck, who was named president and CEO last July, took the stage. In her remarks, she stressed the significant roles that the arts play in any worldclass city: attracting new talent, boosting tourism and enriching the lives of its residents.
Everyone involved with UPAF agrees about the importance of local performing arts. But at the center of years of infighting and animosity is the question of who exactly UPAF is meant to support.
The last five years at the organization have been tumultuous. The COVID-19 pandemic shut down performances for Milwaukee’s arts groups, erasing their main function as well as a vital chunk of revenue. Greatly lower production costs paired with government relief money kept groups afloat through the early days. When the government money went away, private philanthropy stepped up to fill the hole under the expectation of acting as temporary relief.
Another challenge: Audiences still have not returned to pre-pandemic numbers, resulting in lower ticket and subscription revenue. State funding remains scarce, with Wisconsin consistently ranking either 49th or 50th per capita in arts funding, depending on the year.
• 39% Businesses and matching gifts
• 30% Workplace giving campaigns
• 21.4% Individual giving
• 5% Ride for the Arts
• 4.2% Foundations
• 0.4% Other, including investment income
(2024 figures)
This puts more pressure on philanthropy to ensure the survival of Milwaukee’s performing arts groups. UPAF’s largest donors – corporations like Northwestern Mutual and Johnson Controls – are feeling the strain of increased demand for their dollars. This also puts pressure on individual donors.
How funds are allocated has always been the source of infighting between the larger and smaller groups, and the formula has changed several times over the years. Last June, right before Scobey-Polacheck’s arrival, it changed again, increasing the share for the larger groups and removing vital financial incentives that the smaller groups rely on.
Some believe that UPAF ’s funding should go solely to its larger “cornerstone” groups, which include the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra, the Rep and the Ballet. The argument: The groups with the largest budgets and audiences need the most money. Others argue this would threaten the survival of smaller member groups, who lack the resources to fundraise on their own. And if smaller groups were to close, audiences with tastes that diverge from the Rep and MSO would have no other option.
“More companies mean more work to go around [for artists],” says Brent Hazelton, executive director of the Milwaukee Chamber Theatre. “It means people are better at their crafts. And it also means they can afford to stay here because they can afford to make livings here. They can continue to invest in their communities.”
All this back-and-forth has sparked larger questions about UPAF’s purpose and future. Is UPAF no longer effective? Amid internal strife and external challenges, will it survive? And should it?
Opening The Umbrella
The United Performing Arts Fund formed in 1966, three years before the opening of the county-backed Milwaukee Performing Arts Center. The venue was built to be the primary stage for the city’s biggest performing arts groups at the time – including the Rep, MSO, The Florentine Opera, and Skylight Music Theatre – and UPAF was meant to provide financial stability to those groups. The idea behind UPAF was efficiency; the arts groups could pool together their resources into one fund, and donors only had to donate to one group.
Since then, UPAF has grown into a sophisticated operation. It expanded from seven to 14 groups and went from being volunteer-run to having 15 full-time employees. It raised $362 million through 2020.
UPAF’s stated mission now has three pillars: fundraising, allocating those funds and promoting the arts. It achieves the first one through workplace giving campaigns – in which local employees contribute through payroll deduction and corporations can choose to match amounts – individual donations and events. Of the more than 12,000 people who donated last year, over 8,500 did so through workplace campaigns.
And to promote the arts, UPAF runs outreach programs that bring free art events to underserved communities and educational opportunities to young students.
Over the years, the second pillar – allocation – has gotten more complex. At the end of each campaign, which typically runs from March through August, the money is split between the 14 groups.
UPAF divides the groups into two tiers: cornerstones, such as the MSO and the Rep, which receive the bulk of the revenue; and member groups, such as Milwaukee Chamber Theatre, Danceworks MKE and Present Music, which receive a much smaller cut. Separate from these are affiliate groups, like Wild Space Dance Company and Milwaukee Opera Theatre, who apply for small yearly grants. In 2024, for example, MSO received $1.7 million, the largest grant; member group Next Act Theatre received $140,837; and affiliate Milwaukee Jazz Institute received $5,000.
Before 2011, allocation was considered a “black box” by groups, says Deanna Tillisch, who took over as president and CEO that year. The process was opaque, but generally more funds went to groups that did more spending, which rewarded bad budgeting, says then board member Rich Meeusen. He and Tillisch overhauled the process to make it more transparent and accountable to the public and UPAF recipients.
The aim was for about 85% of allocated funding to go to cornerstones, 14% to members, and 1% to affiliate groups. But although each of the 14 cornerstone and member groups received a guaranteed percentage, the exact split would vary depending on other variables.
Groups could add to their take through earned credit – money rewarded based on campaign participation, like performing for fundraising events – and donor designations, in which a donor could name a specific group and 10% to 30% of that donation would be reserved for it. Arts group board members who solicited donations could also reserve 40% for their organization.
A “financial scorecard” was also introduced to incentivize the groups to manage their money responsibly. Fiscally sustainable groups could receive additional funds, while unhealthy groups received feedback for improvement and could go on probation. And a fund was set up to lift any group with a shortfall or reward any groups at the allocation committee’s discretion.
While the allocation formula was being shaken up, Meeusen also led a significant effort to restructure UPAF’s board – shrinking it from about 50 to 30 members and disallowing recipient group executives and their board members from sitting on it as they had before. “We made sure the board was independent,” he says, “because we thought that would create a conflict of interest.”
These changes frustrated the cornerstone groups, who felt that their power and revenues were diluted.
RELATED: HOW DIRE IS THE FUNDING PUZZLE FACING THE ARTS IN MILWAUKEE?
From 2012 to 2019, UPAF’s campaign totals grew. But so did tensions over the variability and uncertainty of allocations year-over-year.
When the pandemic hit, “the arts were the first to shut down and the last to reopen,” says Christine Hojnacki, executive director of Imagine MKE, who at the time was UPAF’s vice president of workplace and company giving. A strong unified effort contributed to a successful 2020 campaign, but the importance of UPAF funds grew heavier as groups’ federal pandemic funding depleted and audiences were slow to return.
As the need grew, UPAF’s fundraising totals began to stagnate. Fewer people in offices meant fewer donors UPAF could reach with in-person performances. This led to a major decline in workplace giving and their corporate matches.
And under President Patrick Rath, who took over in 2020, the percentage split between cornerstones and member groups became closer to 75% to 25% respectively as UPAF pulled money from reserves for certain groups and others stepped up for fundraising performances.
The Next Act?
One month before the launch of the 2024 campaign, Rath stepped down from UPAF. Tillisch was brought back to quickly assemble an all-star team of 25 former co-chairs to helm a leaderless campaign. “It was the easiest assignment I’ve ever had,” she says. “Everyone said yes.”
Internally, the board had months of intense discussions with large donors and cornerstone groups over changes in allocation. The results were a return to an 85% cornerstone-15% member group split for 2025. The financial scorecard and discretionary fund no longer exist formally, but Scobey-Polacheck says the allocation committee is still working out its process and still takes these factors into consideration.
Member groups view this as a loss. Not only did they lose 10 percentage points in the formula, but donor designations can no longer support specific groups. Many worry that his will spur larger donors to rethink their giving strategy and donate directly to their favorite group instead.
“From First Stage’s point of view, the current allocation led to a more significant downturn than we would have liked, but it seemed a necessary compromise in discussion with the other cornerstone members,” says Jeff Frank, executive artistic director of the cornerstone theater group. “We were in agreement that there was a need to simplify and standardize the allocation system in a way that would become more consistent.”
EFFICENCY? Some argue that UPAF should minimize its overhead costs by focusing solely on fundraising, reducing staff and redirecting the money into reserves. In its 2023 fiscal year, UPAF’s total non-allocation expenses, including administrative and fundraising costs, equaled $2.8 million. Total staff salaries have stayed relatively flat since 2016.
All 14 member groups ultimately approved the agreement. But it sounded alarms for member groups that the cornerstones and their donors could powerfully sway the organization.
All told, the changes could mean as much as a 50% reduction in UPAF funds for some member groups – though this year, UPAF will pull money from its reserves to mitigate the drop-off. But those reserves are limited, and the belief is that the allocation debate will return to the table within the next year.
And in what could be seen as a power play, cornerstone groups demanded representation on the UPAF board again, which some view as an unfair advantage in organizational decision-making and fund allocation. When the issue came to the board this year, Scobey-Polacheck says UPAF ruled once again that this would be a conflict of interest and against its bylaws.
Despite the turmoil, every group is all-in for this year’s campaign. They need to be, because they all rely on funds from UPAF. But many member groups feel they must do more fundraising work for much less in return.
Hazelton of the Chamber Theatre says donors are seeking impact beyond just a few large groups. “What we continue to hear from people who donate to UPAF is that [it’s] because they’re interested in funding the entire sector,” he says.
And increasing attendance is still crucial. “Our philanthropy doesn’t matter if people aren’t getting up off their couch,” Scobey-Polacheck says.
If UPAF doesn’t reach its 2025 goal campaign, it will face more pressure to direct more funds to the cornerstone groups under the threat of them leaving and fundraising on their own. Member groups will likely continue to shrink operations. And serious doubts about the long-term survival of UPAF will climb.
“If there’s infighting, nobody’s going to win, because there are too many obstacles and headwinds outside the UPAF frame,” says Tillisch.
If MSO and the Rep left UPAF, it’s assumed they have the infrastructure to recoup and that major corporate donors would give directly to them. Representatives from other cornerstone groups, including the Rep and MSO, declined or were unavailable to comment.
For the smaller member groups, any significant loss of UPAF funds would have an immediate impact. For example, Present Music would reduce musicians and consider reducing the number of concerts and staff if it lost UPAF support, according to development manager Daniel Petry.
Everything points to 2025’s campaign being a turning point of some kind. “It’s important that we all come together in this time to find the best way forward for UPAF and for the arts organizations it supports,” Frank says. “I feel that the tension has risen amongst all parties, and there is a true danger of significant fractures developing.”
