This article shares the perspectives of TYA theatre leaders related to a range of artistic matters including season selection practices, audience feedback, leadership priorities, and conceptions of quality.

It draws on data from the recent TYA State of the Field study which surveyed the artistic, business, and education leaders of TYA companies in the United States, including participation from 95% of invited theatres. A total of 59 theatres are included in the data unless otherwise indicated.*

*For more details about the broader research study this article draws on, including its methodology, please see Omasta, M. (2024). Theatre for young audiences state of the field 2024. Theatre for Young Audiences/USA.

Participating Theatres

This section offers a summary of some characteristics of the theatres involved in this study. The research team grouped and classified theatres according to the size of their overall budgets during the 2022-23 season year. We distributed them approximately evenly among four categories, as illustrated in Figure 1.

The theatres had been in operation for between 3-105 years as of 2024, and all operated as non-profit, 501(c)3 organizations. Eighty-five percent primarily or exclusively produced work, while 6% primarily presented and 9% regularly engaged in both modes of operation.

Ninety-six percent of the theatres dedicated themselves primarily to serving young audiences and families while the remaining 4% did not but typically produced two or more productions each year for these audiences.

Ninety-three percent of the shows the theatres produced during the 2022-23 season, were primarily for young people, including 45% of shows primarily for ages 5-10, 19% for the very young (0-5), 17% for tweens (11-13), and 12% for teens (14-17). Forty-five percent of these productions were adaptations from literature or other sources, 41% were musicals, and 34% were world premieres.

Twenty-three percent of theatres offered virtual / streaming access to at least some of their shows, with 6% offering virtual access to all productions. Only 8% of shows theatres produced throughout the season were fully virtual with no in-person performances.

Season Selection Factors

We asked artistic leaders** to rate how important various factors were to their season selection process; the results are illustrated in Figure 2. The factors are listed in order of their average (mean) importance to respondents (for example, on a scale where 4 indicates “very important” and 1 indicates “not at all important,” the factor with the highest average rating (3.7) was “including plays that promote diversity, equity, and/or inclusion,” while the factors with the lowest mean (2.4) was “including plays that are wholly original.”

**The data in the first sections of this report was gathered from participants who identified as the artistic leader of their company (typically the Artistic Director or similar). Later sections of this article include data from business and education leaders as well; we note when this is the case.

The data reveal little change in the relative degrees of importance afforded to various factors when compared to data from five years prior. Compared to the 2019 version of this study, the only notable shifts were a slight increase in the mean score for “including a certain number of production for specific age groups” (up from 3.28 to 3.40) and a small drop in the mean score for “including plays that respond to current issues and events” (down from 3.09 to 2.85). The highest-rated priority (including plays that promote DEI) was not measured in the previous survey, so it is not possible to measure change.

Open-Ended Priorities
Prior to asking leaders to rank the priorities above, the survey first attempted to gain impression of respondents’ priorities unbiased by a list of possible choices by posing the open-ended question: “What is your most important priority when selecting plays in your season selection process?” We then reviewed and coded responses using in-vivo and categorical methods to identify salient themes. Twenty-three categories of priorities emerged from the data (excluding priorities that were listed by only one respondent). These are defined below, and their relative frequency is represented in the world cloud in Figure 3.

Age Range
These responses relate to offering plays targeted toward specific age groups or ensuring plays appealed to a range of age groups. Examples include:

“Does the play fit the age range, of upper or lower elementary? Do we have something that fits a teen audience when possible?”
“Balance of shows for a diversity of ages.”

Community Resonance
These responses indicated a commitment to selecting titles that would be relevant to and resonant with the theatre’s local community. Examples include:

“Stories that resonate with the community.”
“When selecting a season it is most important that there is room for collaboration/engagement with our community and [that it] deals with themes resonating with our community presently.”

Diverse Content
These responses relate to selecting plays featuring diverse characters, communities, or stories. Examples include:

“We consider cultural and gender representation.”
“Diversity and representation are key considerations.”

Quality Storytelling
These responses relate specifically to selecting scripts with high quality narratives and storytelling. Examples include:

“It has to start with a strong story and engaging characters – an arc/journey that an audience wants to follow along with.”
“Intriguing stories is the main driver of selection.”

Mission / Values
These responses indicate that respondents consider their company’s mission and/or core values when selecting material for their season. Examples include:

“Plays that reflect our company’s core values.”
“Find content that is mission-centric.”

Artistic Excellence
These responses relate to selecting material that presents opportunities for overall aesthetic excellence (rather than, or in addition to, the storytelling). Examples include:

“The artistic merit of the play.”
“Artistic quality.”

Educational Ties
These responses reflect those that indicate that material is selected based on its educational value and/or the ability to be linked to school curriculum. Examples include:

“Curriculum connection.”
“Educational tie-ins.”

Budget
These responses reflect concern with the cost of producing a given production. Examples include:

“How much will it cost to build?”
“Cost.”

Family Friendly
These responses indicate a commitment to selecting intergenerational material or scripts that will appeal to entire families. Examples include:

“Stories that reach an intergenerational audience that features young people and/or families at the center of the storytelling.”
“Family friendly.”

Engaging
These responses indicate that plays are selected for their ability to capture and retain audiences’ attention / involvement. Examples include:

“That it is a well written/constructed story that makes the audience engaged.”
“Theatre that engages young audiences.”

Recognizable Titles
These responses indicate that importance is placed on selected scripts with that are likely to be well-known to potential audience members (whether adaptations or original material). Examples include:

“At this time, we require a well-known name for the title.”
“80% of titles are recognizable.”

Relevance
These responses reflect a preference for material that is relevant to audiences, without specifically noting that the content be relevant to the local community (such responses were coded as “community resonance” – see above). Examples include:

“Relevance.”
“Plays that have relevance to the world of a child.”

Variety
These responses indicate that respondents said it was important for them to include a variety of titles that were different from each other throughout their season. Examples include:

“Variety of genres.”
“Variety of aesthetics and forms.”

Adaptations
These responses specifically indicated a preference for scripts adapted from literature or other material. Examples include:

“We look for shows that are based in literature that are appropriate for our audiences.”
“They are things that the kids are reading.”

Diverse Artists
These responses indicate that material was selected in part because the artists who created the script and/or might be employed in its production represent diverse communities. Examples include:

“We prioritize Latinx talent.”
“Our current priority is on working with diverse writers who tell stories from their particular culture/experience.”

Resources
These responses reflect concern with the resources (other than money) required to produce a script. Examples include:

“Staff capacity: do we have the right people available to effectively meet the demands of producing the work?”
“Facility capacity: can we achieve the technical demands required for the work in the space that we have?”

Revenue
These responses indicate that titles are selected for their potential to generate significant ticket sales / revenue. Examples include:

“Titles that will draw crowds and sell tickets.”
“Plays that will generate appropriate revenue.”

Social Emotional Learning
These responses include those that specifically note interest in plays that promote Social Emotional Learning (SEL) or development. Examples include:

“Shows [that] enhance social and emotional development.”
“Theatre that meets standards in terms of social/emotional health of kids.”

Attracts Artists
These responses indicate that respondents select pieces that are likely to appeal to potential artists who might work on the piece. Examples include:

“Plays that will attract and accommodate the artists we want to work with.”
“Stories that speak to our resident ensemble.”

New Work
These responses indicated that theatres deliberately included new work in their seasons (from any source). Examples include:

“It was important to include new works.”
“New work.”

Season Theme
These responses indicated consideration given to plays’ alignment with the theme of a theatre’s season or specific call. Examples include:

“Season theme.”
“The plays must be related to the theme of the open call.”

Thought-Provoking
These responses include those that indicated pieces should promote audience members’ critical thinking or consideration of new ideas or perspectives. Examples include:

“We choose work that we believe elevates the thinking of young people.”
“Plays that inspire opportunities for thoughtful dialogue.”

Youth Participation
These responses indicated preference for plays that provide opportunities for young people to participate in the creative process, including as actors. Examples include:

“A mix of opportunities to perform … for each age bracket.”
“Centering youth participation.”

Season Consultation

We asked Artistic Directors who they consulted when selecting their theatres’ season; the results are illustrated in Figure 4. Like five years prior, many respondents indicated that they collaborated with other artistic staff and senior leaders (at somewhat higher rates than previously). They were also slightly more likely to indicate that they consulted education staff or their theatre’s board of directors.

The percentage of respondents indicating that they consulted with other constituencies declined to varying degrees, with the biggest change being a decrease to the number who consulted with young people (down to 39% from 56%) and colleagues at other institutions (down to 52% from 64%). As was the case in the last iteration of this study, all artistic directors indicated that they consulted with at least one other stakeholder as part of their process.

Self-Censorship

We asked Artistic Directors: “Are there any specific plays you have wanted to include in your season in recent years but chose not to produce/present because you anticipated that schools, parents, community members, or others would react negatively to the play?”

Twenty-nine percent of artistic leaders answered “yes.” This was a decrease from the 44% who answered this way in 2019.

In 2019, the likelihood of a respondent indicating they opted not to produce a play for this reason was roughly positively correlated with the budget of their theatre (that is, the larger a theatre’s budget, the greater the likelihood of self-censorship).

In the most recent survey, the relationship between budget and self-censorship was more variable, as indicated in Figure 5. While, as previously, the smallest budget theatres were least likely to indicate they engaged in this practice (19% from category A theatres), it was the largest budget theatres (category D) that were second least likely to indicate this.

Meanwhile, nearly half of respondents from category C theatres (46%), with budgets in the $3-5M range, reported this practice and just under a third (31%) of category B theatres indicated so.

Content Not Produced

We asked respondents who indicated they had opted not to produce a piece to share the titles of the pieces and the reasons they opted not to produce them. No specific title was mentioned by more than one respondent, but when considering the pieces collectively, several commonalities emerge.

Most of the pieces considered but not produced relate to some aspects of diversity, equity, and/or inclusion, typically by telling the stories of protagonists from marginalized communities and exploring the challenges they faced. The three most common types of difference explored were race, immigration/refugee status, and gender identity. While the pieces deal with these topics in substantively different ways and with varying degrees of intensity, over half of the titles mentioned fell into this broad category of addressing “difference.”

The second most common link between the plays was that several dealt with death and grief, occasionally in combination with gun violence. Most other pieces addressed some type of social or political issue that might be perceived as controversial, though a couple titles were household titles or fairy tales without explicit reference to such issues.

Respondents shared a range of reasons why they opted not to produce the titles. Roughly two-thirds of respondents cited reasons directly related to the content, noting that they had faced overt censorship (or feared that they would) from of schools, libraries, or other institutions who would not book shows. Others indicated that they personally thought content might be too controversial, scary, or triggering.

Some respondents noted that they believed their communities might respond positively to these pieces if they were well-contextualized. For example, they felt the pieces might fare better if they could provide educational programming or other opportunities to engage with audiences beyond the performances themselves. However, their theatres lacked the resources necessary to provide this context and they therefore opted not to produce the works. Respondents also discussed lacking the appropriate artists / collaborators to produce a given work as well as the need to build trust with their communities generally before presenting potentially controversial material.

Audience Feedback

We asked artistic leaders if they actively solicited feedback from audience members, and 85% indicated that they did so. Responses to this question are illustrated in Figure 6.

By far the most common method of seeking feedback was through post-season surveys (nearly two-thirds of respondents indicated they used these tools).Meanwhile, a quarter of respondents indicated that they engaged in community discussions or stakeholder meetings, while 19% facilitated focus groups and 10% asked audiences to complete pre-show surveys.

Leader Priorities

We asked all participants (including artistic, business, and education leaders) to rate how important it was to them that the shows their theatre presents align with various priorities. The results are shown in Figure 7.

Based on mean ratings, the most important priority for respondents collectively was that shows promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (mean = 3.8 out of 4), followed closely by demonstrating aesthetic excellence (mean = 3.7), and being highly entertaining (mean = 3.6). Respondents generally agreed that plays should address social issues (mean = 3.1), and the lowest-rated priority was aligning with school curricula (mean = 2.9).

The ranking of the various priorities was similar among respondents of different types. The mean responses of business and education leaders resulted in the same overall ranking for all respondents depicted in Figure 7.

Artistic leaders’ responses were most different from the overall average: these leaders gave the highest ratings to aesthetic excellence and entertainment (tied). Leaders who oversaw multiple aspects of their theatres (e.g., both artistic and education or another combination) also varied slightly from the overall average, ranking aesthetic excellence a sliver higher, collectively, than promoting DEI. All respondents ranked addressing social issues fourth and ranked aligning with school curricula lowest.

The data also reveal variations in the data based on the budget size of the theatre respondents were affiliated with. While DEI was the highest priority at category B and C theatres, at the category B theatres it was tied with aesthetic excellence. At category A and D theatres, meanwhile, it ranked second, below aesthetic excellence.

While aligning plays with school curricula was the least important priority at theatres of all types, it was a notably higher priority at category C and D theatres than at lower-budget theatres.

Qualities of Quality

To better understand current perceptions of what leaders (artistic, business, and education) valued, we asked them the open-ended question: “How would you define “quality” as in “high quality TYA”? Some respondents offered one trait of quality while others listed many. We coded and categorized the responses and ultimately identified 35 recurring “qualities of quality,” which we define here. The relative frequency with which respondents mentioned each quality is depicted in Figure 8.

By far, the most frequently named quality (mentioned by nearly half of the respondents) was what we term “Worthy of Children.” This quality means theatre that respects young audiences by valuing their worth and experiences, speaking to them as equals, and/or providing them with artistic experiences of the same overall quality as those for adult theatregoers. For example, respondents stated:

“The story is worthy of children – it does not talk down to children and explores themes in a way that shows an understanding of child development. The experience impacts children positively while in the theatre and after they leave the theatre.”
“This work doesn’t speak down to the child in any artistic manner, but helps to curate, elevate and lift the thinking of the child with an artistic experience.”
“When we hold ourselves to give young people something that we would consider quality theater for everyone, only then are we achieving the quality of theater young people deserve.”

The second-most common quality, “Artistic Excellence,” was cited by about a third of respondents, and includes references to the overall aesthetic quality of productions in way that are different from the more specific types of excellence also shared here.

“It is a compelling experience and raises the bar of audience expectations with high levels of talent, design, direction, and execution.”
“Shows that put all available artistry … into the effort, such that the work made for young people represents the best work of all the creatives and technicians involved.”

The third most cited quality, “Professionally Staffed,” was cited by about a quarter of participants. This refers to work that is produced by well-trained and experienced artists and craftspeople. Several respondents also noted the import of these professionals being compensated appropriately for their skill. Sample responses include:

“Extraordinary actors, designers, playwrights and directors whose work has been celebrated and honored for its creativity, depth and originality.”
“Utilizing professional theatre makers, artisans, crafts persons and collaborators.”

While space limitations prevent the provision of sample responses for each of the other 32 qualities, we define what these terms mean in the context of our analysis here.

Accessible: work that is physically and/or intellectually accessible to all audience members.
Age-appropriate: work that aligns with the developmental stage of its audience in terms of comprehensibility and/or content.
Artistic Excellence: work that demonstrates high aesthetic quality/merit in a way not otherwise explicitly included in this list of terms
Bold: work that takes risks confidently.
Challenging: work that presents difficulties for its audience to overcome (intellectually, regarding subject matter, or otherwise).
Compelling: work with the ability to strongly evoke interest and arrest attention.
Creative: work that is original or imaginative or presents established material in such a fashion.
Diverse: work that relates to or explores any aspect of diversity or difference.
Educational: work that relates learning either informally or through curricular connections.
Engaging: work that establishes a connection with or fosters a sense of involvement with the audience.
Entertaining: work that is fun, amusing, and/or enjoyable.
Exciting: work that includes thrilling content.
Impactful: work that makes a tangible difference in some aspects of the world / audiences’ lives.
Inclusive: work or practices that deliberately include a wide range of individuals, groups, or ideas.
Innovative: work that is new, novel, and advances the field.
Inspiring: work that motivates audiences to contemplate actions or ideas.
Interactive: work that involves a back and forth with audiences (which may be specific, scripted moments of interaction or the interaction between actors and audiences generally)
Intergenerational: work deliberately designed to appeal to both young people and adults.
Meaningful: work that effectively conveys an idea to individuals or groups.
Mission-oriented: work that aligns with the mission, vision, and/or values of the organization producing it.
Production value: work that embodies aesthetic excellence particularly regarding design, technical elements, and/or spectacle.
Professional: work that is completed with deliberate care and consideration and meets established standards.
Professionally Staffed: work that is produced by creatives and other staff with formal training and considerable experience in their fields.
Purposeful: work that is presented for a clear reason or promotes a particular end.
Quality storytelling: work based on scripts that tell strong stories with rich characters and situations.
Reflects community: works that are representative of and speak to the theatre’s local community.
Relevance: work that speaks directly and effectively to contemporary audiences in their current contexts.
Resonant: work is strong, clear, and that reverberates with audiences.
Resourced: work that is fully supported and appropriately funded.
Thoughtful: work that demonstrates clear thinking and reflection from the artists.
Thought-provoking: work that is likely to lead audiences to consider new perspectives or reexamine their thinking.
Well-developed: work that went through a thorough developmental process (for example, through a series of developmental productions).
Worthy of children: high-quality work on par with that for adult audiences that respects young people and their experiences, in particular, work that avoids condescending to young people.
Youth participation: work that provides opportunities for young people to participate in the performance (as actors or otherwise).
Youth-centric: work that features young characters and/or centers the stories of children and adolescents.

The Best TYA Critic

We asked all respondents who they felt was the best critic of a TYA play (produced) from several options. As Figure 9 illustrates, 87% indicated that “the child who witnesses it” was the best critic of TYA, which was also the most common answer in 2019. The percentage of respondents choosing this answer has increased each time a version of this survey has been conducted, starting with just under 50% in 1961 to today’s 87%.

Though 72% of Artistic Directors indicated that the child who witnesses TYA is its best critic, this group was the most likely to choose any other. Twenty percent of artistic leaders indicated that experienced adult TYA practitioners are the best critics, a position shared with 12% of education leaders, 6% of multi-role leaders, and 0% of business leaders. Eight percent of artistic leaders (and no other leaders) indicated that experienced adult critics are best suited for this task. A few business and multi-role leaders indicated that the best critic of a TYA play was the director of the production and the immediate production company.

This article has offered insight into a variety of artistic matters. Upcoming pieces will consider issues related to education in greater detail, as well as a comparison of responses over time and consideration of how state-level politics may influence responses.

Author Matt Omasta

Matt Omasta

Leader Perspectives on Contemporary Artistic Matters in TYA – A Companion Article to the TYA/USA 2024 State of the Field Report