The Development Gap: When the Next Step Is Clear but the Money Isn’t
by Cate Cammarata | Sep 21, 2026 | NPD, Producing, Theater
Most experienced theatermakers know that different projects need different development rooms.
A reading can help us hear structure and language.
A workshop can test staging, scene-to-song integration, transitions and theatrical storytelling.
A cabaret presentation can put songs and concept in front of an audience before an entire musical is ready to stand on its feet.
A showcase can allow more developed work to demonstrate what it might become in production.
We know this.
The harder question is increasingly not what does the work need next?
It is:
Who is going to pay for it?
That question sits underneath almost every conversation I am having about new work right now.
This month alone, I have projects in very different places in the pipeline. We recently heard Act Two of SECRETS, a play still being developed by a writer in Brisbane, Australia. We have musicals moving through cabaret development. Other projects are being prepared for our 2027 Showcase season.
In most cases, identifying the next useful developmental step isn’t particularly mysterious.
Finding the resources to make that step happen is.
The Artistic Question and the Financial Question
Ideally, development decisions would be made primarily on artistic grounds.
What does the piece need?
What question are we trying to answer?
What combination of actors, directors, musicians, designers or space would allow us to investigate it?
But every one of those questions eventually becomes a budget.
Actors need to be paid.
Rehearsal space costs money.
Musicians cost money.
Directors, music directors, stage managers, designers and producers need to be compensated.
A presentation requires a venue.
A showcase requires considerably more.
And a production requires an entirely different level of capitalization.
So the creative producer is constantly working with two parallel questions:
What does the work need?
and
What can we actually afford to give it?
Those answers are increasingly different from each other.
The Development Pipeline Has a Funding Problem
For decades, nonprofit and regional theaters have played an essential role in developing new American work.
But institutions themselves face enormous financial pressures.
When budgets tighten, risk becomes harder to justify.
A theater still has salaries, rent, insurance, production costs and audiences to maintain. A recognizable title or familiar musical may offer a far more predictable path to ticket sales than an unknown new play by a writer audiences have never heard of.
That doesn’t necessarily mean an artistic director doesn’t believe in new work.
It means belief still has to survive a budget meeting.
And that creates an increasingly difficult gap.
Writers need productions in order for their work to become known.
Theaters often need work to arrive with some degree of recognition, development or financial support before they can afford to take the risk.
Somebody has to finance the space between those two things.
Increasingly, I find myself asking:
Who?
Money Doesn’t Always Follow Merit
There is another side to this problem that we don’t talk about nearly enough.
Funding can move work forward.
But the presence of funding does not necessarily mean that the work is ready to be produced.
I’ve seen projects reach showcases and productions largely because someone had access to the money necessary to put them there.
And I’ve seen much stronger projects remain in development because those resources weren’t available.
This is not about artistic readiness.
The ability to raise money is important. Producing is impossible without it.
But capital should not become our substitute for artistic judgment.
A production with sufficient financing can rent a theater, hire actors, engage designers and buy advertising.
However, none of those things can solve a story problem.
And once a project reaches a sufficiently public stage, everyone involved has a professional stake in what is being presented.
That is one reason I have become increasingly careful about what CreateTheater puts into a showcase or production.
A showcase should not simply mean:
The writer could afford a showcase.
It should mean:
We believe this work is ready to benefit from one.
So Where Does That Leave New Work?
This is the question I don’t think our field has solved.
If the nonprofit model is increasingly financially stretched, if commercial development requires access to private capital, and if writers themselves are expected to shoulder more of the cost of developing their work, we risk creating a theater in which access to development depends too heavily on access to money.
That should concern all of us.
Because the long-term health of the theater depends upon the quality and range of the work entering the pipeline.
Margo Jones put it simply:
“Our theater can never be stronger than the quality of its plays. We must, therefore, have a great number of good plays.”
I keep coming back to that.
Jones, Nina Vance and Zelda Fichandler were among the pioneers who helped create an alternative to a theater ecology dominated by the commercial marketplace: professional resident theaters where artistic value did not have to be determined solely by whether a production could immediately make money. That movement grew with substantial philanthropic and eventually public support.
Now Oskar Eustis, one of the most prominent artistic leaders of the institutions that movement created, has said bluntly that “the American nonprofit theater movement is over.” His argument is not that nonprofit theaters will disappear, but that the national consensus that once supported serious, subsidized, non-market-driven theater has disappeared.
Maybe he’s right.
But if the movement is over, I think we have to ask a much harder question:
What happened to it?
Was it simply starved by the disappearance of public and philanthropic support?
Did escalating labor, real-estate and production costs make the original model impossible?
Does the public no longer value live, professional theater on stage?
Or, have some of our nonprofit institutions grown so large—and so expensive to sustain—that maintaining the institution itself can compete with the artistic mission it was created to serve?
Those questions become particularly uncomfortable when resources for developing new work are disappearing while leadership compensation at some of our largest nonprofit theaters can reach seven figures.
That fact alone does not explain the crisis. But it should make us willing to ask what our nonprofit theaters are funding, whom they are serving, and what we expect the word nonprofit to mean in 2026.
Because the original dream was never simply to build institutions.
It was to build a theatrical ecology in which artists could make important work that the commercial marketplace alone would not support.
If that system is truly ending, then the answer cannot simply be to return development to whomever has the deepest pockets.
Otherwise we have come full circle.
The writers who can finance their own productions will get produced. The writers with wealthy patrons or powerful connections will get developed. And excellent work without access to capital will remain on the page.
Who benefits from that pay to play model?
Which brings me back to Margo Jones.
“Our theater can never be stronger than the quality of its plays.”
If we still believe that, then perhaps the most important question facing those of us producing new work isn’t whether the old nonprofit model is over.
It is:
What are we going to build in its place—and how do we make sure artistic merit, rather than access to money, still has a chance to determine what stories we get to tell on stage?