THE NEA AND THE DANCE FIELD: AN ANALYSIS OF GRANT RECIPIENTS FROM 1991 TO 2000
THESIS
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Masters of Arts in the
Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
Jennifer Ann Sciantarelli
*****
The Ohio State University 2009
Thesis Committee: Approved by Professor Margaret Wyszomirski, Advisor
Professor Candace Feck ______Advisor Arts Policy and Administration Program
Copyright by
Jennifer Ann Sciantarelli
2009 ABSTRACT
The National Endowment for the Arts has been instrumental in the development
of the dance field in the U.S. In the mid-1990s, the Agency transformed. Its budget was
cut by 40 percent and the grant distribution process was restructured. The effects of
restructuring on the dance field are examined in this study. NEA grants to the field from
1991 to 2000 were compiled into a database and explored through three distribution
lenses: geography, genre and grantee type.
When the NEA was restructured, artists prophesied disaster. In fact, data reveals
that the field adapted to changes in federal subsidy and grew decentralized, diversified
and connected to communities. After restructuring, while the dance field received less funding from the NEA, it maintained a consistent proportion of NEA grant dollars in comparison with other arts fields. This shows that the field can overcome obstacles, remaining competitive and vital to the American cultural landscape.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank my advisor, Margaret Wyszomirski, for her guidance during my years in the Arts Policy and Administration program at Ohio State, as well as her patience during my thesis process. Dr. Wyszomirski also provided an invaluable collection of literature, including her set of NEA annual reports.
I thank Dr. Candace Feck for offering her experience and sound advice, as well as jumping in to this project with great enthusiasm.
The Lawrence and Isabel Barnett Fellowship enabled my graduate studies at Ohio
State. I am forever grateful to Mr. and Mrs. Barnett for their dedication to the arts and education.
I would like to thank the National Endowment for the Arts for the many resources the Agency provided me, including the grant recipient database, which was the basis for my database, and grant application guidelines. My research would not have been possible without the NEA’s assistance.
Finally, I am indebted to my support system provided by family and friends.
They have stood by me throughout this endeavor and provided unwavering encouragement.
iii
VITA
April 29, 1978………………………...... Born – Lexington, Kentucky
2000………………………………………B.A. Journalism, University of Kentucky
2006-Present……………………………...Communications Manager, BalletMet Columbus, Columbus, Ohio
2005-2006………………………………...Administrative Assistant, Ohio Cultural Facilitates Commission, Columbus, Ohio
2003-2005………………………………...Member, Treasurer, Arts Priori, The Ohio State University
2003-2005………………………………...Member, Central Ohio Student Advocates for the Arts, The Ohio State University
2003-2005………………………………...Barnett Fellow, The Ohio State University
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: Arts Policy and Administration
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………....ii Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………...….iii Vita…………………………………………………………………………………….....iv Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………....v List of Figures...……………………………………………………………………..…..viii List of Tables.…………………………………………………………………...……...... ix
Chapters:
1. Introduction….…………………………………………………………………….1
1.1 The National Endowment for the Arts……………………………………..….4 1.1.1 Matching grants………………………...…………………………...6 1.1.2 Panels…...…………………………………………………………...7 1.1.3 National Council on the Arts…………………...…………………...8 1.1.4 Dance discipline directors……………...……………..……………..8 1.1.5 Controversy breeds change………………...………..………………9 1.2 The dance field……………………………………………………………….14 1.2.1 The Ford Foundation………...……………………………………..15 1.2.2 Growth of the field………………...……………………………….16 1.3 Relationship between the NEA and the dance field……………………….…17 1.4 Research……………………………………………………………………...18 1.4.1 Relevant literature……………...…………………………………..18 1.4.2 Methodology...……………………………………………………..19
2. Literature review and grant database exploration..………………………………22
2.1 Impetus for restructuring: The Culture Wars………………………………...22 2.2 Perspectives from the field: Related literature………………………….…....24 2.2.1 Congressional testimony…………...………………………………29 2.2.2 NEA grant application guidelines…...……………………………..31 2.3 NEA annual reports 1991 – 2000: An analysis………………………………35 2.3.1 1991 annual report………………...……………………………….35 2.3.2 1992 annual report………………...……………………………….35 2.3.3 1993 annual report………………...……………………………….36 2.3.4 1994 annual report………………...……………………………….37 2.3.5 1995 annual report………………...……………………………….38 2.3.6 1996 annual report………………...……………………………….41 2.3.7 1997 annual report………………...……………………………….43
v
2.3.8 1998 annual report………………...……………………………….44 2.3.9 1999 annual report………………...……………………………….46 2.3.10 2000 annual report…….………………………………………….47 2.4 Dance grant database………………………………………………………...49 2.4.1 Observation through variables: Grant use categories……………...52 2.4.2 Observation through variables: Geography………………………..54 2.4.3 Observation through variables: Genre……………………………..55 2.4.4 Observation through variables: Grantee type……………………...56 2.4.4.1 Individual grantees……………………………………….56 2.4.4.2 Organization size………………………………………...57 2.4.4.3 Organization age…………………………………………59 2.4.5 Overview of findings………………………………………………60
3. Dance grant database observations………………………………………………65
3.1 Overview……………………………………………………………………..69 3.2 Geographic distribution analysis…………………………………………….72 3.2.1 Regional level analysis…………………………………………….75 3.2.1.1 Northeast…………………………………………………76 3.2.1.2 West……………………………………………………...77 3.2.1.3 South……………………………………………………..77 3.2.1.4 North Central…………………………………………….78 3.2.2 State level analysis………………………………………………....78 3.2.2.1 U.S. territories……………………………………………80 3.2.2.2 States that never received a grant………………………...81 3.2.3 Geographic distribution conclusion………………………………..82 3.3 Grantee type analysis………………………………………………………...84 3.3.1 Individual artists versus dance organizations…………………...…85 3.3.2 Age of organization………………………………………………...89 3.3.3 Size of organization………………………………………………..94 3.3.3.1 Overall observations……………………………………..96 3.3.3.2 Large……………………………………………………..97 3.3.3.3 Medium…………………………………………………..98 3.3.3.4 Large other……………………………………………….98 3.3.3.5 Medium other………………………………………….....99 3.3.3.6 Small other…………………………………………….....99 3.4 Genre distribution analysis…………………………………………………100 3.4.1 Modern……………………………………………………………103 3.4.2 Ballet……………………………………………………………...104 3.4.3 Folk/ethnic………………………………………………………..105 3.4.4 Other…………………………………………………………...... 106
vi
3.4.5 Mixed……………………………………………………………..107 3.4.6 Genre conclusion…………………………………………………107
4. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………...109
4.1 Summary of findings………………………………………………………..110 4.1.1 Geography findings……………………………………………….111 4.1.2 Grantee type findings……………………………………………..114 4.1.3 Genre findings…………………………………………………….115 4.2 Further research………………………………….…………..……………..117 4.3 Conclusion………………………………………………………………….118
Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………124
Appendices
Appendix A: General nonprofit arts organization contributed income structure………129 Appendix B: National Endowment for the Arts appropriations history………………..130 Appendix C: National Endowment for the Arts chairman and dance program directors, 1965-present…………………………………………………………………………….131 Appendix D: National Endowment for the Arts funding distribution areas pre and post restructuring…………………………………………………………………………….132 Appendix E: Dance recipient database, 1991-2000…………………………………….133
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1.1 National Endowment for the Arts budget, 1991-2000..…………………………..5
2.1 Total grants to dance organizations and individual artists, 1991-2000………….51
3.1 Obligations to the dance field, 1991-2000, in millions…………………………..66
3.2 Total grant obligations versus obligations to the dance field, 1991-2000……….67
3.3 Grant obligations to select discipline categories, 1991-1996……………………69
3.4 Total grants to dance organizations and artists, 1991-2000……………………..70
3.5 Percentage of total grant dollars to each region, 1991-2000…………………….75
3.6 Number of grants to individual dance artists, 1991-1995……………………….87
3.7 Dollars to individual dance artists, 1991-1995…………………………………..87
3.8 Percentage of grants to each age category, organizations only, 1991-2000……..91
3.9 Percentage of grants to each size category, organizations only, 1991-2000…….96
4.1 Dance grant distribution to the South, 1991-2000……………………………..112
4.2 Percentage of total dance grants to mixed genre individuals and organizations.116
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1.1 National Endowment for the Arts budget, program obligations, obligations to dance, 1991-2000…………………..……………………………………………..6
1.2 Pre and Post restructuring grant process elements……………………………....11
3.1 Percentage of total grant obligations to the dance field, 1991-2000………….…67
3.2 Percentage of total grant obligations to select discipline categories, 1991-1996..68
3.3 Grants to the dance field by thematic category post-restructuring, 1997-2000….72
3.4 Top three ranking states by number of grants, 1991-2000………………………79
3.5 Top three ranking states by dollar amount, 1991-2000………………………….79
3.6 Grants and grant dollars to individual artists and organizations, 1991-1995…....86
3.7 Percentage of total grants to each dance genre category, 1991-2000………..…103
ix
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
“In the last decade, no single issue has been of greater concern to the dance community in America, or has been more often discussed by the members of that community, than the weakening and threatened demise of the National Endowment for the Arts.”
Robert Atwood, America’s Changing Political Environment and the Defense of the NEA,
Attitude—The Dancers Magazine. Winter 1999.
The dance field is vast and evolving. Dance is an intangible art; it is human bodies moving through space, challenging the boundaries of gravity, commenting on politics, society, heritage or simply movement itself. Dance is immediate, live and not easily preserved. While individual choreographers make up much of the field, nonprofit dance companies continue to develop, not exclusively in the established artistic cores of the United States’ east and west coasts, but in every corner of the nation.1
The dance field in the United States is not only comprised of well-known large
professional companies including the American Ballet Theatre, New York City Ballet or
Alvin Ailey American Dance Theatre. The field includes smaller, stylistically diverse
companies like Axis Dance Company, contemporary dance collaborations of dancers
with and without disabilities; the Chicago Barn Dance Company, which supports contra
dance and square dance, and Rennie Harris Puremovement, a hip hop based company.
1
The field also includes presenting organizations such as New York City’s Joyce
Theater and service organizations including Dance/USA.
Nonprofit dance organizations, like other nonprofit organizations, rely on a diversified funding system consisting of earned and contributed income; within the contributed income stream, several revenue sources are utilized, including foundations, corporations, individuals and government entities. One such government entity is the
National Endowment for the Arts, an independent federal agency that supports nonprofit arts organizations through grants, programs and research. Appendix A offers a basic diagram of the contributed funding streams for nonprofit organizations.
The NEA has substantially contributed to the development and cultivation of the dance field in the U.S. Its relationship to the field can be examined from multiple angles.
From a financial aspect, the federal agency has provided billions of dollars to the field during its more than 40 years of existence. As a legitimacy tool, NEA support exponentially impacts contributed income from other avenues including corporations and foundations; it often has the potential to legitimize a new organization and further validate an established one. Programs established and administered through the NEA affect the growth of the field and its opportunities to reach wider and more diversified audiences for education, outreach and performance. Research conducted through the
NEA supports the field and helps it establish greater awareness of itself and cohesion among genres.
The NEA has grown up as a vital piece of the United States’ arts policy system.
During its history, it has felt the pangs of adolescence through middle age, all the while reinventing itself and, thus, reinventing its significance to the structure and stability of the
2
dance field. The NEA has gone through numerous changes in its life span. One of the most noteworthy periods of transformation occurred in the 1990s when the agency was significantly downsized and the grant process reorganized. This was an era of substantial arts policy transformation. Little has been written about its impact on the arts, particularly the field of dance. The effect of these changes at the NEA on the dance field will be examined in the following study. Grants given to the field from 1991 to 2000 will be explored through three different distribution lenses: geography, genre and grantee type. Within grantee type, I will examine individual grantees (choreographers that were eligible from 1991 to 1995), size of grantee organizations and age of grantee organizations. The period from 1991 to 2000 provides examples of grants before and after reorganization.
In 1994, at the first national conference sponsored by the NEA, nearing the agency’s 30th anniversary, then Chairman, Jane Alexander, expressed her “renewed sense of the connection between art and our lives.”2 Less than two years later, the
agency barely survived elimination with a substantial cut in appropriations. More than 10
years later, the agency celebrated its 40th anniversary by emphasizing not a “renewed”
connection, but an historical timeline of its contributions to the arts. At the 40th
Anniversary NEA Symposium at American University in May 2006, festivities
emphasized the agency’s accomplishments in its lifespan thus far. However, discussions
of the agency’s role in arts policy in the future were scarce. In a panel discussion, Dance
Program Director Douglas Sonntag asserted that the agency had fostered the growth of
the dance field, distributing $300 million to the field throughout its history. He
mentioned that the agency would impact the field in the future through preservation,
3
creation of new work, access and education, many of the areas on which the agency already focuses. Missing from any dialogue during the anniversary celebration was a reference to the history of volatility in the organization. But perhaps the agency can better prepare for its future by reflecting on troubled times in its past.
1.1 The National Endowment for the Arts
The NEA, established in 1965, is a federal agency committed to “supporting excellence in the arts – both new and established, bringing the arts to all Americans, and providing leadership in arts education,” according to www.nea.gov. The agency is the primary mechanism for public support of the arts at the federal level. Since its inception, the NEA has awarded more than 124,000 grants throughout the nation and more than $3 billion according to the agency’s website. Not just a grant-making instrument, the NEA has expanded its roles in arts policy and arts funding over the years through initiatives, awards, research, institutes and programs. Appendix B provides the agency’s entire appropriations history. Figure 1.1 below shows the total NEA budget for each fiscal year from 1991 to 2000. Note the steady line of funding from 1991 to 1995 and the sharp drop in funds in 1996. Following the major cutback, funds stabilize once again, though they are a reduced amount of the budgets in the first half of the decade.
4
$200
$150
$100 (current dollars) (current
Amount in millions $50
$0 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 Fiscal year
Figure 1.1: National Endowment for the Arts budget from 1991 to 2000, in millions.
The structure of the NEA and its programs has changed often throughout its existence. A relatively small part of the NEA’s funds go toward research or initiatives, administrative costs, etc. During the 1990s, between 20 and 40 percent of the agency’s funds were directly given to state arts agencies through the Federal-State Partnership
Program. A large portion of NEA funds are reserved for grants to nonprofit organizations and individual artists. Prior to changes made in 1996, these were known as
Program grants; following the changes, these grants were only given to organizations and called Grants to Organizations. This category will be the principal focus of this thesis.
Table 1.1 below provides the total NEA budget compared to total grants to programs and grants to the dance field. Note the significant drop from 1995 to 1996 in all columns of funding, yet the increase in percentage of program funds to the dance field.
5
Fiscal Year Total NEA Total Funds Total Funds Percent of Program Appropriations Obligated to Obligated to Funds Obligated to 3 Programs Dance Dance 1991 $174,080,737 $87,486,331 $8,477,672 10% 1992 $175,954,680 $88,258,581 $8,194,011 9% 1993 $174,459,382 $80,892,889 $7,911,667 10% 1994 $170,228,000 $80,675,830 $7,638,593 9% 1995 $126,829,720 $69,316,874 $7,120,747 10% 1996 $99,470,000 $26,680,133 $3,725,000 14% 1997 $99,494,000 $50,609,219 $5,073,000 10% 1998 $98,000,000 $38,649,673 $3,860,000 10% 1999 $97,966,000 $38,890,067 $4,006,000 10% 2000 $97,627,600 $36,573,121 $4,584,000 13%
Table 1.1: NEA budget, program obligations, obligations to dance and percentage of
obligated funds to dance from 1991 to 2000.
In its inaugural funding year of 1965, the agency was a program of six funding
categories: dance, music, literature, theatre, visual arts and education.4 The Federal-State
Partnership program mentioned above was set into action in 1967.4 In that same year, the
first grants to individual artists were given, and additional discipline categories were
instituted. More programs and funding categories were added through the years as the
budget and staff increased and the agency’s purpose became more defined. A detailed
account of the NEA from 1991 to 2000 will be provided in Chapter 2 through an analysis of annual reports. Relevant components of the agency’s basic structure for grants to individuals and organizations will be examined in the following sections.
1.1.1 Matching Grants
A staple of the NEA throughout its existence has been the matching grant requirement for its grants to nonprofit organizations, Access to Artistic Excellence grants or Grants to Organizations. Grants were also given to state, regional and local arts
6
agencies through partnership programs. Non-matching grants to individual artists in any artistic field were offered until restructuring in 1996, when individual awards were limited to jazz, literature and heritage fellowships. While these awards initially could be used for general programs, as of restructuring they could be used only towards specific projects.
In order to qualify for an NEA project grant, an organization must have an outside funding source matching at least dollar to dollar the NEA funds.5 In the Planning and
Stabilization grant category, grants were required to be matched in a three to one ratio in
many cases. This matching provision was similar to that which the Ford Foundation
(discussed later in this chapter) established years earlier. The matching fund requirement
attributed to the idea that NEA funds generated other funding contributions, a means for
organizations to legitimize themselves and obtain funds from other sources. According
to NEA data, in 2005, every NEA grant dollar “generated…seven dollars more from
other funders, ticket sales, and related sources.”5
1.1.2 Panels
Another important element of the NEA subsidy process has historically been the panel review. As the agency’s budget increased, an organized method of application review was needed. By the 1970s, peer panels became an essential element of grant applicant review and were primarily made up of well-known and successful professional artists.6 While the agency chairperson makes the final decision regarding grants, panel
review is a significant part of the decision-making process. The panel process has been a
bone of contention throughout the years, as panelists are often in the position of judging
their peers’ work and applications; objectivity could be viewed by some as problematic
7
or difficult to achieve. The issue of objectivity has been addressed in the restructuring of the panel review several times throughout the years.
1.1.3 National Council on the Arts
Established in 1964, the National Council on the Arts serves as an advisory board for the NEA, according to the Endowment’s website. The Council advises the Chairman on grant applications and guidelines, initiatives, budget distribution and policy issues, and makes recommendations for the National Medal of Arts. Members are appointed by the
President and approved by the Senate. In the first year of implementation of restructuring—1997—Congressmen were added to serve on the Council with no voting privileges.7 The Council is a significant part of the agency’s structure, adding an
additional layer of oversight to agency processes and funding distribution.
1.1.4 Dance Program Directors
Since the establishment of the NEA there have been eight directors of the Dance program, one less than the number of NEA chairmen.8 Five of the eight served for three
years or less. This kind of turnover might say something about the program. Perhaps the
reality that change was constant at the agency prompted constant change in directors as
well. The current Dance Program director, Douglas Sonntag, has held his position since
1997, the first year of implementation of the restructuring. The previous director, Sali
Ann Kriegsman, was the previously longest tenured Dance Program director, serving from 1986 to 1995. There was no director from 1995 to 1997, the most significant period of budget woes, agency reorganization and grant process reform. Sonntag served as the program’s administrator before taking the office of director.
8
1.1.5 Controversy Breeds Change
The 1990s brought about a sort of reincarnation at the NEA, which at the time was faced with seemingly imminent elimination. The relevance of the agency in light of its role in supporting divisive art was continuously challenged. When congressionally reauthorized in 1990, amidst controversies concerning “offensive” art that had indirectly received federal funds, the NEA allocation process was restructured in that more money went to state and local governments rather than directly to artists and organizations—25 percent of the program funds went to state and regional agencies and five percent was reserved to “address the needs of underserved communities.” As a consequence, the agency shifted toward more redistributive policy. Also, a new emphasis was put on arts education.9 In addition, the panel structure was modified, increasing the number of
panelists and adding non-arts professionals (or laypersons) to the panels responsible for
evaluating grant applications to reduce the incidence of bias and conflicts of interest.9
The agency was not new to controversy or opposition, but this was the first time the controversy led to such a lengthy and severe impact. In the 1970s, controversial grants were later described as “Maplethorpian” by Livingston Biddle, yet the agency persevered.10 The budget and agency size increased, thanks to the leadership of then
chairperson Nancy Hanks and, at the end of the decade, Livingston Biddle. In the 1980s
during the era of President Ronald Regan, the Republican Party platform strongly encouraged private funding of the arts rather than public funds. The Republican reign in the 1980s began to change the tide, and the NEA began to weaken. In 1994 the
Republican Congress’ “Contract with America” called for eliminating agencies like the
NEA. By 1996, the Republican platform advocated elimination of agencies including the
9
NEA and the National Endowment for the Humanities. All of these external factors contributed to the agency’s dramatic funding decrease in the middle of the decade.
In 1996, the agency faced a dramatic shift, based on significant budget cuts and plans to phase out the entire budget in a two-year period.11 The budget plummeted to
$99.5 million, a decrease of more than 39 percent from the previous year, according to
the NEA.12 Congress reauthorized the agency for only two additional years and placed
“specific prohibitions on the agency.”12 As the fiscal year 1997 annual report explains:
The Endowment reorganized its grant programs from discipline-based categories into broad-based, thematic categories to meet the financial and social challenges of the times. Stimulated by a 39 percent Congressional budget cut in 1996, the reorganization included staff reductions, elimination of most individual grants, and elimination of seasonal support and general operating grants for organizations, who now are generally limited to one grant application per year.13
Specifically, the changes, as listed on page 4 of the 1996 annual report, included:
• The reduction of the grant programs from 17 discipline-based to four divisions:
Creation and Presentation; Planning and Stabilization; Education and Access, and
Heritage and Preservation;
• The addition of Leadership Initiatives;
• The elimination of grants to individuals, except for Literature and National
Heritage Fellowships and American Jazz Masters Awards;
• The institution of Combined Arts Panel reviews as an additional level of review;
• The reduction of the maximum number of applications from an individual
organization in each fiscal year to only one, and
• The requirement of organizations to apply for support for a particular project, not
broad operating support.
10
Table 1.2 below outlines the differences before and after the major restructuring.
Pre Restructuring Post Restructuring • Grants to Organizations & Individuals • Grants to Organizations (with few exceptions) • 17 discipline-based categories • Four categories not organized by discipline, but by type of project • Peer panel review • Combined arts panel review • Unlimited grant applications for • One grant application per individual organizations organization annually • Seasonal or Operating support • Project support
Table 1.2: Pre- and Post-restructuring grant process elements
Under the structure established in 1996, the Endowment awarded grants to
nonprofit arts and cultural organizations in four functional areas: “Creation and
Presentation,” “Education and Access,” “Planning and Stabilization” and “Heritage and
Preservation.” Additionally, it provided grants in Learning in the Arts, Challenge
America, and Partnership Agreements. The only individual artist fellowships still
available were reserved for the fields of literature, folk arts and jazz: Literature
Fellowships and the National Heritage Fellowships and American Jazz Masters.7 This
virtual elimination of individual artist grants significantly impacted the dance community
in that individual choreographers—who make up a sizeable portion of the field—were no
longer eligible for direct funding through the NEA.
In 1998, the agency faced funding reorganization once again. Congress mandated
that 40 percent of program funds were to go to state arts agencies and that organizations
in one state could receive a maximum of 15 percent of the agency’s total grant funds.14
These changes reinforced more redistributive and regulatory policies than the distributive policy of the past, and efforts to pass on granting responsibility and accountability to the
11
local and state arts agencies. It also reflected further steps to ensure broader distribution of funds. In 2000, another small change was implemented: the agency’s grant category of Education and Access was divided into two separate categories and each received its own budget allocation.
The NEA grant process returned to a discipline orientation as of fiscal year 2005.
The agency’s 2003-2008 strategic plan, according to its website, included a program goal
“to make the arts more widely available in communities throughout the country.”7
Clearly, distribution is a concern for the agency and has been a concern with every
restructuring. Annual reports from 1991 to 2000 help demonstrate the agency’s emphasis on reaching all areas of the country; as discussed in Chapter 2, several reports gave prominence to projects that reached beyond the traditional cultural centers in large urban
areas. For example, the ArtsREACH program initiated in 1998 provided directed grants
to the 20 states in which NEA grants had been the scarcest.15 And in 2000, a new
category of Arts on Radio and Television was established, to acknowledge the unique opportunity of the media to provide viewers throughout the country access to arts
programs.16
According to Joni Cherbo and Margaret Wyszomirski’s Mapping the Public Life
of the Arts in America, the National Endowment for the Arts was created under a “Public
Leveraging Arts Paradigm.”17 As Cherbo and Wyszomirski explain, “the PLA paradigm was primarily concerned with professional nonprofit arts organizations; was organized, in
the main, around discrete arts disciplines; and worked largely by awarding matching
grants and grants-in-aid to the states.”18
12
Over time, the paradigm began to shift. According to Cherbo and Wyszomirski, three characteristics stand out in current cultural policy:
1) Blurring and enlarging of the boundaries of inclusion and concern, which, in turn, has led to a focus on redefining key policy terms and assumptions.
2) The adoption of a systems approach rather than a focus on individual artists, specific arts organizations, particular disciplinary fields, or distinct cultural communities.
3) The development of a more complex and diversified approach to all aspects of the policymaking process. This includes giving more explicit attention to the public purposes of federal arts and cultural policies; developing more ongoing coalitions and advocacy strategies; and developing a repertoire of policy strategies and administrative mechanisms for effecting and supporting arts and cultural policy.19
Regardless of the current grant process and policies, this paradigm discussion is still viable because the system is evolving in this direction through strategies and partnerships; organizations and artists adapt to new systems. This thesis incorporates
Cherbo and Wyszomirski’s policy theories, examining how the new paradigm affects the dance field and its relationship with the NEA. Additionally, the perpetual evolution of the agency begs the question of stability—is the agency still looking for a legitimate purpose or appropriate method of distribution, or will the agency continue to adjust to ever-shifting political, economic and social environments?
In fiscal year 2008, Congress gave the NEA its largest funding increase in 30 years. With an increase of more than $20 million, the agency’s budget grew to
$144,706,800.7 The agency that was threatened with elimination more than a decade ago saw a renewed endorsement by a revamped Congress. Even with the 2008 increase,
United States citizens still spend less per capita on the arts than taxpayers in most
13
European countries. Will the NEA someday truly solidify its purpose and relationship with the arts in this country and have reliable support from Congress?
1.2 The Dance Field
The nation’s dance field is incredibly vast and diverse, consisting of anything from hip hop to modern to ballet to folk dance. Dance is found in expansive concert halls like the Metropolitan Opera House; in black box theatres on college campuses; in houses of worship, and in casinos on the Las Vegas strip. Each dance organization operates differently depending on its genre (ballet, modern or other), mission (performance, advocacy, etc.), tax status (nonprofit or for-profit), etc. This thesis focuses on nonprofit dance companies and other organizations, legally established through the Internal
Revenue Service as 501(c)3 organizations. Other than the eligible individual artists and government agencies, the NEA only awards program grants to 501(c)3 organizations.
Each organization faces different challenges and competition within and outside of the field. For example, while small local companies might fight for ticket sales when competing with touring productions, touring productions might face hardships due to travel restrictions of international artists through Visa policies.
Typically, most nonprofit dance companies garner about 60 percent of their income through tickets and other sales, according to a report from the 1992 Census.20
The remaining 40 percent or so of income comes from contributions from individuals,
corporations and government entities. In 1992, NEA support accounted for about 3.5
percent of contributed income to dance organizations.20
1.2.1 The Ford Foundation
14
One cannot discuss the funding opportunities for the dance field in the United
States without paying special attention to the Ford Foundation, which was, prior to the birth of the NEA, the primary funding source for the growth of the dance field in the nation. Even after the NEA was established, from 1963 to 1973 the Foundation held its place as the major single source of funding for dance organizations in the country.21 In
1963 alone, the Foundation gave $7.7 million to ballet, marking the largest amount ever given to a single art form by a foundation.21 The Foundation went beyond funding and
sought to develop the field, particularly through ballet training programs.22 Seed money
from the Foundation helped establish academies, schools and regional companies; it was
instrumental in pulling dance away from the regions with a stronghold (particularly New
York City) and toward a wider distribution network throughout the country. As Alice
Goldfarb Marquis wrote:
“…Operating without the constraints attached to taxpayer funds, Ford was able to pick and choose its beneficiaries, often targeting large sums for specific goals to be attained over many years. The dance program was typical of the foundation’s approach…”23
The Foundation’s influence extended beyond the dance field and was felt in all art
forms. Its grant structure heavily shaped what would become the structure of the NEA,
particularly its matching funds component and its panel process. It relied on independent
experts in the field to evaluate applications. It also stressed the importance of program or
project evaluation.24
15
1.2.2 Growth of the Field
The dance field in the United States has made significant strides since the establishment of the NEA. One study notes that the field had a 1,000 percent growth since 1965.25 In 1965 the U.S. field was relatively narrow and concentrated in a few key
areas, particularly California and New York. Companies including the American Ballet
Theatre, Martha Graham Dance Company and Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater
were based out of New York City and strengthened their income and reputation through
touring nationally and internationally.
Throughout the 20th century the field grew in numbers and in geographic
distribution. From 1987 to 1992 alone, the number of nonprofit dance organizations rose
43 percent, from 188 to 275, according to U.S. Census data.26 By 2002, 557 dance
companies were operating in the U.S., according to Census data available at
www.census.gov. Increased companies, schools, touring, outreach, service organizations
and other elements have aided in the growth of not only concert dance—ballet and modern especially—but also folk or cultural dance organizations. According to Census data, in 1987 there were six nonprofit folk or ethnic dance companies in the U.S.; by
1992, this number had grown to 22.27 As the field grew, so did its needs and competition.
This fed the development of its support systems and service organizations like
Dance/USA.
The field is diverse, with both large and established companies coexisting with small start-ups and presenting organizations. Additionally, umbrella, service and advocacy organizations are affected by changes to government support, as they, too, are
16
eligible for funding opportunities if they meet the requirements, including nonprofit status.
1.3 Relationship Between the NEA and the Dance Field
The NEA and dance forged a significant partnership from the agency’s inaugural year of existence—the first NEA grant ever awarded was to the American Ballet Theatre,
$100,000 on December 20, 1965; the New York Herald Tribune wrote “The Treasury of
United States has saved a national treasure.”28 This marked the beginning of a
longstanding relationship between the NEA and the dance field. The agency has
supported not only classical ballet, but genres from modern to tap dance to folk or ethnic
dance, as well as multidisciplinary organizations and artists that cross genres and art
forms. The field boomed since the establishment of the NEA and well into the late 20th century. In fact, between the establishment of the NEA in 1965 and 1992, American dance companies grew from 37 to over 250.29 But when the agency’s budget was slashed
and grants to individual artists were eliminated, professionals in the field worried. Did
the fears of artists and administrators prove justified or did the field survive the blow
without major damage? In the last year of its funding to individual artists the NEA
awarded more than $1.2 million to 93 choreographers.30 Was this funding to the field
lost when the agency was restructured or did choreographers find funding alternatives,
new methods of support either within or outside the NEA? Additional federal funding for
dance companies, touring and presenting organizations came through other NEA
programs including State and Regional Partnerships, but did this take the place of the
lack of funding to individual artists?
17
1.4 Research
1.4.1 Relevant literature
Little has been written about United States dance funding, but much research and analysis has been done about the restructuring the NEA underwent in the mid 1990s. The literature review for this thesis is succinct, focusing primarily on historical documents that provide context and quantitative data, namely NEA annual reports. These annual reports cataloging the agency’s activities in each fiscal year tell much about the changing times, from their design to language to their depth of information about the organization itself. An overview of NEA annual reports from 1991 to 2000, the years on which the thesis is focused, will be discussed in Chapter 2.
Theories and literature examined in preparation for this research include the new cultural paradigm outlined by Cherbo and Wyszomirski. One relevant thesis looks at the effect of the 1996 reorganization on national arts policy, examining the new arts policy model and the government’s function in it.31 This thesis focuses on all grants, not specifically on dance or another discipline. In addition to giving a strong history of the agency and its unrest, it offers analyses similar to this thesis for the cumulative NEA grants in the same decade. Robert Atwood’s quote used earlier in this chapter introduces his article, America’s Changing Political Environment and the Defense of the NEA. The article focuses on the larger implications of the elimination of the NEA, specifically,
“what is the place and value of the arts in contemporary American society?” Atwood argues that, from the 1950s through the 1970s, the dance field enjoyed not only public praise, but also great corporate, individual and governmental support. In the late 1990s, he writes, the arts significantly lessened their appeal and worth in the political arena, and
18
that politicians asserted that “the arts have a greater negative than positive impact on society.”32 His article emphasizes the positive benefits of the arts and touches on the concept of public value that, in the 21st century, has become the cornerstone of arts
advocacy messages. Though this first-person narrative is brief and primarily expresses
the opinions of one dance teacher, its placement in a leading dance magazine shows the
severity of the NEA peril; the issue made its way into trade publications, prompting those
in the field to speak out and take action. Also, much was written about the NEA
restructuring and the events that triggered it in articles, journals and books. These
provide background and depth to this research, providing perspectives of artists affected
by the reform.
1.4.2 Methodology
This report employs historical inquiry methodology. Within this methodology,
the researcher “compiled facts and shaped interpretations.”33 Such methodology was
appropriate for this research, as the researcher analyzed data from historical documents. I
utilized original government documents as my primary resources while secondary
resources offered different perspectives on the contextual dialogue, only enhancing the
inquiry process.34 I primarily used a content analysis method, analyzing Access to
Artistic Excellence grants or Grants to Organizations to the dance field drawn from NEA annual reports and a dance grantee dataset.35 Explicit analysis and search for trends
included both quantitative—dollars going to the field and number of grants awarded—
and a context more qualitative in nature—what types of projects in what dance areas get
what percentage of funding.
19
The report’s primary data was drawn from the NEA annual reports from 1991 to
2000 and the NEA dance grantee dataset acquired from the NEA through a Freedom of
Information Act request. The dance grantee dataset provides information on all grantees of Access to Artistic Excellence or Grants to Organizations in the category of dance from
1991 to 2000.3 Information includes genre, type of organization, earned and contributed income, date founded, etc. Rather than sampling data, I utilized every grant given to the dance field within the grant awards within a consecutive 10-year period of funding. The annual reports are organized according to grant categories. Most provide a short general description of the project each grant is intended to support. For the years in which individual grants were not listed in the annual reports, the data was available on the NEA website.
Relevant data has been drawn from the reports and entered into worksheets. All grants to dance were organized into a database using Microsoft Excel database software
and were coded for several variables. Details on the NEA database compilation, the
benchmark tool for this research, are provided in Chapter 2.
1 P. 13. Smith, T. (2003). Raising the barre: The geographic, financial, and economic trends of nonprofit dance companies. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts Research Division. 2 P. 62. Zesch, L. (1994, July). A new beginning for NEA. American Theatre. 3 Beginning in fiscal year 1997, Access to Excellence matching grants were called Grants to Organizations. 4 P 10. National Endowment for the Arts (2000). The National Endowment for the Arts, 1965-2000: a brief chronology of federal support for the arts. Washington DC: National Endowment for the Arts Office of Communication. 5 P. 28. National Endowment for the Arts (2006). National Endowment for the Arts: A brief history-1965- 2006. An excerpt: The beginning through the Hanks era. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 6 Pps. 30-31. Ibid. 7 Retrieved at
20
10 P. 161 Marquis, A. (1995). Art Lessons: learning from the rise and fall of public arts funding. New York: BasicBooks. 11 P. 54. National Endowment for the Arts (2006). National Endowment for the Arts: A brief history-1965- 2006. An excerpt: The beginning through the Hanks era. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 12 P. 57. National Endowment for the Arts (2000). The National Endowment for the Arts, 1965-2000: a brief chronology of federal support for the arts. Washington DC: National Endowment for the Arts Office of Communication. 13 P. 5. National Endowment for the Arts (1997). Fiscal year 1997 annual report. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 14 P. 58. National Endowment for the Arts (2000). The National Endowment for the Arts, 1965-2000: a brief chronology of federal support for the arts. Washington DC: National Endowment for the Arts Office of Communication. 15 National Endowment for the Arts (1998). Fiscal year 1998 annual report. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 16 P. 25. National Endowment for the Arts (2000). The National Endowment for the Arts, 1965-2000: A brief chronology of federal support for the arts. Washington DC: National Endowment for the Arts Office of Communication. 17 P. 9. Cherbo, J. & Wyszomirski, M. (2000). Mapping the public life of the arts in America. In J. Cherbo & M. J. Wyszomirski (Eds.), The public life of the arts in America (pp. 3-21). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. 18 P. 10. Ibid. 19 P. 11. Ibid. 20 P. 5. National Endowment for the Arts (1998). Dance organizations report 43 percent growth in economic census: 1987-1992. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 21 P. 53. Kendall, E. (1983). Dancing: A Ford Foundation Report. New York: Ford Foundation. 22 Ibid. 23 P. 63. Marquis, A. (1995). Art Lessons: learning from the rise and fall of public arts funding. New York: BasicBooks. 24 P. 64. Ibid. 25 P. 120. Ibid. 26 P. 1. National Endowment for the Arts (1998). Dance organizations report 43 percent growth in economic census: 1987-1992. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 27 P. 2. Ibid. 28 P. 21. National Endowment for the Arts (2000). The National Endowment for the Arts, 1965-2000: A brief chronology of federal support for the arts. Washington DC: National Endowment for the Arts Office of Communication. 29 P. 4. Alper, N., et. al. (1996). Artists in the workforce: Employment and earnings, 1970-1990. National Endowment for the Arts Research Division Report #37. Santa Ana, CA: Seven Locks Press. 30 P. 38. Carr, C. (1999, September 28). The land of less. The Village Voice. 31 Choi, J. (2002). American arts policy and the National Endowment for the Arts in the 1990s. Masters thesis, The American University, Washington DC. 32 P. 4. Atwood, R. (1999, Winter). America’s changing political environment and the defense of the NEA. Attitude-The Dancers’ Magazine, 4-5. 33 P. 69. Stankiewicz, M. (1997). Historical research methods in art education. In S.D. LaPierre and E. Zimmerman (Eds.), Research methods and methodologies for art education (pp. 57-73). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association. 34 P. 63 Efland, A. (1995). Historical research methods for art educators. In P. Smith (Ed.), Art education historical methodology: An insider’s guide to doing and using (pp. 62-69). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association. 35 Pps. 40-41. Stokrocki, M. (1997). Qualitative forms of research methods. In S.D. LaPierre and E. Zimmerman (Eds.), Research methods and methodologies for art education (pp. 33-55). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
21
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW AND GRANT DATABASE EXPLORATION
2.1 Impetus for Restructuring: The Culture Wars
The NEA has faced critics throughout its existence. Some have felt that support of the arts was best achieved through local and state levels of government. Others have felt the government had no place subsidizing the arts at all, that they should, instead, be funded through corporate and individual donors. Also in question were the projects and artists the NEA funded. Were they of artistic excellence? How is artistic excellence defined? Were they offensive and, if so, did this make them unsuitable of public subsidy? Did they benefit the country as a whole or small, elite groups?
The NEA has faced periods of controversy, but none made such an impact as a few controversial works of art beginning in 1989 that put the entire agency on the chopping block and at the heart of a firestorm. Artist Andre Serrano’s Piss Christ received NEA dollars indirectly by way of an organization that received an NEA grant, as did Robert Mapplethorpe’s provocative photographs. These artists and others were caught in a national public and political battle over obscenity that severely impacted the
NEA and the entire arts community. This battle prompted Congress to mandate an
Independent Commission to review NEA grant-making procedures.1 It also prompted a
22
House-Senate committee to prohibit the funding of art that is deemed obscene.2 By 1996,
Congress planned to phase out the agency.
Religious interest groups (the Christian Coalition), conservative Congressmen—at the forefront was Senator Jessie Helms—and others called for not only content restrictions; they further sought an end to the NEA and federal government funding for the arts. Some felt the agency supported offensive works that were, in fact, not art.
Others simply felt the federal government should tighten its purse strings and eliminate agencies that were an unnecessary financial burden on American taxpayers. Even some arts supporters had enough of the battle and agreed that the federal government should remove itself from arts subsidy and leave decisions to the marketplace. As a letter to the editor in 1991 stated, “to fund art with content restrictions is a disservice to the art community and to fund art without content restrictions is a disservice to the taxpayer.”3
From the 1989 firestorm throughout the early 1990s, the NEA, other federal
agencies and arts policy remained in the public eye in an impassioned debate that went
far beyond a few controversial works of art; the concept of national arts support was
forever changed. Though members of Congress repeatedly voted to abolish the NEA, it
stayed afloat, albeit an unsteady sail. The NEA underwent several slight adjustments
throughout the early nineties, which will be discussed in the analysis of NEA annual
reports below. These foreshadowed a severe 40 percent cut in the NEA budget in 1996,
as well as major restructuring that shifted the agency’s focus from disciplines and
individual organizations, to projects and nationwide arts allocation.
As a result of the controversies in the late 1980s and arguments to cut federal
subsidy of the arts, Congress created the Independent Commission to review NEA grant
23
making procedures and “to consider whether the standard for publicly funded art should be different from the standard for privately funded art.”4 The Commission was
comprised of 12 appointed members and included a staff of eight arts policy experts.5 In
its report to Congress, the Commission called attention to the NEA’s accountability to its
public. It recommended that the NEA’s funding system be reformed, based on the
changing needs of a transforming nation.6 The Commission’s report prefigured the
considerable agency changes that would take place a few years later, and the shift of the
agency to provide for the public first and the artist second.
2.2 Perspectives from the Field
Even after the Endowment’s massive restructuring, groups opposing the
legitimacy of the agency continued in their fight to end funding. In 1997 and 1998, the
Concerned Women for America, an organization dedicated to bringing Biblical values
into public policy, published articles vehemently advocating for the elimination of the
agency, specifically citing a grant for the controversial film, The Watermelon Women,
and other projects by the filmmaker, Women Make Movies.7 The 1997 article claims the
agency “is well out of the mainstream,” funding “experimental art” and “seldomly
promotes traditional art.”7 The CWA further claims that most NEA grants reach a small
group of artists and arts audiences in a few cities, noting that geographic distribution of
funds is severely disproportionate, something the agency takes great care in addressing in
mid- and late 1990s annual reports. The CWA goes so far as to call the NEA “a
boondoggle that’s become a billion dollar handout to the rich.”7 Opinions like this were
not uncommon in the 1990s. Such harsh criticism prompted the agency to overhaul its
24
public image in subsequent years with changes to agency policies and programs as well as changes in agency messages to the public.
An article in The Village Voice in 1999 studied performing artists struggling after the culture war and the Endowment restructuring.8 The article states that since 1995 there was a “domino effect” on artists. “Heady with victory in the Republican
Revolution of ’94, right-wingers thought they could finally kill the hated National
Endowment for the Arts…they managed merely to take its soul.”8 Choreographers
interviewed in the article said they had been forced to live in debt after the NEA cut
funding to individual artists—such became the nature of the occupation. “Dance now lives full time in the land of less: less touring, less commissioning, less funding, less
rehearsal space,”8 While emerging artists managed to find opportunities and support, in a
more problematical situation were established artists in the middle of their professional
careers.8 Some artists were depending on commissions abroad. Other choreographers
had to severely cut budgets, including their own salaries, hire fewer dancers, or look to
sponsorships for support. Norman Frisch, an artist consultant interviewed for the article, uses examples of artists skimming the line between commercial and creative projects and suggests for sustainability “the new model is work for the Hollywood-Broadway industry. Do what you need in order to subsidize yourself.”8
A Dance Magazine article published in 1998 examines the impact on the arts after
one year of the new structure.9 Though this is not enough time to truly see the impact of
restructuring, it offers an initial outlook and, perhaps, a forecast for the future. Under the
new structure, more companies were funded, but with smaller grants to each. Karen
Christensen, the then Deputy Director of Grants and Partnerships, noted that panel
25
members argued for “more equitable distribution of grants nationwide.”9 Companies like the Dance Theatre of Harlem received some of the largest grants to the dance field
($115,000), though less than the previous year ($200,000). According to Clark’s article, grants ranged from $5,000 to $7,000 overall in each of the four new categories and averaged less than previous grant years. The article notes, as an example of the emerging trend of less funds to more organizations, that 20 dance companies were funded in the
Education and Access category in 1998 compared to 13 in 1997; however the total grant dollars to the dance field in that category dropped from $800,000 to $600,000.9
Clark asks in her article whether “innovation [is] being sacrificed to ensure wider acceptance of access to the arts.” 9 Rather than an answer from Christensen, she counters
with another question: “do you reward excellence in a few companies…or do you try to
serve a broader public.”9 It seems the NEA was still adjusting and adapting to the new
structure in 1998, re-evaluating its objectives and, in turn, the role of the arts in the
country.
Another article from Dance Magazine examines what would happen to the dance field without the NEA.10 The artistic director of DanceAspen, Henry Young postulates
that companies without endowments would fold first, then there would be “a slow
strangulation of those companies where management’s institutional strength is
insufficient to survive the changes caused by the loss of millions of dollars in grants
during one year.”10 He says dance would be hit harder than other performing arts fields
because of its general lack of endowments, thus having fewer reserves to aid in its
sustainability; at the time of the article, only four U.S. ballet companies had endowments
more than $20 million.10 Young advises dance companies to focus on cultivating
26
individual and foundation support regardless of the NEA’s future, looking for strong financial and human resources within the institution as well as support from the community.10
Young’s article discusses the synergy between the NEA and the dance field in the
1970s with the agency’s National Dance Touring Program aiding the increase of
companies throughout the U.S. beyond New York and California.10 But while Young
praises the impact of the NEA on the development of the field, he spends little time
discussing its future relationship. Rather than fight for the NEA’s survival, Young
encourages dance organizations to fight for their own survival with or without the
agency. It is clear by the late 1990s arts organizations were forced to face the possibility
of a future without federal funding. Even years after drastic NEA cuts, organizations
feared a dire outlook, an environment in which the arts would struggle to stay alive and
significant in the public eye.
As Robert Atwood suggests, the fragility of the NEA’s existence was not the only
question in the 1990s; more importantly was “the place and value of the arts in
contemporary American society.”11 Atwood suggests arts supporters must convince
naysayers that the arts are valuable to the country and, thus, deserve federal subsidy. The
message, the public image of the arts, needed an overhaul; the positive connection of the
arts to each American, the role of art in everyday life and the American identity needed to
be recognized and defended aggressively by advocates and artists.
As Atwood provides anecdotes proving the value of the arts, he singles out dancers, their supreme athletic conditioning and their connection to professional sports.
He mentions an encounter he had with a college football player. When the athlete
27
discovered Atwood was a dance instructor, he discussed how taking ballet classes had improved his game enough for him to potentially go professional.12 Atwood also mentions the notoriety artists like Mikhail Baryshnikov had and that many dancers enjoyed steady employment with dance companies before the culture wars. Times changed, public opinion changed and government support certainly changed.
Atwood closes his article with a “call to action.”12 He encourages artists and arts
supporters to talk about their experiences, provide factual information and personal value statements, a model of arts advocacy in use today. “Defense of the arts must be decisive,
uncompromising, and couched in terms that the American public will understand and
respond to.”12
Creative America: A Report to the President was presented in 1997 by the
President’s Committee on the Arts and Humanities. First Lady Hillary Clinton presided
as honorary chair. The advisory committee established by Executive order included
artists, corporate executives and community leaders and several heads of federal cultural
agencies. It was a mix of individuals from the public and private sectors. The report was
a reaction to the culture wars and attempted, like the American Assembly publication of the same year, to redefine and reposition the arts for the public benefit.
Creative America uses strong rhetoric concerning the arts, perhaps to counter the negative image of the NEA and, consequently, the arts in general. Frequently used language in the report includes values, public good, cultural heritage, cultural capital and cultural life.13 The positive connotation connected to these terms refocuses the arts and
their public image. The idea of the arts as necessary for the good of the nation runs throughout the document. Also stressed is the abundance of the arts and humanities
28
within all areas of public life, and the integration within the cultural sector. It is noted that dance companies “face special hurdles” in attracting and retaining audiences due to
“declining leisure time, an aging population, and the widespread availability of compact disks, videotapes, and other electronic media.”14
Also published in 1997 was The Arts and the Public Purpose, by the 92nd
American Assembly, a group of artists, arts executives, critics, businesspeople,
foundation officers, scholars, politicians and policymakers.15 The report focuses inherently on the public purpose of the arts—including commercial, nonprofit and traditional arts—and how to make it a more central priority within arts organizations, likely a result of the NEA upheaval that had been going on for years in the wake of the culture wars. The Arts and the Public Purpose aims to redefine the arts and emphasize
their scale and role in society through nine recommendations. Themes of accessibility,
preservation, education and alliances run throughout these recommendations.16 As the
NEA had just restructured its grant processes and endured much public scrutiny, the
Assembly report repositions arts subsidy. It argues that the arts deserve rather than need
public support because they serve the public good.17
2.2.1 Congressional Testimony
Many artists and arts advocates provided testimony during Congressional
hearings on the reauthorization and appropriations of the NEA in the 1990s, particularly
during the times when the agency faced severe budget cuts or, more drastic, elimination
of all funding. The agency struggled for bipartisan support, though the Republican Party
consistently sought out zero funding. Kabby Mitchell, III, a teacher at Pacific Northwest
Ballet and a member of Dance/USA, spoke at a hearing in 1993. Dancer Anna Halprin
29
served as a witness in 1994 and Arthur Mitchell, founding director of the Dance Theater of Harlem, addressed Congress earlier the same year. Dancers, choreographers and other artists joined the Chairman and staff members of the NEA during hearings to evaluate the agency’s budget and operations. Artists spoke out on the importance of agency support and its impact on the arts and, in turn, on the American people.
Testimony was also offered by those opposed to the Endowment and government subsidy for the arts. In 1995, the House Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies heard from Marshall Wittmann, Director of Legislative Affairs for the Christian Coalition regarding fiscal year 1996 appropriations for the NEA.18 Wittmann argued “the main point of contention is not whether the arts should be funded, but rather which is the proper entity to fund the arts—the government or the private sector.” Wittmann cited the lack of Congressional control over the NEA and its funds as well as controversy that arose from agency-funded works as two of many reasons to abolish the agency. As he listed funded works that attacked Christianity, Wittmann contended “such blatant bigotry would not be tolerated if it were targeted at another protected class.”18
Chairman Jane Alexander addressed Congress on many occasions, typically
providing both stories and data about programs and artists the NEA has supported. She
offered human-interest stories as well as economic impact statistics. In a testimony in
January 1995 before the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Alexander
fiercely defended the Endowment, addressing its critics. She noted the broad reach of
NEA funds, from a small Kansas town to Detroit’s inner city. “The Arts Endowment
isn't a subsidy for the elite,” she states, “it's for…ordinary people trying to make a better
life, people who understand that the arts improve their schools, renew the spirit of their
30
communities, and that the Endowment speaks to the soul of who we are as individuals and as a nation.”19 In that statement, Alexander covers all bases, allowing the arts to
move beyond a stereotype of inappropriate or indecent products for narrow and elitist
groups to education, historic preservation, community pride and more for all corners of
the country and all American people. Alexander mentions the meager cost of the NEA to
taxpayers—64 cents a year—and the leveraging impact NEA grants have on art
organizations.
In a reauthorization hearing in 1999 of the Senate Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions, the chairmen of the NEA and NEH as well as many
advocates from the field presented to the committee successful programs funded by the
agencies. When dance artist and founder of the National Dance Institute Jacques
d’Amboise was asked about arts education programs for troubled youth in New York
City, d’Amboise responded with a discourse on the diffusion of arts and arts education beyond New York. “I have been all over the country doing programs with children,” d’Amboise said, “and there are fabulous people doing things all over the country in the arts and humanities…‘The Big Apple’ is still flourishing, but it is not just ‘the Big
Apple.’”20 Charlene Bickford, director of the First Federal Congress Project at George
Washington University, discussed at the same hearing that the national endowments are
necessary because there are many projects that are a “national responsibility,” projects
and programs with a “tremendous outreach.”21
2.2.2 NEA Grant Application Guidelines
The 1990 Grant Application Guidelines explain a three-tiered application review
process: a grant panel, the National Council on the Arts and the Chairman of the
31
Endowment. At this time, site visits were required for dance company grants as well as choreographer fellowships. A final report was required from all grant recipients. The application includes choreographer fellowship requirements, noting that fellowships were not specifically for works to be completed, but anything that aids “artistic growth.”22
Additional opportunities included partnerships with the Dance, Inter-Arts and State programs as well International Exchange Fellowships, which provided for six-month studies in Japan or France.23 Cultural exchanges seem to be a center of attention through
subsidy opportunities for individual artists.
Dance company grants, under the 1990 guidelines, went to new projects or to
“strengthen existing or previously supported activities.”24 There was a limit of one
application per year per company in this category, but the grant application could be for
multiple projects. Requirements for applicants included “paid professional artistic and
managerial staff, at least 20 weeks of rehearsals and/or performances during the current
year and at least 20 weeks during the previous year.”24 Another requirement was that
grantee organizations must pay the prevailing minimum wage for artists; the guidelines
listed the American Guild of Musical Artists pay scale for dancers.25 These strict and
specific requirements did not allow unincorporated or amateur organizations to apply for
grants, and, perhaps, may have been a challenge for fledgling organizations with small
budgets; however, in some ways they may have ensured the legitimacy and credibility of
grant applicants. Both individual artists and organizations were eligible for grants in the
category of General Services to the Field, according to the 1990 guidelines. As may be
expected, dance style was requested in the application; options were ballet, modern,
jazz/tap, ethnic and other.26
32
The 1996-97 application guidelines for grants to organizations were quite different than the discipline-specific guidelines in years prior. Most requirements were directed toward applicants in general without reference to disciplines, save a few requirements. The guidelines state from the beginning that “the Endowment remains committed to supporting equitable opportunity for all and investing in as diverse a reflection of our society as possible.”27 Applicants may only submit one application in
one category, with few exceptions. Not only did the guidelines require applicants to be
nonprofits (unless working through a fiscal agent) with a four-year history of
programming (with exceptions for folk and traditional arts); they also spelled out
operating expenditure levels for orchestra and operas.27 No such expenditure level
requirement was listed for the dance organizations.
Despite budgetary requirements, the guidelines reported that “the Arts
Endowment recognizes that significance may be measured by excellence or creativity,
not by budget size, organizational longevity, or geographic reach.”28 This makes clear
that large, established organizations in culture centers may not have an advantage over
other organizations. Grants in three of the four thematic categories ranged from $5,000
to $200,000 with a one to one match from additional funding sources: Heritage and
Preservation, Education and Access and Creation and Presentation. The category of
Planning and Stabilization, however, had many variations in the formula. This category
included projects like audience research and development, community planning and
endowment acquisitions.29 Grants in this category ranged from $15,000 to $500,000,
while match ratios increased in tandem with funding requests.30 The Endowment
33
required minimum operating expenditure levels for most applicants requesting stabilization grants. Again, no specifications were listed for dance applicants.
All of the thematic category review criteria discussed artistic excellence, project impact, and feasibility. Interesting inclusions under Education and Access were that priority was given to projects that “broaden and deepen educational experiences for
Americans of all ages and to projects that make the arts available to those Americans who lack adequate opportunities to participate in the arts.”31 Innovation and creativitiy were
also noted. The guidelines overall noted that “public funding of the arts should foster
mutual respect for the diverse beliefs and values of all persons and groups.”32 While this
was not part of the official review criteria for projects, it was certainly a consideration.
Different than the 1990 applicants, the 1996-97 grant applicants encountered a
four-tiered review process: experts in a discipline, advisory panel in thematic area,
National Council on the Arts and the NEA Chairman.33 Also revised from the 1990
guidelines was the requirement of site visits. For 1996-97 applicants, site visits were
scheduled at the Endowment’s discretion and were not required, likely the result of
agency streamlining.33 As with the 1990 application guideline, final reports were
required from all grant recipients. However, in addition, progress reports were listed as a
requirement in the 1996-1997 guidelines.34 These progress reports were, perhaps, an added protection for federal funds, a level of accountability to ensure that funds were used in accordance with the agreed upon intent.
34
2.3 NEA Annual Reports 1991-2000: An Analysis
2.3.1 1991 annual report
Fiscal year 1991, the first year analyzed in this study, marked significant changes in the NEA structure. At the end of 1990, Congress reauthorized the agency for two more years. In 1991, Congress increased funds to state and regional arts agencies by 50 percent. Twenty-five percent of program funds were earmarked for state and regional arts agencies, while five percent of program funds were “reserved for programs administered by state and regional arts agencies that addressed developing arts organizations and artistically-underserved communities.”35
Other changes occurred, including considerable panel reforms intended to remove
conflicts of interest. Project descriptions became a requirement on all grant applications.
Project descriptions had been required for previous applications, but not for Fellowships.
Interestingly, page 12 of the annual report states “remaining central to the mission of the
Endowment is its support of the source of creativity, the artist—the individual painter, performer and writer.” Only a few years later, nearly all individual artist support from the NEA was eliminated.
2.3.2 1992 annual report
The 1992 annual report begins with three pages of “The Arts Endowment in
Brief.”36 There were no significant policy changes noted in the annual report summary,
but an overview of the agency structure and operation.
35
Funds obligated to dance in 1992 were more than $8 million, including 282 grants and one cooperative agreement. While most Choreographer Fellowships went to artists in New York and California, some reached new regions including Oregon, New Mexico,
Rhode Island and Maine. Other grant categories in 1992 included Grants to Dance
Presenters, Dance Company Grants, General Services to the Field and Special Projects.
The 1992 dance report emphasized the importance of choreographers and the diversity of dance genres. “The individual choreographer is central to the development of dance.”37 The dance report also discussed the scope of projects, geography and genres,
noting that the agency provided company grants to companies in 22 states and the
territories.37 The diversity of projects subsidized in 1992 included California’s Earth
Circle Association and its preservation of traditional Native American dances.38
2.3.3 1993 annual report
In fiscal year 1993, the annual report took on a very different look and tone. The
design was more creative and free. The report includes a Chairman’s Statement, in the
first term of Jane Alexander (sworn in at the end of fiscal year 1993) following a period
with no chairman. The annual report states the mission of the NEA, as explained by
Alexander:
To stimulate all the arts throughout the land; to support excellence in the arts; to offer opportunities for the American people to participate in the arts as creators and performers…and as consumers of the arts, namely as members of living audiences.39
Alexander appears to have begun her term as NEA chairman with passion and
energy, as seemingly mirrored by the new design of the annual report and its sense of
renewed spirit. The political environment began to shift in 1993. Also in his first term
36
was President Bill Clinton, sworn into office that January. Clinton’s election brought the return of a Democrat in office after 12 years of Republican presidents.
The year also marked the publication of Dancemakers, a comprehensive NEA examination on choreographers in four U.S. cities: New York City, Chicago, San
Francisco and Washington, DC.40 While the survey did not intend to represent the
national outlook, it is an important piece in an area with little other research. It also
sends a message of recognition by the NEA that individual artists—in this case,
choreographers—are vital to the strength of American arts. Another report published for the Endowment by Dance/USA in 1993 was Moving Around: Partnerships at Work in
Dance on Tour, which acknowledged dance touring projects by presenters and companies that were funded by the agency.41
The dance grant section in the annual report acknowledges choreographers and
the importance of individual artist grants. “Since the Endowment’s beginnings, the agency has recognized the need to help the individual choreographers as a keystone of
U.S. artistic advancement. This year the Program provided fellowship support to 46 professional choreographers ranging in age from 19 to 79.”42 Just a few years later, the
NEA announced the elimination of grants to choreographers and most other individual
artists.
2.3.4 1994 annual report
The annual report for fiscal year 1994 returns to a very simple, straightforward
design with no letter from the Chairman. Each program award category (13 discipline
programs) is introduced briefly and followed with the list of grants, including a
description of each grant. Partnership funds are listed in the same uncomplicated fashion.
37
Panel members are also named in the report. Overall, the 1994 report is very cut and dry, as if the Chairman and her staff wanted to focus time, energy and budget on keeping the agency alive. Also, the public image of the agency was threatened; perhaps a simple annual report was the best way to keep the waters still until the agency’s public image could truly begin to be reformed. The NEA anticipated tough times ahead with the shifting political environment. The Republican Party published the Contract with
America, which called for eliminating agencies like the NEA if it became the majority party in Congress. Subsequently, Republicans won the majority of Congressional seats in the 1994 elections. Survival was the NEA’s obvious goal at this point; this is clear. A little less clear was its strategy for survival; this was to develop in the next several years.
2.3.5 1995 annual report
As its 30th anniversary year, 1995 marked a new turn for the NEA. In this annual
report, President Bill Clinton emphasizes the arts in schools, “the creative imagination”
and “a national cultural network.”43 Especially interesting is the last paragraph of
Clinton’s letter:
“In these challenging times, when some question the value of public support for the arts, we should reflect upon our obligation to the common good. The arts are not a luxury, but a vital part of our national character and our individual human spirit.”43
The report outlines a “comprehensive planning process, creating the blueprint for
a reinvented, streamlined National Endowment for the Arts.”44 In 1995, the agency goes
from funding by discipline to funding through four divisions, effective in fiscal year
1997: Heritage and Preservation, Education and Access, Creation and Presentation and
Planning and Stabilization.44 Another significant change is the limitation of
38
organizations to one application; previously, the number of organization applications was unlimited. Additionally, each application must go through four levels of review including two panel reviews, one by experts within the project’s discipline and another by a combined multidisciplinary panel with experts in various fields. Finally, each application is assessed by the National Council on the arts and the NEA Chairman.
The 1995 annual report states the revised structure “was born out of the notion that sustainable strength of the nonprofit arts can be achieved through unity of organizations which share a common mission or even a common home.”45
Accordingly, the report mentions NEA partnerships with other federal agencies including the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (the Pathways to
Success program) and the Department of Health and Human Services (Arts and
Prevention program). An arts education partnership with the Department of Education
initiated in 1995 is another sign of the increasing use of alliances, building ties with other
federal agencies as well as ties with local, state and regional institutions. The initiative is
also part of a growing emphasis on arts education, particularly education for youth, the next generation of artists and arts supporters. This growing emphasis is evident in the dance field through projects that incorporate community enrichment activities.
The letter from Chairman Jane Alexander focuses on community and unity, appropriate in a reference to the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 and efforts to restore the community through a collaborative design workshop and subsequent exhibition, “We
Will Be Back: Oklahoma City Rebuilds.”46 The Chairman’s notes in the 1995 report are
considerably longer than ones in previous reports, with allusions to many artists and
examples of collaborations and partnerships.
39
For the first time since at least 1991, the 1995 annual report includes an NEA fact sheet, clearly defining the agency’s role and relevance.47 The mission is “to foster the
excellence, diversity and vitality of the arts in the United States and to broaden public
access to the arts.”47 The fact sheet also details the structure of the NEA, including the
roles of the Chairman and the National Council. The Council advises the Chairman, as
discussed previously. As of 1995, the Council was comprised of 26 private citizens
appointed by the President, each serving a six-year term.48
The agency report also examines the panel process, noting the rotation and
geographic, racial and artistic diversity of advisory panels.48 Panelists cannot serve on a
panel that might consider the panelist’s own application.48
Impact is addressed in the 1995 annual report, as it often is. The leverage power
of NEA grants is noted. “Every grant directly benefits the grantee and thus their home community and state. Endowment dollars attract private contributions, and this partnership stimulates local economic activity”49 Such a mention of economic impact
could have been a nod to the political powers once again evolving. For the first time in about 40 years, the Republican Party gains control of both the Senate and the House in
1995. As the NEA was already on shaky ground, a predominantly Republican Congress makes Congressional support even more challenging to achieve. At this time, the
Democratic and Republican parties were truly divided in their platforms regarding the
NEA and other federal agencies that fund the arts; while the Democratic Party still
publicly defended federal support for the arts, the Republican Party sought to eliminate or
defund the NEA.
40
Within the listing of grants to dance, the NEA annual report mentions relevant issues affecting the field and its future. Concerns include an “increasingly eroded infrastructure” and “deficits, fewer touring engagements, fewer performances at home, and decreasing financial support from public and private sources.”50 The report also
noted “such larger societal problems such as AIDS.”50
2.3.6 1996 annual report
The 1996 annual report again focused on the restructuring of the organization,
effective in fiscal year 1997. The restructuring represented an effort to simplify
processes, paperwork and staff and panel time for application review. President Clinton’s
letter in the 1996 annual report states the NEA “is a beacon, not only of creativity, but of
freedom.”51 This powerful statement is a lot to live up to for an agency in the midst of a
massive overhaul and at the center of a heated political and public debate.
The agency underwent a 40 percent budget cut, affecting staff and grant
reductions. Also, the new structure eliminated grants to individuals except creative
writing, jazz and national heritage. This follows several years of annual reports that
stressed the importance of support for individual artists. Additionally, organizations no
longer receive general program support from the NEA, only specific project support. The
report states that the new structure “reflects more accurately the cross-fertilization of one
arts discipline with another.”52 “One of the outcomes that [the agency] hope[s] for is
collaboration among arts organizations, not only for fiduciary reasons, but for aesthetic
growth and experimentation.” 52
The year brought new NEA initiatives in an effort to leverage funds through other
sources.53 American Canvas involves community meetings to discuss arts support and
41
Open Studio is an initiative to provide public internet access and mentor programs for arts organizations across the country. Additionally, the NEA website was launched in
1996.
Beginning in 1996, artists and arts organizations could apply for grants in one of four general areas, according to page 8 of the annual report:
• Grants to Organizations (within the four thematic categories);
• Grants to Individuals (Creative Writing Fellowships only);
• Partnership Agreements; and
• Leadership Initiatives.
American Jazz Masters and National Heritage awards are received by nomination only, not application.
Yet another change to the NEA structure in 1996 is its approach to partnership agreements with state and regional organizations.54 In years prior, state and regional organizations used to submit applications for different grants, different projects. As of
1996, the relationship with these groups is simplified and grants to each organization are
combined. The revision “will reduce paperwork for all involved and allow the
Endowment a more comprehensive understanding of each state’s activities and the
interrelationship among the states.”54 This new process seems to give more control to the
state and regional organizations regarding their endeavors. Arts organizations were required to apply for grants using detailed project descriptions and follow-up assessments, perhaps offering more accountability for use of NEA funds. This is a slight
shift in the agency’s redistributive policies.
42
2.3.7 1997 annual report
Fiscal year 1997 marked the first year of implementation of the significant grant process restructuring discussed in 1996. The annual report restates the grant programs were re-categorized “to meet the financial and social challenges of the times.”55 In fiscal
year 1997, the NEA awarded more than 1,000 grants totaling $90.6 million in the
overarching programs of Grants to Organizations, Partnership Agreements, Leadership
Initiatives and Grants to Individuals. Under Grants to Organizations, grant categories
were Creation and Presentation, Planning and Stabilization, Education and Access, and
Heritage and Preservation. The grants were awarded based on “artistic excellence and merit, the impact of the project and the applicant’s ability to carry out the project.”55
Thus, organizations applying for grants had to consider not only the quality of project
idea, but also the logistics of completion; applicants had to envision the project’s
practicality and value from beginning to end. Also, after restructuring, applicants could
submit only one application per fiscal year, unless they submitted as part of a consortium.
The fiscal year 1997 annual report outlined programs, leadership, panels, grants
and staff. The report was thorough in its examination of operations, as if restructuring
gave the agency the opportunity to communicate a renewed sense of identity to the
public.
Just under half of grants awarded to organizations in the four categories fell into
Creation and Presentation.56 The investment in this category “spawned not only
excellence in the arts in the United States, but also their remarkable and vigorous
diversity.” 56 Awards in the category of Planning and Stabilization—many of which must
be matched 3-to-1 in outside funding sources—helped organizations strengthen
43
“organizational capacity through planning, improving management systems, implementing projects to generate revenues, and fiscal capitalization initiatives.”57
2.3.8 1998 annual report
Chairman Jane Alexander, who ended her four-year term, was replaced by Bill
Ivey in 1998, sworn in by the re-elected President Clinton. In the 1998 annual report,
Chairman Ivey’s letter stresses the diversity and wide reach of NEA grants. Grants were awarded to organizations of all sizes and dispersed throughout the United States; such diversification and scope is a theme repeated throughout the report.
With a new chairman comes a new five-year strategic plan, 1999 to 2004.
Appropriations drop to $98 million, down from nearly $99.5 million in fiscal year 1997.58
New Congressional mandates are also set in place. There was a 15 percent cap on the
total dollar amount of grants to organizations in any one state, excluding national or multi-state impact projects; priority was given to projects that reach underserved
populations, and funds to state arts agencies were increased from 35 percent of the budget
to 40 percent. 58 Also in 1998, Congressional members served on the National Council
on the Arts for the first time. Although the six Congressmen on the Council served in a
non-voting, ex-officio capacity, they still reviewed grant proposals. This, perhaps, shows
another legislative step to regulate the NEA.
One initiative established in 1998 demonstrates an effort toward more far-
reaching grant distribution, a trend that continues through the decade. ArtsREACH
provides direct grants to organizations in the 20 states where NEA grants have
traditionally been underrepresented. Again, there is a sense of importance to the reach
and diversity of NEA funds. While the agency played a key role in the decentralization
44
of dance and other arts fields throughout its history, there seems to be a subtle shift over the years from primarily serving artists and arts institutions to primarily serving the public at large. Funds are reserved through ArtsREACH for communities beyond the metropolitan centers of New York or California, communities that were not exposed to a large number of NEA-funded projects in the past.
The largest category of NEA funding for organizations in 1998 is Creation and
Presentation.59 The category received 49 percent of the total applications for matching
grants to organizations.59 The discussion of the category in the annual report highlights
project diversity and geographic distribution. Grantees include organizations in 46 states,
Washington, DC, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.59 Additionally, many multi-
state projects were funded.
Education and Access grants awarded in 1998 nurtured partnerships, touring
projects, projects for adults, disabled people and more.60 The diversity of grant recipients
is also emphasized for Heritage and Preservation. 60 Projects ranged from “traditional” to
“innovative.” 60 One such project was through the Dance Notation Bureau in New
York.60 The development of a computer program linking animation and Labanotation
software served as “an important breakthrough for the dance field nationwide…
facilitating the notation and preservation of dance history and choreography for artists,
students and scholars.” 60
Beginning in 1998, all grantees are not listed in the annual report. Instead, the
report highlights some grants. The grantees in their entirety are available on the NEA
website. A change in peer panel review came about in 1998. While in 1997, applications
were reviewed both by panels in one artistic discipline and multidisciplinary panels in
45
each grant category, applications in 1998 were only reviewed by panels organized by artistic discipline.61 This shift is notable, perhaps put into practice to further streamline
panel review within a limited budget or prompted by ineffective multidisciplinary panel
reviews. About $82 million in funds were obligated in 1998, down from $94 million in
1997.
2.3.9 1999 annual report
In 1999, the NEA’s 1999-2004 strategic plan was released.62 The plan included
“specific program goals with measurable outcomes,” a sign that both NEA programs and
NEA funded projects would be closely evaluated in the future not just for their immediate
value, but for their overall impact and clear purpose.62 The Challenge America initiative
began in 1999 and included efforts in arts education, access, partnerships and cultural
heritage, generally safe areas of funding with little controversy and, again, the potential
for widespread distribution. Also noted in the 1999 annual report, the ArtsREACH
initiative increased grants to target states by 350 percent in its first year. 62 The initiative
was another attempt to decentralize funding and reach all Americans.
The Creation and Presentation category received about 43 percent of grant
applications in 1999, with about 643 grants awarded totaling $17.1 million.63 About 432
grants were awarded in Education and Access for about $12.3 million.64 Heritage and
Preservation awarded 169 grants totaling $3.5 million.65 Finally, about 124 grants and
$5.8 million were awarded in Planning and Stabilization, including a stabilization grant to
the New York City Ballet.66 Overall, a little less than half of the grant applications the
NEA received were approved and funded.
46
Other funding was provided to new initiatives and partnerships including the
National Millennium Initiative, international exchanges and interagency partnerships.
Over the years there are more and more special funding categories, opportunities to fund special projects that cross disciplines and thematic categories. This is an illustration of the diversification of agency funds and federal support.
The 1999 annual report acknowledges NEA funding for the dance field, noting the New England Foundation for the Art’s National Dance Project.67 The project supports touring across the country. As the report states, “touring is uniquely important to the dance field because virtually all dance companies must find additional performance opportunities beyond their home towns in order to develop their dancers, repertory and audiences.”67 This recognition of touring is notable, as the NEA was a leading supporter
of dance touring under the great Chairman Nancy Hanks in the 1970s with the National
Dance Touring Program.68 Twenty years later, touring is still fundamental to many dance
companies, though funded less by the NEA and other sources, even though the agency
advocates arts for all Americans.
2.3.10 2000 annual report
Chairman Ivey’s letter to the President in the 2000 annual report showed that the
agency was focused on education and outreach more than ever. In this, the 35th
anniversary of the NEA, developing and nurturing new artists and arts supporters was key to survival of the agency and of the arts field. New initiatives in 2000 included Creative
Links, a program for at-risk youth, and the Public Works initiative that funded public art projects. The message from the NEA in 2000 was clear: the arts must reach out and endeavor to become an integral part of communities, an integral and obvious part of
47
every American existence. The arts should not only affect, but also serve the public.69
Such a notion of serving the common good has been a repeated topic of debates concerning the existence of a nonprofit sector and its public subsidy. Addressing the arts and American society, Chairman Ivey proposed a bill of “Cultural Rights.”69 Taken
directly from the Chairman’s statement, the bill, on page 6, reads as follows:
• Heritage. The right to fully explore America’s artistic traditions that define us as families, communities, ethnicities, and regions.
• A Creative Life. The right to learn the processes and traditions of art, and the right to create art.
• Artists and Their Work. The right to engage the work and knowledge of a healthy community of creative artists.
• Performances, Exhibitions, and Programs. The right to be able to choose among a broad range of experiences and services provided by a well- supported community of cultural organizations.
• Art and Diplomacy. The right to have the rich diversity of our nation’s creative life made available to those outside of the United States.
• Understanding Quality. The right to engage and share in art that embodies overarching values and ideas that have lasted through the centuries.
This bill of rights represented a turning point for the NEA and a window of opportunity for arts organizations seeking federal funding. Americans no longer were privileged to experience or create artistic products; they had a right to a life filled with arts participation, education and appreciation. This shifted the meaning of artistic quality from the traditional idea of artistic excellence.
In 2000, about 45 percent of the NEA budget went to grants to organizations through the matching grant categories, about 1,400 grants and $36.5 million awarded.
This included a new grant category in addition to Creation and Presentation, Heritage and
Preservation, Planning and Stabilization, and Education and Access (Education and
48
Access were given separate budget allocations in 2000). The new grant category, Arts on
Radio and Television, was added to reflect the incredible advancement of technology.70
Broadcasting arts programs allows the arts to reach sizeable audiences. This was in keeping with the agency’s ever-growing focus on accessibility and distribution to regions or populations with little previous opportunity to fully experience NEA funded arts projects. As noted on page 25 of the report:
Investing $3 million for 44 projects, the NEA supported the creation and presentation of 2,300 hours of arts programming, providing Americans in every state with access to art forms from folk music and Native American storytelling to cultural history and artist interviews. The 85 hours of television programming is estimated to have reached between 200 and 230 million viewers, with more than 2,200 hours of radio programs having reached 10 to 12 million listeners per week.70
Worthy to make a note of, the 2000 annual report provides lengthy descriptions of
select funded projects in each grant category, a persuasive communication tool. Previous
reports have provided short overviews of many projects, or no information at all. This
storytelling method of reporting shows a trend for reflection, deeper understanding of
funded projects and their impact. Storytelling also might evoke more credibility and
sincerity than less personal descriptions. It might also reflect President Clinton’s
tendency to use storytelling in his public speeches.
2.4 Dance Grant Database
Using database information obtained from the NEA as well as NEA annual
reports, this researcher has developed a comprehensive database of all dance
organizations and individuals awarded NEA grants from 1991-2000. As previously
expressed, this was an undeniably volatile decade in the agency’s history. In 1991,
49
appropriations totaled approximately $174 million; by the end of the decade, appropriations had plummeted to just over $97 million, as noted on the Agency’s website. Most of this decline occurred during the period of agency restructuring, where funding dropped from $162 million in 1995 to $99 million the following year. For dance companies, NEA funding in those years fell from about $5.7 million to $2.7 million.71
At the same time the NEA was on the brink of elimination and appropriations were decreasing, the dance field was growing. According to an NEA report, the number of nonprofit dance companies increased by 93 percent between 1987 and 1997.71
Economic stability may have helped stimulate such growth. After a slight lag in the late
1980s, the development of new companies in the 1990s provided a window of opportunity for new and emerging artists to initiate dance careers. The field grew 73 percent in the decade from 1982 to 1992.72
The figure below illustrates the total number of grants distributed to the dance
field through individual artist grants or grants to organizations from 1991 to 2000. Note
that this figure does not take into account the total dollar amounts distributed to the field
through other sources including state, local and regional partnerships or collaborative
projects. As shown in the figure, the number of grants to the field dropped after 1995,
when it reached 220 grants, and reached its lowest point in fiscal year 1997 at 88 grants.
50
300 284 283 250 242 220 200 204 179 144 150 116 100 88 114 50 0
Number of grants of Number 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999
Fiscal year
Figure 2.1: Total grants to dance organizations and individual artists, 1991-2000.
I have drawn my data from NEA annual reports from 1991 to 2000 and the NEA dance grantee dataset accessed from the NEA through a Freedom of Information Act request. I have extracted every grant to the dance field through the Access to Artistic
Excellence or Grants to Organizations programs from1991 to 2000, including individual artist grants, which were given until the restructuring. The annual reports are organized according to grant categories and provide a short description of the project each grant will support.
Relevant data has been drawn from the reports and dataset provided by the NEA through the Freedom of Information Act, entered into a worksheet using an explicit coding system. I have examined all grants made to the field in the aforementioned grant programs into a database using Microsoft Excel database software and have coded them by several variables: genre, region and grantee type (individual and organization grantees). Within grantee type, I have examined grantee organizations by size (revenue)
51
and age (date founded). Individual artists were excluded from these grantee type studies.
These variables or lenses of perspective can provide insight into funding trends for the field and how the field was affected by the NEA’s evolution. Each variable will be explained below, and results from each variable examined will be discussed in Chapter 3.
2.4.1 Observation through variables: Grant use categories
While not a part of this thesis, a follow-up study might code all the grants into a set of categories identical to the funding categories post-restructuring: “Creation and
Presentation,” Education and Access,” “Planning and Stabilization” and “Heritage and
Preservation.” In 1998, Education and Access was separated into two categories. The discussion here is limited to a brief analysis of the post-restructuring thematic categories.
Many grants given before 1996 overlapped post-restructuring categories. It is
difficult to choose one of the four primary categories to place a grant due to its support
description. Because many of the grants awarded before restructuring were often general
operating or sustainability support and not devoted to a specific project, they tend to
overlap categories, often several categories. The grant restructuring process required that
funds no longer went towards general operating support; they must be devoted
specifically to an organization project. One could see this modification as a way to
harness more control of exactly what was funded by the agency, an attempt to cut down
on the funding of controversial works.
An example of a grant that is difficult to categorize is one made to the Dance
Theatre of Harlem in 1992. The company was awarded a $261,000 grant “to support the
New York season, creation of new work and domestic touring during the 1992-1993
season.”73 The ambiguous and general description lends itself to several post-
52
restructuring categories. This grant could be considered Creation and Presentation because it goes, in part, to creation of new works. It could also fall under the category of
Education and Access because it goes, in part, to touring, providing access opportunities to larger audiences. Dance Brazil was awarded $15,000 in 1994 “to support the 1994-95 home season, administration and the creation of a second home in San Antonio, Texas, for Dance Brazil.”74 This presents the same obstacles for categorization. Would it fall
under Creation and Presentation due to its emphasis on funding the season? Or would it
be best examined as Planning and Stabilization because the funds go, in part, to the
establishment of a second home? Many grant descriptions such as these were lengthy
and described something that could fit into virtually every NEA grant category.
A possible reason for such changes in scope of organization support could be the category restructuring itself. As grants from 1991 to 1995 were rewarded on a discipline basis, many of the grant support descriptions were large in scope; money was distributed among projects in an organization. The priority seemed to be on supporting and sustaining organizations. Following restructuring, an emphasis was put on project support—that is, providing a grant for a single area or project. The priority shifted to supporting projects first and organizations second. In fact, Congress prohibited the NEA
from providing seasonal or general program support.75 The reason for the change could
be the NEA’s desire to have more control over how the funds are put to use by an
organization. After the controversies during the culture wars, it can be deduced that, in
its direct grants to nonprofits (not state and local arts agencies) the NEA intended to
attain greater accountability for how grant funds were spent without controlling artistic
content. Before restructuring, grants were not officially awarded for general operating
53
expenses or capital improvements, but were frequently awarded for seasonal support, i.e. choreographer and dance salaries, administrative costs, etc. The funds were often spread through an organization, making it difficult to separate NEA funded aspects of the organization’s programs from non-funded operations. Funding projects likely provided a simplified and more direct assessment, and additionally afforded the NEA liability only for the funded project, not the organization’s general operations. Though the NEA surely looked at the overall reputation of an organization before awarding a grant after restructuring, there was less emphasis on the organization and more on the project itself.
2.4.2 Observation through variables: Geography
To evaluate geographic trends, the states of the grantees were coded into geographic categories based on those used in Raising the Barre. They are:
• North Central: Indiana, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin
• Northeast: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont
• South: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia
• West: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming
54
Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands were omitted from any of the aforementioned geographic categories. Instead, the territories were identified in a separate category of Territories.
According to Raising the Barre “though concentrated in high population states, dance companies became more widely dispersed throughout the country” in the 1990s.76
The report states that in 1989, 61 percent of dance companies were based in New York,
California, Texas, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Florida and Illinois; the percentage of companies located in those states had dropped to 54 percent by 1999.76
A large percentage of grant money was distributed to the Northeast region in all
years of funding studied, with the West coming in second. Certainly it is no surprise that
New York and California undoubtedly house more dance companies than any other state
and continue to lead in the growth and development of new companies. Based on
passages in many annual reports, part of the impetus for restructuring the NEA grant
process was to make funds more widespread, to a range of organizations and locations.
The geographic distribution of funds will be discussed in detail in Chapter 3.
2.4.3 Observation through variables: Genre
The grants have been coded according to the type of dance. The genre distinctions used were: ballet, modern, folk/ethnic, other and mixed. Ballet, modern and folk/ethnic are self-explanatory categories. The category of Other represents genres that do not fall under ballet, modern or folk/ethnic. These include ballroom, tap dance, jazz, etc. The category of Mixed represents presenting organizations that feature a multitude of genres; multidisciplinary service and umbrella organizations; other organizations not genre specific including educational institutions, and individual artists that produce an
55
equal amount of artistic products in different dance genres or art fields. The genre names used in this study are based on both the categories of the NEA dataset used and the categories in NEA research note number 67, Dance Organizations Report 43 percent
Growth in Economic Census: 1987-1992.
It appears that ballet and modern dance companies both receive a significant portion of funds. The NEA created a close connection with concert dance from its creation: the first NEA grant ever awarded was to the American Ballet Theatre. From then on, many of NEA dance grant recipients have been American ballet companies.
This could suggest the NEA considers concert dance genres as more deserving of federal support because they are in keeping with the idea of “high art” as well as more professionalized than traditional or folk arts; however, as will be discussed in Chapter 3, other dance genres including folk arts received grants, especially after restructuring.
2.4.4 Observation through variables: Grantee type
This report examines grants to dance organizations, support systems and services and individual choreographers. While grant opportunities for independent choreographers were eliminated in the restructuring, the number and dollar amount of grants given to individuals prior to restructuring is noteworthy. Beyond the type of grantee are two demographic factors specific to organizations: size and age.
The results of these variable assessments will be discussed in Chapter 3.
2.4.4.1 Individual Grantees
To truly observe the impact of grant restructuring on the dance field, one must examine grants to individual artists. Indeed, the dance field consists of many
56
independent artists. Choreographers are not synonymous with dancers; nor are they always teachers. However, while each occupation is distinct, there is much overlap among jobs in the dance field. Many choreographers are performers. Many direct their own companies, pulling duty as arts administrators as well as creators of an artistic product. Choreographers may own their own studios, playing the role of teacher and choreographer. While some choreographers work with or found their own companies, many choreographers work independently. Many are commissioned to create works for companies or schools, or seek out original projects or partnerships with different sets of dancers; thus, contract or short-term projects can make up a significant part of a choreographer’s professional career.
According to one source, in 2003, there were 15,140 working choreographers.77
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2006, there were about 40,000
professional dancers and choreographers. Because others may have been between jobs at
the time of the survey, the total is most likely higher. Additionally, about 17 percent of
professional dancers and choreographers were self-employed.78
Choreographers can work in a multitude of specializations including ballet,
modern, hip hop, liturgical dance, etc. Choreographers can work in these genres in
settings including, but not limited to concert dance, music videos, theme parks, cruise lines, musical theatre, revues and circuses. Clearly, the arena in which choreographers may be found is expansive and they make up an important part of the dance field.
2.4.4.2 Organization Size
In terms of federal funding, one wonders if size, indeed, does matter. To examine
for this thesis, the size of the grantees were coded based on the total contributed and
57
earned income of the organization. These size specifications utilized were structured nearly the same way as classifications of Dance/USA in its May 2001 Snap Facts.
Dance/USA is the leading national service organization for the field and, thus, is a reliable and legitimate source for national size proportions.
• Large Ballet: Total Income of more than $5 million
• Medium Ballet: Total Income of $1 million and $5 million
• Large Modern: Total Income of more than $860,000
• Medium Modern/Other: Total Income between $200,000 and $860,000
• Small: Total Income of $200,000 or less
While these categories were created by Dance/USA to specifically examine ballet and modern companies, they will be renamed in this research so as to include all genres.
Since ballet companies are generally larger than other types of dance companies, the categories have been named accordingly.
• Large: Total Income of $5 million or more • Medium: Total Income between $1 million and $4,999,999 • Large Other: Total Income between $860,000 and $999,999 • Medium Other: Total Income between $200,000 and $859,999 • Small Other: Total Income of $199,999 or less
So why does size matter in this research? Size is a variable worth evaluating because of what it could say about the power of larger organizations to garner more funding from multiple resources, including government grants. Does a larger organization have a better ability to reach larger audiences, thus generating a wider distribution of the art product to a larger population? Organizations with more money, in most cases, are afforded more opportunities to expand their reach through touring, devote
58
more money towards larger and greater numbers of productions, as well as have larger budgets for marketing, development and other administrative functionalities. But does their size earn them more NEA grants? Do they have an advantage over smaller organizations, which outnumber large organizations in the field? To thoroughly assess these questions, an investigation of all applications, not just grant recipients, would be essential. Such an investigation is beyond the scope of this thesis.
2.4.4.3 Organization Age
Grantee age is important to evaluate as a policy issue. Is the NEA to nurture established, self-sustaining organizations that have proven themselves or is it to help advance new organizations finding their place in the field? Is it to support excellence or innovation, or strive for a balance of both? With the NEA’s leveraging role by providing
“seed money” to organizations, this variable is a legitimate and worthwhile evaluation tool.
Given the idea that grants to some organizations could be construed as essentially entitlements, this variable is especially important. Is the NEA to support stable and established organizations or help new and struggling organizations develop within the cultural landscape? Is the age of the organization a factor in whether or not it deserves funding?
Is it possible that the restructuring and funding decrease hurt fledgling dance companies? Did it affect their ability to secure federal funds and, hence, to remain financially viable? Did it offer ‘entitlements’ to companies that consistently received
NEA funds?
59
Smith’s 2003 report states that most dance companies in the United States are
“less than 40 years old.”79 Age is an important variable in a discussion of NEA funding
patterns. It can help determine whether a majority of companies in the United States are
awarded grants or if grants go disproportionately to the few older companies. It can also
be determined whether or not there was a significant change in this distribution following
NEA restructuring.
The organization age data in the grant database was organized by the date the
company was founded. The six organization age categories used in the study, in 10-year
increments, were as follows:
Less than 10 years
10 – 19 years
20 – 29 years
30 – 39 years
40 – 49 years
50 years or more
The category of Unknown was included for grantees for which a date founded
could not be discerned through any source.
2.4.5 Overview of findings
While detailed findings will be discussed in the subsequent chapter, some
observations from the variable analyses are discussed here.
Grant dollars to the field held relatively steady till 1996 when they dropped
significantly. The dollars were up and down the next two years and consistently rose
60
slightly into 2000, but still did not reach the level they held at the beginning of the decade.
Descriptions of grant purposes were much more broad-based before restructuring, as certain restrictions or limits of use did not apply. Grants were often used for “season support” which could include education, touring, administrative salaries and creation of new work or reconstruction of old work. The new categories forced grant purpose descriptions to be much more focused.
New York took the majority of grants and grant dollars every year examined.
Many of those companies that received grants toured throughout the country, so they still had a national scope, just not in the way they would with a more true geographic dispersion.
It appears that most of the grantees in the early years were more than 10 years old.
This seems to be pretty consistent throughout—most grantees are established companies.
For example, only four of the 92 companies awarded grants in 1996 were 10 years old or younger.
There is a great deal of consistency in the organizations awarded grants each year.
In fact, many organizations are regular grantees throughout the study.
In 1991, grants ranged from $9,400 to $376,000. Incidentally, the two companies receiving $376,000 grants—Merce Cunningham Dance Company and the New York City
Ballet—were both located in New York City. Both grants were to support domestic touring and other season expenses. In 2000, project grants ranged from $5,000 to
$100,000. In 2000, Merce Cunningham Dance Company and the American Ballet
Theatre—again, both New York companies—received Creation and Presentation grants
61
for $100,000. Only three larger grants were distributed in 2000, under the Leadership
Initiative. In 1995, before restructuring, no grant less than $10,000 was awarded with many grants reaching the six-digit mark; in 1996, the lowest grant amount dropped to
$7,100 and very few organizations received grants reaching $100,000.
Over the years, grants appeared to have more widespread distribution so that agency funds could have a broader overall impact, empowering and supporting more organizations than before. This represents an attempt to bring dance to more communities than the large cities. It, perhaps, was also an attempt to support projects in more Congressional districts, appealing to legislators who may not have previously seen a need to spend federal funds in areas that did not affect their constituents.
Detailed analysis using each variable discussed above will be provided in the subsequent chapter.
1 Independent Commission, The (1990). A report to Congress on the National Endowment for the Arts. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 2 Page 45. National Endowment for the Arts (2000). The National Endowment for the Arts, 1965-2000: A brief chronology of federal support for the arts. Washington DC: National Endowment for the Arts Office of Communication. 3 Walsh, J.D. (1991, November 18). Art and government. Roll Call, Letters. 4 Page 3. Independent Commission, The (1990). A report to Congress on the National Endowment for the Arts. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 5 Page 1. Ibid. 6 Page 22. Ibid. 7 Concerned Women for America (1997, May 13). The National Endowment for the Arts: Whose art? Washington DC: Concerned Women for America. 8 Carr, C. (1999, September 28). The land of less. The Village Voice, p. 38. 9 Clark, M. (1998, May). Second year of NEA’s new grant structure a battle. Dance Magazine, Vol. 72 Issue 5. 10 Young, H. (1998, January). Preparing for the future. Dance Magazine, Vol. 72 Issue 1, 50-52. 11 Atwood, R. (1999, Winter). America’s changing political environment and the defense of the NEA. Attitude-The Dancers’ Magazine, 4-5. 12 Page 5. Atwood, R. (1999, Winter). America’s changing political environment and the defense of the NEA. Attitude-The Dancers’ Magazine, 4-5. 13 President’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities (1997). Creative America, A report to the President. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 14 Page 16. Ibid. 15 American Assembly, The (1997). The arts and the public purpose. Harriman, NY: Arden House. 16 Pages 4-5. Ibid. 17 Page 19. Ibid.
62
18 Testimony of Marshall Wittman Director of Legislative Affairs Christian Coalition before the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations United States House of Representatives, 104th Cong., (March 24, 1995). 19 Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, 104th Cong., (January 26, 1995). 20 Pages 60-61. Hearing of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, United States Senate, on examining proposed legislation authorizing funds for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, 106th Cong., (May 27, 1999). 21 Pages 62-63. Hearing of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, United States Senate, on examining proposed legislation authorizing funds for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, 106th Cong., (May 27, 1999). 22 Page 5. National Endowment for the Arts (1988). Application guidelines fiscal year 1990. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 23 Page 10. Ibid. 24 Page 11. Ibid. 25 Page 29. Ibid. 26 Page 33. Ibid. 27 Page 5. National Endowment for the Arts (1995b). Grants to organizations application guidelines fiscal years 1996-1997. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 28 Page 8. Same as above. 29 Page 21. Ibid. 30 Page 23. Ibid. 31 Page 14. Ibid. 32 Page 25. Ibid. 33 Page 26. Ibid. 34 Page 28. Ibid. 35 Page 11. National Endowment for the Arts (1991). Fiscal year 1991 annual report. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 36 Page 7. National Endowment for the Arts (1992). Fiscal year 1992 annual report. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 37 Page 14. Ibid. 38 Page 15. Ibid. 39 Page 11. National Endowment for the Arts (1993). Fiscal year 1993 annual report. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 40 Netzer, D. & Parker, E. (1993). Dancemakers. National Endowment for the Arts Research Report #28. Washington DC: National Endowment for the Arts Research Division. 41 Page 49. National Endowment for the Arts (2000b). The National Endowment for the Arts, 1965-2000: A brief chronology of federal support for the arts. Washington DC: National Endowment for the Arts Office of Communication. 42 Page 19. National Endowment for the Arts (1993). Fiscal year 1993 annual report. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 43 Page 1. National Endowment for the Arts (1995). Fiscal year 1995 annual report. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 44 Page 4. Ibid. 45 Page 5. Ibid. 46 Page 6. Ibid. 47 Page 8. Ibid. 48 Page 9. Ibid. 49 Page 10. Ibid. 50 Page 12. Ibid. 51 Page 1. National Endowment for the Arts (1996). Fiscal year 1996 annual report. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 52 Pages 4-5. Ibid. 53 Page 6. Ibid. 54 Pages 18-19. Ibid.
63
55 Page 5. National Endowment for the Arts (1997). Fiscal year 1997 annual report. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 56 Page 9. Ibid. 57 Page 78. Ibid. 58 Page 7. National Endowment for the Arts (1998). Fiscal year 1998 annual report. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 59 Page 11. Ibid. 60 Pages 14-16. Ibid. 61 Page 6. Ibid. 62 Pages 4-5. National Endowment for the Arts (1999). Fiscal year 1999 annual report. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 63 Page 7. Ibid. 64 Page 10. Ibid. 65 Page 12. Ibid. 66 Page 14. Ibid. 67 Page 28. Ibid. 68 Young, H. (1998, January). Preparing for the future. Dance Magazine, Vol. 72 Issue 1, 50-52. 69 Page 6. National Endowment for the Arts (2000). Fiscal year 2000 annual report. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 70 Page 25. Ibid. 71 Smith, T. (2003). Raising the barre: The geographic, financial, and economic trends of nonprofit dance companies. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts Research Division. 72 National Endowment for the Arts (1998). Dance organizations report 43 percent growth in economic census: 1987-1992. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 73 National Endowment for the Arts (1992). Fiscal year 1992 annual report. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 74 National Endowment for the Arts (1994). Fiscal year 1994 annual report. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 75 Page 52. National Endowment for the Arts (2000). Fiscal year 2000 annual report. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 76 Page 13. Smith, T. (2003). Raising the barre: The geographic, financial, and economic trends of nonprofit dance companies. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts Research Division. 77 Nichols, B. (2004). Artist employment in 2003. Washington DC: National Endowment for the Arts Office of Research and Analysis. 78
64
CHAPTER 3
DATABASE OBSERVATIONS
Grant obligations to dance organizations and artists steadily declined between
1991 and 1996, the first fiscal year in which grants to individual dance artists were eliminated, and the year the NEA suffered a 40 percent cut overall.1 In this year, the
grant dollars obligated to the dance category dropped sharply, from $7.1 million in 1995
to about $3 million in 1996. Total obligations in 1996 were about 43 percent of the
obligations in 1995 as the overall budget dropped from approximately $162 million to
$99 million. While the agency appropriations dropped about 40 percent from 1995 to
1996, obligations to the dance field dropped about 57 percent. Total obligations to all other discipline categories declined sharply as well, from about $126 million in 1995 to
$63.8 million in 1996. This was approximately a 50 percent decrease in obligated funds to all discipline categories. While the grant dollars rose in 1997, they dropped again in
1998, barely rising in the final two years of the period examined. Figure 3.1 illustrates this data.
65
Obligations to the Dance Field
$10 $8 $6
$4 $2 Dollars Millions) (in
1991 1993 1995 1997 1999
Fiscal Year
Figure 3.1: Obligations to the dance field from 1991 to 2000, in millions.
From 1991 to 2000, NEA grant dollars obligated to the dance field in each fiscal
year was only a small percentage of the total grant obligations. The dance field never
received more than just over six percent of the grant dollars obligated each fiscal year or
more than 14 percent of program funds obligated each year. The lowest percentage of
total grant obligations to the dance field came in 1998 with about 4.6 percent of total
grant dollars obligated, almost one percent less than the prior year. The highest
percentage occurred in 1991 with just over six percent of total grant dollars obligated.
The largest single-year drop in the dance field’s percentage of total obligated funds
occurred from 1995 to 1996. Its percentage of program funds surprisingly increased four
percent in this period, from 10 to 14 percent. The percentage of total obligated grant
dollars that the dance field received remained relatively consistent from 1991 to 2000.
Table 3.1 below shows the percentage of grants obligated to the field versus the total obligations, while Figure 3.2 outlines the same information graphically.
66
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 6.1% 5.8% 5.7% 5.6% 5.6% 4.7% 5.3% 4.6% 4.8% 5.4%
Table 3.1: Percentage of total grant obligations to the dance field from 1991 to 2000.
$141
$121
$101
$81
$61 Dollars (in millions) $41
$21
$1 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999
Fiscal year
Figure 3.2: Total grant obligations versus obligations to the dance field from 1991 to
2000. Total obligations are in white. Obligations to dance are in black.
The percentages of total obligations given under the dance program prior to restructuring have been compared to four other discipline categories: Theater, Opera-
Musical Theater, Music and Museums. Percentages from 1997 to 2000 (after grant
process restructuring) could not be analyzed without acquiring a specific database for each discipline from the NEA, as the respective annual reports are organized by thematic
categories. Below is Table 3.2 with the percentage of total grant obligations given to
each of these categories.
67
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Net % Change 1991-1996 Dance 6.1% 5.8% 5.7% 5.6% 5.6% 4.7% -1.4% Theater 6.8% 6.6% 6.1% 6.5% 5.7% 6.5% -.3% Opera-Musical Theater 4.4% 4.0% 4.0% 3.9% 4.0% 3.3% -1.1% Music 10.2% 10.6% 9.1% 8.0% 8.6% 7.0% -3.2% Museum 8.2% 7.9% 7.2% 7.0% 7.1% 5.8% -2.4%
Table 3.2: Percent of total grant obligations to select discipline categories from 1991 to
1996.2
Percentages for the dance program are most comparable to those of theater, with
percentages ranging from 5.7 to 6.8 from 1991 to 1996. Though the smallest percentage
to theater occurred in 1995, not 1998 as with dance, the largest percentage for both
discipline categories occurred in 1991. Further, the most significant drop for theater
occurred between 1994 and 1995, one year earlier than the most significant drop for
dance. Music, like dance, also suffered the most dramatic percentage drop in grant dollars from 1995 to 1996. Opera-Musical Theater incurred the most similar net change
from 1991 to 1996 at 1.1 percent as that of the dance program, at 1.4 percent.
Of those analyzed, the discipline with the largest percentage of obligated dollars
was Music, with between seven and 10.6 percent of the total obligated funds through the
decade. Museums, the only non-performing art category included, had the second largest
percentage of dollars. Opera-Musical Theater garnered the smallest percentage of the
disciplines examined, with between 3.3 and 4.4 percent through the decade. Figure 3.3
compares all five discipline categories and funding timeline from 1991 to 1996. The
lines have slight differences, but show similar patterns overall.
68
) $16 Theater $14 $12 Opera-Musical $10 Theater $8 $6 Music $4 Dollars (in millions Dollars (in $2 Museum $0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Dance Fiscal year
Figure 3.3: Grant obligations to select discipline categories from 1991 to 1996.
3.1 Overview
Overall, the number of grants awarded to the dance field declined gradually until reaching their lowest point in 1997 at 88 grants. While Choreographer Fellowships were eliminated in 1996, 1997 marked the first year of restructuring in which grants were no longer awarded by discipline, but by type of project. NEA funds had also been cut severely by that year. In the following year, the number of grants awarded began to rise.
The number of grants awarded to the dance field in a fiscal year between 1991 and 2000 were at their highest point in 1991 at 284 grants. This was in a period in which there were several categories within the overarching category of dance including
Choreographer Fellowships, Grants to Dance Companies, Grants to Presenters, General
Services to the Field and more. This period was in the middle of the NEA controversies, but the controversies had not yet directly affected the agency budget. Dance categories began to disappear in 1996, when Choreographer Fellowships were eliminated. In that
69
year, 116 grants were awarded to dance organizations including companies, academic
institutions, presenters and service organizations. However, the highest number of grants
awarded after individual artist grants had been eliminated was 179 in 2000. The number
of grants distributed one year earlier, 1999, was also significantly higher than in years
prior.
Essentially, most grant recipients received a smaller slice of a smaller pie after
restructuring. Figure 3.4 illustrates this progression. When compared to Figure 3, obligations to the field, the patterns present some similarities. The dramatic drop in obligations from 1995 to 1996 was reflected in the dramatic drop in number of grants to the field. However, the number of grants did not rise in 1997 as did the obligations; in
fact, they dropped again. This suggests larger grants to fewer organizations and perhaps
is due to the elimination of individual artist grants in 1996 and the restructuring of grant
categories implemented in 1997. Rather than dropping again slightly in 1998, the
number of grants continued to rise from 1998 to 2000.
Total Grants to Dance Organizations and Artists
300 284 283 250 242 220 200 204 179 150 144 116 100 88 114 50 Number of Grants 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999
Fiscal Year
Figure 3.4: Total grants to dance organizations and artists from 1991 to 2000.
70
After the restructuring of grants to organizations, the most grants and grants dollars to the dance field by a considerable margin in every year, from 1997 to 2000, were in the thematic category of Creation and Presentation (Table 3.3). In 1997, 57 grants were in the category, versus 31 total grants in the three other categories. By 2000, the number of grants in Creation and Presentation were nearly three times more than the second highest category, Education and Access. Planning and Stabilization grants, though fewer in number, tended to be higher in dollar amount, from $15,000 to $500,000, compared to $5,000 to $200,000 for other grant categories.3 In 1999, for example,
Planning and Stabilization grants to the dance field accounted for about 13 percent of
grant dollars provided through the four thematic categories, yet the category accounted
for only six percent of the number of grants. Larger grants in this category required a
greater match ratio then the typical one to one match of other categories; this along with
other detailed requirements could have kept Planning and Stabilization grant applications to a minimum. In contrast to Planning and Stabilization, Heritage and Preservation provided an average of about 9.75 percent of grants to the dance field from 1997 to 2000, yet provided an average of about 6.25 percent of grant dollars.
71
Creation and Education and Heritage and Planning and Presentation Access Preservation Stabilization 1997 $3,448,500 $818,500 $282,500 $523,500 57 grants 13 grants 9 grants 9 grants 1998 $2,267,000 $573,000 $165,000 $355,000 78 grants 19 grants 9 grants 7 grants 1999 $2,120,000 $716,000 $227,000 $443,000 79 grants 40 grants 16 grants 8 grants 2000 $2,367,000 $678,000 $284,000 $110,000 111 grants 44 grants 17 grants 4 grants
Table 3.3: Grants to the dance field by thematic category post-restructuring, 1997 to
2000.4
NEA grants to the dance field from 1991 to 2000 have been analyzed using three lenses; within each are variables providing more insight about the funding patterns of the decade. As explained in Chapter 2, these lenses and subcategories are:
• Geography—examined by state and region. Individuals and organizations were
included in both studies.
• Grantee Type—examined by individual versus organization; organization age,
and organization size. Individuals were excluded from age and size studies.
• Genre—Individuals and organizations were included in this study.
3.2 Geographic Distribution
Grantees were evaluated by both region and state to gather two bodies of data, looking at both regional trends and through a narrower lens at the state level.
Additionally, data was drawn in two different ways: by dollar amount of grants and by
72
number of grants. Each data set offers different and relevant insight into NEA grant distribution patterns.
As noted in Chapter 2, to evaluate geographic trends, the states of the grantees were coded into four geographic categories based on those used in Raising the Barre:
North Central, Northeast, South and West. Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands were not included in any of these geographic categories. Instead, the territories were identified in a separate category of Territories.
Based on the database of NEA dance grants, there seems to be a great deal of movement of dance organizations and individuals. Many grantees have moved from one state to another, altering the state level analysis as well as the region. For example, the
Dance Exchange, Inc. was originally based in Washington DC, but relocated to Maryland in 1998. While this move kept the organization in the same geographic region and quite close to its original locality, other organization relocations characterized a state and regional transition. The Institute for Spanish Arts was originally located in New York, but moved to New Mexico in 1995. This moves the organization’s grants not only state to state, but from the Northeast region to the West. This must be noted in a geographic analysis.
According to Raising the Barre “though concentrated in high population states, dance companies became more widely dispersed throughout the country” in the 1990s.
The report states:
“In 1989, 61 percent of dance companies were located in California, New York, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Illinois. By 1999, the percentage of companies in these seven states fell to 54 percent.”5
73
New Congressional mandates were established in 1998. There was a 15 percent cap on the total dollar amount of grants to organizations in any one state, excluding national or multiple state impact projects; priority was given to projects that reach underserved populations.6 This cap remained in the authorizing legislation into the 21st
century.7 Also in 1998, six Congressional members served on the National Council on
the Arts and reviewed grant proposals in a non-voting capacity. These modifications
were an effort to stimulate broader distribution of funds.
A majority of choreographers resided in New York and California throughout the
period studied, as the majority of companies and, thus, choreographic opportunities were
located in these states. Opportunities for independent choreographers seeking work were
also more readily available in these states, given the widespread television, film and other
entertainment industries in both states. Further, California has many theme park
opportunities (as do Florida and Nevada) and New York offers a booming theatre district
with the Great White Way of Broadway and regional theatres, as well as a multitude of
dance companies, schools, studios and academic institutions that offer dance programs of
study.
Based on the observations noted above, it is no surprise that a large percentage of
grants and grant dollars were distributed to the Northeast region in all years studied. The
West typically came in second. Certainly this is no surprise, given that New York
(Northeast region) and California (West) housed more dance companies than any other
state and continued to lead in the growth and development of new companies. Also,
many choreographers lived and worked in these states. However, as stated previously,
the percentage of companies located in New York, California and the other five leading
74
states dropped somewhat throughout the 1990s. While theses states continued to house a higher number of companies and artists, companies and artists residing in other states grew. This is reflected in the grant data, as several companies moved—as noted above— from New York to New Mexico, North Carolina, Minnesota, Washington and other states.
3.2.1 Regional level analysis
Percentages of dance grant dollars to each region from 1991 to 2000 are presented in Figure 3.5. The category of Territories—consisting of the U.S. Virgin Islands and
Puerto Rico—consistently and unsurprisingly received less than one percent of grant dollars to the dance field, with the exception of 1994 and 2000, when the territories received about one percent of grant dollars. Overall the geographic distribution of funds changed to some extent, but not radically, after restructuring.
Percent of grant dollars by region 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% Other 50% NC 40% S 30% W 20% NE 10% 0% 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 Fiscal year
Figure 3.5: Percent of total grant dollars to each region from 1991 to 2000.
75
3.2.1.1 Northeast
The Northeast consistently received about half of the total number of grants and more than half of the total grant dollars with the West coming in at a distant second for percentage of the number of grants. This makes sense given that New York is in the
Northeast region and received the most grants and grant dollars of all the states and territories from 1991 to 2000. New York’s dominance of dance artists and organizations kept the Northeast at the top of NEA funding to the field. The Northeast's stronghold, however, seemed to be decreasing after its peak in 1996 with a massive 75 percent of the grant dollars. Its highest percentage of the number of grants—56 percent—occurred in
1997. Both peaks were achieved right around the time of restructuring.
The Northeast received significantly more than any other region, no doubt, throughout the existence of the agency. No other region came anywhere close to its domination. As noted above, from 1996 to 1997 the region jumped from 47 to 56 percent of the total number of grants, seeming to show that restructuring did not take away the
Northeast’s monopoly on funds. However, in 1999 the region’s portion of grants dropped and continued to drop slightly in 2000, when it received less than 45 percent of the total number of grants, its lowest percentage in the period studied.
It is challenging to ascertain from a mere two years of evidence, but a few additional years of research into the 21st century might show that the region’s monopoly
continued to decrease as more evenly balanced distribution throughout the nation became
a higher priority for the Endowment. Though the final years of this study did not
demonstrate equal distribution to all the regions, perhaps a more even balance was
76
achieved in later years, as more dance organizations grew in far reaching corners of the nation beyond New York and the Northeast region.
3.2.1.2 West
As noted above, the West came in behind the Northeast region for percentage of grants to the dance field. The West included California, which was time and again in the top three states and territories in both number of grants and grant dollars. Nevada, a western state that has a number of opportunities for dancers, received grants in only four years between 1991 and 2000, with one grant in each year. Two of these grants were
Choreographer Fellowships. This low number of grants to Nevada, despite its abundance of dance artists, makes sense; most of the dance opportunities are found in for-profit organizations including casinos and stage productions.
The West faced a change from 1995 to 1998 when it dropped five percent in percentage of number of grants. This decrease coincided with the severe drop in NEA funding and the years of agency restructuring. The region obtained its highest percentage of the pie with 18 percent of grant dollars in 1992, 1993, 1995 and 1997. In 1996, the
West dropped to 13 percent in amount of grant dollars.
3.2.1.3 South
The South received a relatively small percentage of the total number of grants and grant dollars distributed to the dance field throughout the 1990s. While the greater part of grants to every region after restructuring were for projects under the newly formed grant category of Creation and Presentation, a considerable number of projects to the
South after restructuring were awarded grants under Education and Access. Interestingly,
77
the South’s percentage of grant dollars rose after the period of restructuring. The region only received seven percent of grants in 1996, but grew to 12 percent the following year.
By 2000, the South’s percentage of the total pool of grant dollars, at 27 percent, was three times what it received at the beginning of the decade, in 1991, at nine percent. This indicates that restructuring did affect the regional distribution of grants by providing more support to areas that were supported to a lesser amount in previous years.
3.2.1.4 North Central
The North Central region generally received between 11 and 13 percent of the total grants in any given year. The largest changes between years occurred from 1996 to
1997, when its percentage dropped from 13 to 11. The percentage of grants to the North
Central region did not change substantially after the mid-decade restructuring. However, a more considerable change occurred in the percentage of grant dollars to the region. The region began the 1990s with about 10 to 11 percent of total grant dollars; by 2000, the percentage dropped to seven. From 1995 to 1996, the percentage of dollars to the North
Central region were cut nearly in half from 9 to 5 percent of total obligations and remained low until rising slightly in 1999.
3.2.2 State level analysis
The tables below show the three states with the highest number of grants awarded
(Table 3.4) and the highest dollar amount of total grants awarded (Table 3.5). As expected, New York was the frontrunner in every year. New York consistently held the top spots in number of grants and total dollar amount. Other states were not nearly close to the number of grants and total grant dollars received by New York resident
78
organizations and individual artists. New York received more grants than any other state in all years of the study, reaching its lowest point in 1997 at 40 grants and its highest in
1991 at 123. In grant dollars, New York received its least amount in 1998 at about $1.5 million and its highest in 1991 at just over $4.6 million.
Second to New York in grants distributed was California; however, California was not always second for grant dollars. When other states replaced California in the
second highest position, it was typically due to one or two unusually large grants. Ohio
ranked third in number of grants in five years, yet never placed in the top three in amount
of grant dollars.
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1 NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY 2 CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA 3 OH/PA OH/TX PA IL TX OH OH/MA MA MA OH
Table 3.4: Top three ranking states by number of grants from 1991 to 2000.
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1 NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY 2 CA CA CA CA CA MA CA MA MA DC 3 MA MA MA IL IL CA MA CA PA MA
Table 3.5: Top three ranking states by dollar amount from 1991 to 2000.
Interestingly, Washington DC took second in 2000 in total grant dollars after
being nowhere near the highest three positions for the rest of the years. Among the seven
grants awarded in DC that year, Dance/USA received a Learning Initiative grant for
79
$520,000 for the National College Choreography Initiative, a national impact project.8
The national dance service organization also received $50,000 for Planning and
Stabilization.
Other states that consistently placed in the top three positions in both number of grants and total grant dollars include Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts,
North Central and Northeast regions. In 1996, Massachusetts moved to the second position for total grant dollars with only three grants totaling more than $1.1 million. In that year, the New England Foundation for the Arts received a $1 million grant for
Special Projects. These top states behind New York and, for the most part, California, were predominantly in the Northeast and North Central regions and had a large dance population and a strong state arts council. As Raising the Barre indicated, these are some of the states with the largest percentages of dance companies in the 1990s. A majority of performing artists overall resided in the West and Northeast, particularly New York City and Los Angeles, according to the NEA report Artists in the Workforce.9
3.2.2.1 U.S. Territories
For this study, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands were categorized as
Territories. The territories maintained a presence with at least one grant each year, though they typically received less than one percent of the total grant dollars and about one percent of the number of grants. The territories reached their highest percentage of total grants received in 1996 and 1998 at three percent of grants with three grants each year. Interestingly, however, the territories did not receive their highest percentage of grant dollars in those years, but rather in 1994 and 2000 at about one percent. In 1994,
Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands were collectively awarded $43,000 for two grants
80
to ballet companies and two to folk or ethnic dance companies. In 2000, the territories received $30,000, $20,000 for an Education project of the Caribbean Dance Company of the Virgin Islands and $10,000 for Creation and Presentation to Ballet Concierto de
Puerto Rico. The Education grant to the Caribbean Dance Company in 2000 seems in keeping with the Agency’s efforts that year, based on the underlying message of its 2000
Annual Report, to become a part of U.S. communities and serve the common good.10
While grant dollars to the territories dropped by $6,300 from 1996 to 1997, they steadily rose each following year while grant dollars to some other states and geographic regions fluctuated. This could suggest an effort to provide more funds to U.S. territories, especially following the 1998 Congressional mandate for broader geographic distribution.
3.2.2.2 States that never received a grant
Some states rarely received grants. Others never received grants. For example,
Alabama did not receive a grant until 1999; it received one $5,000 grant in 1999 and another in 2000 for the same amount, both to the State of Alabama Ballet for Creation and Presentation. Iowa received one grant each year from 1991 to 1993—all to the
University of Iowa—and none from 1994 to 2000. Indiana received only one grant in the period studied, in 1992 to the Indianapolis Ballet Theatre. Kentucky did not receive any grants until 1998. The state was awarded one grant each subsequent year through 2000.
Both North Dakota and Oklahoma received only one $5,000 grant each, both in 2000.
Tennessee only received grants in 1999.
Seven states failed to receive any NEA grants for dance from 1991 to 2000:
Arkansas, Delaware, Kansas, New Hampshire, South Dakota, West Virginia and
Wyoming. Most of these states are in the Southern and North Central regions and only
81
one—Wyoming—is in the West. Several of these states are some with the smallest populations in the country, likely signifying a small population of choreographers and companies as well, particularly concert dance opportunities.
In 1991, 31 states and territories received grants. In 1996, that number dropped to only 26 states and territories. This was the first year in which individual choreographer fellowships were eliminated. By 1999 that number jumped to 39 and in 2000 it decreased slightly to 38. In the percentage of states and territories, the reach grew from 58 to 72 percent from 1991 to 2000. A 14 percent increase in a 10-year period is progressive and indicates a trend towards wider geographic distribution of funds. It appears as a sign of an Endowment strategy to reach more and diverse populations throughout the country.
Perhaps also indicated is a wider population of grant applicants, based on the new grant structure.
3.2.3 Geographic Distribution Conclusion
As stated previously, during the 1990s, dance organizations and individual artists began to disperse from the traditionally dance-rich hubs of New York, California and other areas. Organizations began moving to New Mexico, Minnesota and other areas not traditionally known for housing many dance companies or artists. The U.S. economy was relatively stable, following a recession in 1991. Perhaps the recession forced arts organizations to reevaluate their structure and location. Maybe the subsequent economic stability allowed arts organizations to take risks. The rapid growth of new companies in the 1980s slowed in the 1990s and could have allowed new companies time to find their footing in the marketplace, even if this meant relocating or breaking ground in up-and- coming cultural centers. Perhaps, after the 1980s explosion of dance, the traditional
82
dance cores were overrun with competition; artists may have moved to areas less artistically saturated in an effort to diminish any potential fight for audiences or funds.
There are many conditions that may have helped foster this migration of cultural institutions, including opportunities in college or community dance programs, new media or for profit industries.
To appropriately scrutinize the state level investigation, it must be noted that it is limited in its reliability. Just because a state did not receive a grant directly does not necessarily mean it did not benefit from a grant. Because many companies based in New
York and California tour nationally and internationally, the grant funds likely served the purpose of wider distribution. For example, in 1991, a $282,000 grant to Alvin Ailey
American Dance Theater supported domestic touring in addition to home season production and operating costs. The company is based in New York City, but the company tours throughout the country and, thus, the 1991 grant, in part, benefited any states to which the company toured that season.
Other grantees were presenting organizations that brought touring groups to their resident states. For example, the Joyce Theater in New York, which received grants in every year of the study, presents dance companies from all over the U.S. as well as groups from other countries. Thus the grants to the Joyce actually fostered companies throughout the country in their tours to New York City.
Other grants went to regional organizations that, in turn, distributed funds to companies in multiple states. For example, a $117,000 grant (along with $477,960 funded through the State and Regional Program) to the Mid-America Arts Alliance, based in Missouri, supported artist fees to presenters in not just Missouri, but Arkansas,
83
Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas for dance companies presented during the season. Further, some grants, like those to service organizations, benefited the field nationwide, not simply in the state in which the organization was based. For example, in
1991, a $31,000 grant to Dance/USA supported a professional development program and a publication; based in Washington DC, the national organization serves the field nationwide and now has several satellite locations in the U.S.
Additionally, as mentioned previously, many organizations relocated to another state during the 1990s, suggesting the organizations had a more widespread or national reach than just the original states or regions; if an organization’s mission was to serve only its community or region, it would not likely be able to relocate readily. The Joffrey
Ballet, for example, moved from New York City—home of two other ballet giants, New
York City Ballet and American Ballet Theatre—to Chicago in 1995. Joffrey is predominantly a touring ballet company; it tours throughout the country as well as presents a home season. Whatever the reason organizations moved, they likely served the same purpose and general constituency in both locations. Based on these circumstances, it is possible that the NEA did provide more widespread arts support after restructuring in that it funded many companies as well as national advocacy, service and support organizations.
3.3 Grantee Type
Prior to restructuring, grants were available to dance organizations and individuals in multiple categories within the structure of the NEA Dance program: Grants to Dance Companies, Choreographer Fellowships, Dance/Film/Video, Grants to
Presenters, General Services to the Field and Special Projects. Master Teacher/Mentor
84
grants were also awarded in some years. In this section of this thesis, grantees have been examined through three different lenses: Grantee Type (individual vs. organization); Age of Organization, and Size of Organization. Individual grantees were not included in the age and size examinations. This exclusion will be explained below.
3.3.1 Individual grantees vs. organizations
The last fiscal year in which grants were awarded to individuals was 1995. From
1991 to 1995, grants were available to individuals through Choreographer Fellowships,
Master Teacher/Mentor grants, Dance/Film/Video and Special Projects. While the vast majority of these grants were awarded to choreographers for development of new works or staging of current works, some were for divergent projects. For example, a $20,000 grant to filmmaker Anne Belle in 1991 was awarded through the category of
Dance/Film/Video to support the development of a documentary film on ballet teacher
Stanley Williams. In 1992, a $5,000 grant was awarded to Jeffrey P. Friedman to support an oral history documentation project.
The total grant dollars to individuals in each fiscal year is shown below in Table
3.6. Note that in 1993, the total does not include four Master Teacher/Mentor grants
($20,000 each for a total of $80,000) that were funded through the Arts Education program, not Dance, and were therefore not included in the NEA dance grant database.
85
Grant Dollars to Number of Grants Grant Dollars to Number of Grants Individuals to Individuals Organizations to Organizations 1991 $906,000 57 $7,571,672 227 1992 $971,000 52 $7,573,011 231 1993 $866,000 46 $7,445,667 195 1994 $908,000 52 $6,730,593 152 1995 $1,209,300 93 $5,911,447 127
Table 3.6: Grants and grant dollars to individual artists and organizations from 1991 to
1995.
It is interesting that the last year individuals were eligible for grants, 1995, marked both the highest dollar amount of grants and number of grants awarded to individuals at just over $1.2 million and 93 grants. This was a substantial increase from previous years. The number of grants stayed relatively steady from 1991 to 1994. Grants to individuals totaled 57 in 1991, dropped slightly in 1992 to 52 and even more in 1993 to
46. In 1994, the number of grants returned to the 1992 level of 52. In 1995, the number of grants to the dance field skyrocketed to 93, nearly twice as many as the prior year. See
Figure 3.6 for a visual depiction of this pattern.
86
100
93 90
80
70
60 57
52 52 50 46
40 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Fiscal Year
Figure 3.6: Number of grants to individual dance artists from 1991 to 1995.
$1.3 $1.2 $1.1 $1 $.9 $.8 $.7 $.6 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Fiscal year
Figure 3.7: Dollars to individual dance artists from 1991 to 1995.
In the same period, the grant dollars to individuals increased by just over
$300,000, or about 33 percent. Though this is a tremendous growth in dollars, it does not equal the nearly 80 percent increase in number of grants. This leads to the assumption that though there were more grants awarded to individuals in 1995, the total of each grant
87
was less than those in previous years. In fact, most grants awarded to individuals in 1995 were less than $10,000. The majority of grants awarded to individuals from 1991 to 1994 were more than $10,000.
Further, in 1995, there were many individual artists who received more than one award, seemingly more than prior years. For example, in 1995, Ronald K. Brown received a Choreographer Fellowship for $9,100 and another for $7,000. Mark Howard also received two Choreographer Fellowships of the same amount that year. In total in
1995, five choreographers received two Choreographer Fellowships each for $9,100 and
$7,000. No choreographers received more than one grant in 1992, 1993 or 1994. In
1991, only two choreographers received multiple awards—Pearl Primus and Anna
Halprin—$20,000 for Individual Choreographer Fellowships and $15,000 for
Dance/Film/Video.
The ratio of the number of grants to individuals versus organizations remained consistent until 1995. From 1991 to 1994, individuals received between 18 to 25 percent of the total number of grants to the field while organizations received between 75 to 82 percent. In 1995, the ratio of individuals and organizations grants grew considerably closer. In that fiscal year, individuals received 42 percent of the total number of grants while organizations received about 58 percent. Individuals went from receiving one out of every four grants to receiving approximately one out of every 1.3 grants. Though a much higher percentage of grants went to individuals in 1995, the percentage of grant dollars to individuals remained small. In 1991, individuals received about 10 percent of the grant dollars, while organizations received about 90 percent. In 1995, that ratio changed to 17 percent for individuals and 83 percent for organizations. Compared to the
88
percentage increase of number of grants from 1991 to 1995, the grant dollars to individual artists did not change substantially.
Individual artists who received choreographer fellowships from 1991 to 1995 were as diverse in age as they were in genre. In 1993, the Endowment published its
Dancemakers study on choreographers in four U.S. cities, noting its commitment to individual artists and their importance to the strength of American arts.11 Using that
noteworthy year as a snapshot, the choreographer fellowship recipients encompassed a
range of genres, ages, demographics and regions. In that year, 19-year-old tap dance
phenomenon Savion Glover, based in New York, was the youngest choreographer to
receive an NEA fellowship. Three years later in 1996, Glover’s Bring in Da Noise, Bring
in Da Funk debuted on Broadway and earned him multiple Tony Awards. Also in 1993,
tap legends Jimmy Slyde, of Massachusetts, and Cholly Atkins, of Las Vegas, also
received two and three-year fellowships, in their 60s and 80s, respectively. In 1993, as well as 1991 and 1994, long time modern dance choreographer Peal Primus earned fellowships for her work. Flamenco choreographer Susana di Palma Hauser, based in
Minneapolis, received a two-year fellowship in the same year.
3.3.2 Age of organization
The age analysis in this research has only included organizations, not individuals.
To include individuals in such an analysis, would one consider actual age of
choreographer or years of experience? If experience, one might consider the number of
years the individual worked as a professional artist, as some grantees were emerging,
while others were established. This information is exceptionally difficult to obtain and
could be unreliable. Many artists worked as dancers for many years before turning to
89
choreography. Should their time as dancers be considered in determining the length of their career, if they were awarded a grant for choreography? Other artists were multidisciplinary. Should their time as visual or film artists be considered for choreographic awards? For these reasons, individuals have been excluded from the study of grantee age herein.
The organization age has been determined by its date founded. In most cases, the date founded was obtained through and provided by the NEA. In some cases, the data was obtained through GuideStar, an extensive database of information on nonprofit organizations which includes Internal Revenue Service 990 tax forms, mission and program information, director and board directories and more.12 Organization websites
were accessed to provide the date founded if not listed on Guidestar.org.
As noted in Chapter 2, the six organization age categories used in the study, in 10-
year increments, ranged from less than 10 years to 50 years or more. The category of
Unknown was included for grantees for which a founding date could not be discerned
through any resource. This accounted for only one to two percent in most years, while
1991 and 1992 were four and five percent, respectively. Some of these organizations
likely ceased operations. Some may have been so small they do not have websites and do
not provide detailed information to GuideStar or other websites that track and
disseminate nonprofit organization statistics.
90
45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
1991 30.0% 1992 1994 25.0% 1995 1996 1997 20.0% 1998 1999 2000 15.0% 1993
10.0%
5.0% Percent of total grants to organizations to grants of total Percent
0.0% <10 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50+ Unknown Age
Figure 3.8: Percent of grants to each age category (includes organizations only) from
1991 to 2000.
There is a strong pattern running through all the years when observing the age of grantee organizations based on date founded. In fact, a remarkable balance materializes overall; not through the age categories in each year, but through the years in the proportions of category percentages. From 1997 to 2000, the years following the restructured grant process, the distribution pattern was strikingly similar for each year.
The distribution patterns from 1991 to 1996 were much less balanced, with 1996 being the least similar pattern to any other years studied. In that year alone, the most grantee organizations were between 20 and 29 years old. This category also received the most
91
grant dollars, nearly $2 million. Four organizations, established in 1976, moved into this category after being in the category below in 1995. Perhaps the increased 20 to 29 year old organizations in 1996 reflected a strategic move by the agency to support more established companies. However, upon closer inspection, there were only three more organizations in the 20 to 29 category than the 10 to 19 category in 1996, 41 and 39 respectively. That these two categories had such similar numbers of grantees is itself significant, as this rarely happened in any of the years.
Other than 1996, the majority of grantee organizations during most years were 10 to 19 years old, with 20 to 29 coming second. In the distance were low percentages in all the other categories; for the most part, they remained well under 15 percent. The fewest organizations were between 40 and 49. In 1991, about 20 percent of grantees were less than 10 years old. By 1996, when restructuring was beginning, that number dropped to just three percent.
This pattern of organization age is consistent with the dance boom of the 1980s.
As noted in the genre section below, a significant number of grantees organizations were modern dance companies. Numerous small modern dance companies were founded in the mid to late 1980s and would have been on the cusp of the youngest age category in this study. In 1991, young organizations awarded grants included Urban Bush Women, founded in 1984; Bebe Miller Company, founded in 1985, and Deborah Slater Dance
Theater, founded in 1989. By the mid 1990s, many of the small companies established in the 1980s had disbanded. Considerably fewer companies were established during the turbulent arts environment of the 1990s. Thus, though 20 percent of grantee organizations in 1991 were less than 10 years old, by the end of the decade this category
92
contained less than 10 percent of grantees. The dance companies and service organizations established in the 1980s that endured the early 1990s had surpassed the youngest age category by the end of the decade.
The number of organizations age 50 and older was no more than seven percent until the years of restructuring, when this category remained 10 to 11 percent of total grantee organizations. It is likely that most of the organizations in the 40 to 49 category moved up through these years. Most of the oldest organizations were not dance companies, but academic institutions and service and presenting organizations. These included Jacob’s Pillow Dance Festival in Massachusetts, the Dance Notation Bureau and the University of Washington. Dance companies in that age category were primarily ballet, as the San Francisco Ballet and American Ballet Theatre. The Martha Graham
Center for Contemporary Dance, founded in 1936, was the only modern dance company
(not presenting organization) in this age category until 1996, when the Limón Dance
Company, founded in 1946, graduated from the category below. This lack of NEA grantees that were modern or other dance companies aged 50 or older in the 1990s was an accurate representation of the field. Few modern dance organizations were founded prior to the 1940s, as the genre was relatively new; even fewer lasted through the 1990s, whether due to the founder’s death or departure, financial instability or other reasons.
After analyzing the data, it appears that older, more established dance organizations were not necessarily provided more support than younger organizations.
However, to thoroughly examine this trend, all applicants in the dance field should be studied, as the grant recipient data raises some questions. Perhaps established organizations that did not receive grants did not, in fact, apply for NEA grants, instead
93
focusing their efforts on other funding sources. Older and more established organizations likely did not need to make use of the NEA as a catalyst for private support. With less funding and more competition, older organizations may have opted not to submit an application. A 2001 Dance/USA Snap Facts indicated large and medium ballet companies (typically older, more established companies) garnered 79 percent of individual donor contributions in 1999.13 With such a commanding stronghold in the
pool of individual giving, these dance companies may have deemed NEA funds of lesser
consequence.
3.3.3 Size of organization
Size of grantee organizations is worth evaluating because of what it could say
about the power of larger organizations to garner more funding from multiple resources, including government grants. Does a larger organization have a better ability to reach larger audiences, thus generating a wider distribution of the artistic product to a larger
population? Organizations with more money, in most cases, are afforded more
opportunities to expand their reach through touring, though extensive touring later
becomes too expensive for some large companies. They devote more money towards
larger and greater numbers of productions, as well as have larger budgets for marketing,
development and other administrative functionalities. But did their size earn them more
Endowment grants in the 1990s? Did they have an advantage over smaller organizations,
which outnumbered large organizations in the field?
As outlined in Chapter 2, the size of the grantees was coded based on the total contributed and earned income of the organization. In most cases, the income was
obtained through and provided by the NEA. In some cases, the data was obtained
94
through GuideStar, an extensive catalog of information on nonprofit organizations including Internal Revenue Service 990 tax forms, mission and program information, director and board directories and more.12 Any additional information needed to properly identify and categorize an organization was accessed through the organization’s website.
Size specifications utilized herein were structured similarly to classifications of
Dance/USA in its May 2001 Snap Facts.13 Individual artists were omitted from this
analysis, but all organization grantees—companies, service organizations, dance
presenters, etc.—were included. The five coding categories used to determine
organization size are listed in Chapter 2 and range from Large, with an income of $5
million or more, to Small Other, with a total income of $199,999 or less.
In three fiscal years, I was unable to obtain enough data to determine the size of
only less than one percent of grantees. These organizations of unknown size—one in
1991, two in 1992 and three in 1995—were minor and did not affect the rest of the data.
Size was determined for all other organizational grantees in all other years of the study.
Figure 11 below depicts the breakdown of grants to each of the six size groups
(five sizes and Unknown) and does not include individual artists.
95
Size by percentage
100% 90% Unknown 80% 70% Small Other 60% Medium Other 50% 40% Large Other 30% Medium 20% 10% Large 0% Percentage of size category 1 3 5 7 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 1 Fiscal year
Figure 3.9: Percent of grants to each size category (includes organizations only) from
1991 to 2000.
3.3.3.1 Overall Observations
There was a substantial range of organization sizes in each year of funding. Many organizations had incomes less than $25,000; one such organization was the Academy of
Indian Performing Arts in Massachusetts, with a budget just under $3,000, which received $5,000 grants for Creation and Presentation in 1999 and 2000. On the other end of the spectrum, other organizations that were awarded grants had incomes more than $20 million. One example is New York City Ballet with an income of approximately $38 million, which received grants consistently throughout the years studied of $100,000 or more.
96
According to the Dance/USA May 2001 Snap Facts, the majority of dance companies drawn from Dance/USA’s annual data survey in 1999 had budgets between
$200,000 and $860,000, and those with budgets between $1 and $5 million came in second.13 As explained in the following paragraphs, similar results were found in this
thesis analysis of NEA grantees. The Dance/USA survey did not track companies with
budgets less than $200,000.
3.3.3.2 Large
Not surprisingly, a relatively small percentage of organizations were considered in the category of Large. Less than 15 percent of grantees each year had incomes of $5 million or more. Additionally, most of these organizations were based in New York and were long-standing ballet companies like the New York City Ballet, founded in 1948, with an income of $38 million by 2000. Other large organizations included the American
Ballet Theatre and San Francisco Ballet, with budgets of $25 million and $20 million respectively by fiscal year 2000, and the Boston Ballet and the Joffrey Ballet, each with an income of about $11 million.
Some organizations that fell into this category were academic institutions, like the
University of California and The Ohio State University Research Foundation, with grants going to special projects or research. Other large organizations were presenting organizations such as the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington
DC, and New York’s Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, both with incomes of more
than $70 million.
After 1997, the first full year of the restructured grant process, the percentage of
grantees that had incomes of $5 million or more dropped to about 10 percent. Perhaps
97
this reflected an attempt by the NEA to fund more small and medium-sized organizations, or provide a wider distribution of funds.
3.3.3.3 Medium
Medium-sized organizations, with a total income between $1 million and
$4,999,999, included organizations such as Dance St. Louis with a budget of about $2 million and Ohio’s BalletMet Columbus with a budget of just under $5 million. This category of organizations received between 22 and 32 percent of grants throughout the decade. The category jumped 10 percent from 1995 to 1996 when it reached its peak at
32 percent, more than twice the percentage of grants to organizations in the category of
Small Other. Nine more grants were distributed to Medium-sized organizations in 1996 than 1995. The increase in dollars to the category from $1.6 million to $2.2 million can be attributed to a $1 million grant to the New England Foundation for the Arts. The category dropped in both numbers and dollars in 1997. With the exception of 1996 and
1997, the Medium category maintained a percentage similar to that of Small Other throughout the decade.
3.3.3.4 Large Other
Large Other organizations made up a modest percentage of total grantees. In fact, this category included no more than five percent of grantee organizations in any year and in 1997, the first year of the thematic grant categories, only about one percent of grantees were considered Large Other. This is anticipated, as the category included organizations with incomes between $860,000 and $999,999, an extremely narrow budget range.
98
Because the budget range was so restricted, some organizations moved up or down from this category in different fiscal years of the study, based on slight variances in income level. Organizations in this category included Pilobolus, a modern dance company with an income just under $900,000 and Garth Fagan Dance, another modern dance company with an income of about $950,000. Pilobolus moved to the Medium category in later years of the study as its income level grew. On the contrary, because
Garth Fagan Dance’s income decreased a small amount in one year, it dropped to the category of Medium Other for fiscal year 1999.
3.3.3.5 Medium Other
The majority of grantees in all years fell into the category of Medium Other, with a total income between $200,000 and $859,999. As this size category was broad, the number of grantees included is not surprising. In 1997, the first year of full implementation of restructuring, this category saw its highest percentage. An overwhelming 47 percent of grantee organizations fell into Medium Other in that year.
Organizations in the Medium Other category included the dance company Murray
Louis & Nikolais Dance with an income of about $400,000; the Texas presenting organization Dance Umbrella Austin with an income of more than $250,000, and the national service organization Dance/USA with an income just over $800,000.
3.3.3.6 Small Other
In most years, the percentage of grantee organizations with an income of
$199,999 or less hovered in the low to mid 20s. However, in 1996 and 1997, when funding dropped and the restructured grant process had begun, this category dipped to
99
just 15 and 10 percent of total grantee organizations, respectively. Organizations in these years included the New York Baroque Dance Company, with a total income just about
$195,000, Manhattan Tap, with an income about $75,000, and Guateque Folkloric Taller of Puerto Rico, with an income about $50,000.
Why were so few small dance organizations awarded NEA grants? One possibility is that there were few organizations with such a small budget that were registered 501(c) 3 nonprofits. However, even organizations without nonprofit status could apply for grants by means of a fiscal agent. Another reason could be a lack of small organizations nationwide. Finally, did these small organizations fail to apply for
NEA grants as readily or consistently as organizations with larger budgets? To answer these questions, a list of grant applicants, not only award recipients, would need to be obtained from the Endowment’s archive.
3.4 Genre Distribution
Genre was examined for all grantees, both individuals and organizations. In instances where the grantee was not a dance company, such as service organizations, dance presenters and others, genre was difficult to determine, if possible at all. Many projects awarded grants in these categories could not be identified in a certain genre, as these organizations worked with multiple dance genres. Also, prior to restructuring, grants were not commonly awarded for specific projects and, instead, for general program support. This made it even more difficult to identify the principal genre of some organizations.
Individual artists were also difficult to categorize in a genre analysis for reasons similar to those noted above. Many of the individual artists that were awarded grants
100
could have been considered crossover artists. Many had choreographed for multiple venues and genres. A few were not choreographers primarily, but, rather, documentary filmmakers or others earning grants to produce works about choreographers, dancers or the dance field. Also, choreographer projects were typically not specifically acknowledged in NEA annual reports; therefore, genre identification for many choreographers was discerned through additional research.
As noted above, many artists worked in numerous genres and could have been considered crossover artists. Examples of crossover artists include Jerome Robbins, who worked predominantly in concert dance, but for Broadway and jazz, too. Another example of a crossover choreographer is Alonzo King. King and his company, Lines
Ballet, draw influences not only from modern dance, but also from traditional African dance. One other prolific artist, Twyla Tharp, is commonly considered a modern dance choreographer with a modern dance company. However, Tharp has created works for ballet companies, Broadway, film, ice-skating productions, opera and more. Clearly, her artistic influences have been expansive and have inspired a varied career in multiple genres and venues, making her a prime example of one of the most successful crossover artists today.
Taking these issues into consideration, genre categories are as follows: ballet, modern, folk/ethnic, other and mixed. A category of Unknown was also utilized when genre was unidentifiable. Unknown genres accounted for no more than one percent of grantees in any given year, having little to no effect on the overall genre analysis.
Grantees were placed in the genre category that best described the majority of their work. However, the categorization does not attempt to describe the entirety of the
101
grantee’s work. The categories of Ballet, Modern, Folk/Ethnic and Other were taken directly from the NEA dance grant database. The category of Mixed was included in this analysis to account for organizations or individual artists that were not genre-specific.
Many service organizations and presenting organizations are examples of some of the grantees that fell into this category. Crossover choreographers, as those mentioned above, that worked in multiple venues and genres such as concert dance and Broadway are examples of individual grantees that fell under Mixed.
The categories of Ballet and Modern are largely transparent. Ballet included both classical and contemporary ballet. Modern included modern and post-modern dance, as well as dance described as contemporary. Folk/Ethnic included traditional and heritage dance forms including Indian, Native-American, West African, Japanese, Irish, Flamenco and more. The category of Other included dance genres that do not fall under Ballet,
Modern or Folk/Ethnic. Tap, jazz and ballroom are all examples of genres that classified as Other in this analysis.
Table 3.7 shows the percentage (plus or minus about one percent) of total grants to each genre, including organizations and individuals from 1991 to 1995.
102
Ballet Modern Folk/Ethnic Other Mixed Unknown 1991 12% 34% 8% 7% 38% <1% 1992 13% 36% 8% 6% 36% 1% 1993 12% 36% 11% 7% 34% 0% 1994 17% 44% 11% 8% 21% 0% 1995 16% 45% 12% 9% 17% 1% 1996 28% 37% 13% 3% 20% 0% 1997 17% 40% 9% 3% 31% 0% 1998 20% 37% 13% 5% 25% 0% 1999 20% 31% 13% 3% 32% 0% 2000 21% 33% 10% 7% 30% 0%
Table 3.7: Percent of total grants to each dance genre category from 1991 to 2000.
Includes organizations through all years and individual artists from 1991 to 1995.
3.4.1 Modern
As might be expected, modern led the dance genres in number of grants and dollar amounts throughout most of the period studied. The category accounted for between 31 and 45 percent of the number of grants. With smaller budgets and fewer dancers, modern dance companies outnumbered ballet companies in the United States, as did modern dance choreographers. Additionally, many modern choreographers were not affiliated with companies. Many Choreographer Fellowships between 1991 and 1995 were awarded to modern dance artists. Not surprisingly, modern dance experienced its most significant drop in percentage of grants when individual artist grants were eliminated, 1996; the category dropped from 45 to 37 percent from 1995 to 1996, the year ballet experienced its largest gain.
The modern dance field surged in the second half of the 20th century with new audiences, highly trained dancers, and opportunities for funding and presentation.
103
Meanwhile, ballet lost pioneer George Balanchine in the 1980s and some classically trained dancers and choreographers explored other disciplines, particularly modern. As stated in No Fixed Points: Dance in the Twentieth Century, “ballet choreography in the later years of the boom could be viewed as a recycling or reprocessing of existing ideas.”14 Though this may not explain the pattern of ballet’s proportion of NEA funding,
it is an interesting examination of the field’s challenges at the end of the century.
Another reason modern dance maintained such a presence in NEA grants from
1991 to 2000 could have been its inherent connection to academia. Modern dance has
historically been represented in higher education far more than ballet or other dance
genres. This could imply that modern dance artists had a better awareness of funding
opportunities, as well as, perhaps, a better knowledge of the grant application process.
This could explain why so many modern dance artists and organizations earned direct
support from the Endowment. It is possible modern dance dominated the overall pool of
NEA grant applicants. A database of all applicants, not only grant recipients, would be
necessary to properly test this hypothesis.
3.4.2 Ballet
Ballet maintained between about 12 and 17 percent of the number of grants until
it peaked in 1996, the first year Choreographer Fellowships had been eliminated. In this
year, 28 percent of grants went to ballet organizations or 32 grants totaling more than
$1.3 million. Since few Choreographer Fellowships had been awarded to ballet artists, it
seems logical that the elimination of individual artist grants essentially increased ballet’s
percentage of total grants. Following ballet’s pinnacle in 1996, however, the category
dropped to approximately 17 percent and increased slightly to 21 percent by 2000. In
104
that year, large companies including Joffrey Ballet, Atlanta Ballet and BalletWest did receive grants, as well as smaller companies like Ballet Concierto de Puerto Rico, which received $7,100 in 1996.
As noted above, there were significantly fewer ballet companies than modern companies in the 1990s. Ballet companies tended to have high budgets and many dancers. This is one reason there were few such companies compared to modern dance troupes, which generally had smaller budgets and fewer dancers. Additionally, the majority of choreographers in the ballet genre were affiliated with companies as artistic directors, artistic associates or resident choreographers; others may have been categorized as mixed genre, working beyond the scope of ballet. Yet another possible reason NEA grant recipients in modern dance outnumbered those in ballet was a divide between individual contributions; ballet companies tend to earn a larger portion of individual contributions. Of the $54 million that individuals contributed to medium and large dance companies in 1999, Dance/USA reported that large and medium ballet companies earned more than 79 percent of the total.13
3.4.3 Folk/Ethnic
Folk and Ethnic organizations and individuals received between eight and 13
percent of grants between 1991 and 2000, reaching 13 percent in 1996, the first year
individual artist grants had been eliminated. Grantees included North Carolina’s African
American Dance Ensemble, the Caribbean Dance Company of the Virgin Islands, and the
New York Chinese Cultural Center. Folk and Ethnic organizations received 13 percent
again in 1998 and 1999.
105
In 1998, new Congressional mandates were set. There was a 15 percent cap on the amount of grants distributed to organizations in any one state, excluding national or multi-state impact projects. Additionally, projects that reached underserved populations took precedence above other projects.15 These new mandates could have influenced the
increase in grants to folk and ethnic organizations. As might be expected, many of the
grants to folk- or ethnic-based organizations post-restructuring were for projects under
the revised NEA thematic grant categories of Heritage and Preservation or Education and
Access. This compares to other genres, which received the majority of grants for
Creation and Presentation.
3.4.4 Other
Grantees in the category of Other genres received by far the smallest percentage
of grants in all years. From 1995 to 1996, the category’s percentage dropped by about
two-thirds, from nine to three percent. In this period, the number of grants dropped from
19 to 3. This could be attributed to the large number of individual artists categorized as
Other. Few tap, ballroom, or other companies existed in the 1990s, far less than those of
ballet, modern and even ethnic. Further, the category’s fraction of grants could suggest
that many artists in the genres found support through other venues. Perhaps some
choreographers in jazz, tap, hip-hop or other genres found opportunities in for-profit
industries including music videos, Broadway and television; these industries often feature
genres infrequently presented in the concert world and would not have been eligible for
NEA support.
106
3.4.5 Mixed
Organizations and individuals in the category of Mixed genre decreased from
1993 to 1994, dropping from 34 to 21 percent of total grants. Fiscal year 1993 included numerous presenting organizations that would be considered mixed genre presenters.
These included multiple grants to Boston Dance Umbrella, Colorado Dance Festival,
Florida Dance Association and more. The following year, there were fewer grants to such organizations, as well as fewer mixed genre grantees that received more than one award.
The mixed genre category fluctuated in the second half of the decade, settling at about 30 percent of total grants in 2000 with 53 grants. Grantees in 2000 included service organizations like the International Association of Blacks in Dance which received a $20,000 grant for Planning and Stabilization; presenting organizations such as the Anchorage Concert Association which received $40,000 for Creation and
Presentation, and educational facilities including Tulane University, which received
$5,000 under the thematic grant category of Heritage and Preservation.
3.4.6 Genre Conclusion
While it is no surprise that modern dance maintained a strong presence in all years of funding, mixed genre grantees also held strong. Both decreased slightly by 2000. If some mixed genre grants had been reclassified as modern, the most reasonable genre for many grant recipients, modern dance would have far surpassed every other genre in grants throughout the decade. By 2000, ballet’s percentage of grants increased, as did the
107
percentage of grants for ethnic or folk projects, while grants in other genres remained at the level they did at the beginning of the study, in 1991.
1 The total for grants presented in each annual report and in this database differs slightly from the total grant obligations reported in three of the fiscal years studied. In 1992, total grants under the category of dance as reported in the annual report was $8,544,011, while the total obligations reported in the annual report under the category of dance were $8,194,011. In 1993, grants totaled $8,311,667 and obligations totaled $7,911,667. Finally, in 1996, grants totaled $4,378,580 and obligations totaled $3,028,580. Occasionally, grants are awarded based on previous year obligations; because the grant dollars provided in these instances were obligated in a prior year, the total grant dollars can differ from the reported fiscal year obligations. I have examined both the actual dollars of grants awarded and the obligations for each fiscal year. But for the primary study, the actual grant dollars awarded—those listed in annual reports and in the utilized database—have been used. 2 Grant amounts to other disciplines could not be determined from 1997 to 2000, as annual reports were organized by thematic categories, not disciplines. Grants by discipline are available at
108
CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSION
When the NEA took its shocking budget cut and faced restructuring, including a new grant process, the field prophesied a bleak and disastrous outcome, as noted in
Chapter 2. I also hypothesized that restructuring would devastate the field. Once the
NEA grant structure moved from discipline-based to functional or thematic categories, it seems, after analyzing the data, the dance field did not experience the damage expected.
Based on the data analysis before and after restructuring, the field carried on and remained competitive in the revised system.
I expected to find that NEA funding to the field of dance decreased and that the field destabilized drastically following the restructuring for two primary reasons. First, dance companies were forced to complete with other disciplines, instead of just other dance companies. Further, individual choreographers were unable to apply for federal funding, unless they applied through a company. I thought that a majority of grants would be given to the Creation and Presentation category to large and medium sized ballet and modern companies. In fact, many of these assumptions proved incorrect based on the grant recipient data analysis.
109
4.1 Summary of Findings
Interesting patterns take shape in each of the variables examined in Chapter 3, providing an historical perspective of the field. In looking at organization age, size and genre collectively within dance companies, a number of factors come into play. Many choreographers emerged with companies of their own in the 1980s. Modern dance was the genre of choice for many, as it offered flexibility and versatility. These young modern dance companies that emerged in the 1980s were generally small, with few dancers and limited budgets. Larger, longstanding companies were primarily ballet based, save for a few standouts including Merce Cunningham Dance, Alvin Ailey
American Dance Theater, and Martha Graham Company. Ballet productions typically require many dancers and, particularly for full-length classical ballets, large sets and scenery, costumes and large theaters to accommodate such productions. Thus, ballet companies by nature traditionally necessitate larger budgets than other genres and, for this reason, were fewer in numbers than modern dance companies.
As noted in No Fixed Points: Dance in the Twentieth Century, “when the giants—
Balanchine, Ashton, Tudor, Graham, Robbins—all died in the 1980s and 1990s, there was no one in mid-career of equivalent stature waiting to replace them.”1 This could
have assisted in the slight slow down of the creation of new companies and a testing
transition period for a number of established companies whose founders had to be
replaced. After the tremendous growth in the decades before, the 1990s marked a new
era for dance companies and individual artists; the field was transforming in tandem with
dwindling federal support. Companies had to increase the energy spent on organizational
110
funding, seeking new avenues for support and reevaluating their applications to the
NEA.1
While NEA funds decreased, private support was on the rise. According to a
2001 Dance/USA report on individual contributions to dance companies throughout the
1990s, individual contributions grew from $41 million in 1990 to nearly $54 million in
1999 (both in 1999 dollars).2 A study by the Foundation Center found that though,
overall, foundation funding for the performing arts grew moderately from 1992 to 1996,
the dance field’s share of funding increased and, in fact, the field progressed better than
many other performing arts, experiencing “above average growth.”3 Also, as NEA grants
were becoming increasingly specific and project-oriented, unrestricted operating support
by foundations grew more quickly than program or capital support.4 The Southeast
region had the quickest growth in foundation funding.5 Finally, most grants were smaller
than in past years and they were more widespread. These positive statistics on funding
sources beyond the NEA may have offset the drop in federal subsidy.
4.1.1 Geographic Findings
After NEA grant restructuring, grants to southern states increased. It appears
restructuring actually helped the dance field in the south. From 1996 to 1997, the south’s
percentage of total grant dollars rose considerably and stayed above previous years
through 2000. In 2000 it received 27 percent of grant dollars, including two large
Leadership Initiative grants to dance organizations; without these grants, the region still
received 13 percent of grant dollars, the share earned in 1999. With the exception of a
sudden drop in 1997, the south’s percentage of total grants to the dance field rose after
restructuring. Figure 4.1 demonstrates these patterns. New grant recipients included
111
ethnic companies like the 15-year-old Spanish Dance Arts Company, which received a grant through Creation and Presentation, as well as organizations that focused on underserved populations, like the Florene Litthcut’s Inner City Children’s Touring Dance
Company, with a budget of less than $200,000, which received a grant through Heritage and Preservation. While several organizations in the south remained consistent grant recipients throughout the 1990s, including Dance/USA and DC Wheel Productions, new grant recipients in the second half of the decade provided a distribution pattern in line with the Endowment’s renewed sense of purpose through project diversity and geographic reach.
30%
25%
Grant 20% Dollars
15% Number of Grants
10% Percent of Total Grants to Dance
5%
0% 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Fiscal year
Figure 4.1: Dance grant distribution to the south, 1991-2000.
Another interesting geographic trend discerned through the NEA grant recipient database is the diffusion of organizations throughout the U.S, in the 1990s. A number of
112
organizations left the cultural center of New York City in the 1990s and moved elsewhere, most notably the Joffrey Ballet, which moved to Chicago in 1995. Other organizations originated in diverse corners of the country. Grant recipient Zenon Dance
Company and School, for example, was founded in 1983 in Minnesota. Ballet Espanol, another product of the 1980s dance boom, was based in Kentucky. Also based in the south was grant recipient Thalia Mara Arts International Foundation, founded in 1991 in
Mississippi. It is a surprise that, in the latter years of this study, though there was less money and more competition for NEA support, the field actually became more dispersed throughout the country rather than retreating to the relative security of New York City.
The decentralized funding system may have fueled this migration of companies. In 1998,
Congress mandated a 15 percent cap on the total dollars to grants to organizations in any one state. NEA program funds to state arts agencies increased in the mid and late 1990s, as well. It’s possible that moving out of the concentrated areas of New York and
California provided organizations a better chance at local funding; though there was increased competition for federal subsidy, there could have been less competition for state, regional and local subsidy, due to the 15 percent cap set in place in 1998.
Dancers and choreographers also moved throughout the country in the 1990s and into the 21st century. The NEA’s 2008 Artists in the Workforce research report found that
the southern and western areas of the nation saw the most growth of working artists
through 2005, with 29 percent of total artists in each region.6 This is consistent with the
increase of NEA grants to southern states in the late 1990s. The same report ranked the states by ratio of artists to population; the five states with the highest number of dancers
and choreographers, based on population, were western states, with Nevada in top place,
113
likely due to casinos, revues and other opportunities in Las Vegas. New York ranked seventh in the study.6 In the mid 1990s, several dance organizations moved out of New
York, several to western states: the Institute for Spanish Arts (New Mexico); Stephanie
Skura’s Cranky Destroyers (Washington), and the National Performance Network
(California). The National Performance Network later moved to Louisiana and the
Spanish Dance Arts Company moved from New York to North Carolina, reinforcing the
growth of the arts in the south toward the end of the twentieth century.
4.1.2 Grantee Type Findings
The impact of grant process restructuring on the dance field was expected to be
devastating due to the elimination of choreographer fellowships. While the dance field
was impacted by restructuring and choreographers lost an important source of funding
and national recognition, the effect was not as severe as anticipated, as evidenced by the
grant recipient data analysis. First, dance artists were still eligible for National Heritage
Fellowships, albeit by nomination only, through the new structure. Though there were
considerably less awards available with more competition from all arts disciplines,
choreographers and dancers received the prize, including Lindy hop choreographer
Frankie Manning, tap dance legend Jimmy Slyde and African American dancer Norma
Miller.7 Between 1991 and 1995, the dance field received on average about 5.8 percent of total obligations. In 1996, the first year grants to individuals were eliminated, the field’s percentage of total available obligations dropped to 4.7. While this is just over a one percent drop, it is comparable to other disciplines and less of a drop than that experienced by the disciplines of museums and music, as noted in Chapter 3. In fact, the dance field received about 14 percent of total program funds obligated in 1996, the
114
highest percentage of funds allotted to the dance field in all years studied, as noted in
Chapter 1.
Many of the choreographers who received fellowships from 1991 to 1995 are still thriving dance artists today, earning other prominent fellowships including the
MacArthur Foundation grants and New York Dance and Performance “Bessie” Awards.
Many NEA fellows likely received commissions from companies that received grants for
Creation and Presentation. Others were able to found companies of their own and receive
NEA grants. Others took residencies in academic institutions or seized opportunities in for-profit venues, enabling them to continue their choreographic endeavors. Fellowship recipient Elizabeth Streb founded her company STREB/Ringside in the late 1970s and continued to receive NEA grants for the company after individual awards were eliminated. Fellowship recipient Trey McIntyre was Choreographic Associate for the
Houston Ballet, choreographed works for a number of leading ballet companies, and founded his own touring company in 2005 not based in New York, but in Boise, Idaho.8
4.1.3 Genre Findings
Mixed genre organizations and individual artists claimed a significant percentage
of total NEA funds to the dance field each year. The percentage dropped sharply from
1993 to 1994 and again in 1995, likely due to a few six-figure grants to ballet giants
including American Ballet Theatre, New York City Ballet and San Francisco Ballet for
home season and touring support. The percentage of mixed genre recipients rose through
1997 and fluctuated through the rest of the period. Figure 4.2 shows the mixed genre
percentage of dance grants through the 1990s.
115
40 38 36 34 30 31 32 30 25 20 21 20 17 10
Percent of grants of Percent 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Fiscal year
Figure 4.2: Percent of total dance grants to mixed genre individuals and organizations
There is a caveat concerning the mixed genre delineation. Such categorization is,
of course, highly subjective, particularly in terms of categorizing individual artists. Many of the mixed genre organizations and individuals create and present a greater amount of work in modern than other genres. Presenting organization Jacob’s Pillow Dance
Festival began as a home for modern dance pioneer Ted Shawn and his all-male company, but today presents a variety of dance artists and companies including tap dancer Savion Glover, Ballet Flamenco Eva Yerbabuena and Boston Repertory Ballet, according to the Festival’s website. Choreographer Fellowship recipient Deborah
Gladstein was categorized as mixed genre because of her experimental movement and incorporation of Tai Chi; however, her training includes modern dance artist Meredith
Monk and her performance experience includes modern dance choreographer Bill T.
Jones, according to deborahgladstein.com.8 In fact, most artists and organizations
categorized as mixed genre have at least some modern background and influence.
116
Perhaps this says something about the adaptability of this genre, or its nature to easily merge with so many other genres and arts disciplines. Another possibility is that many of these artists branched out into genres beyond modern after the Endowment eliminated
Choreographer Fellowships, broadening their opportunities after losing this source of federal support.
4.2 Further Research
To adequately understand the picture of the NEA and the dance field, one must study not only grant recipients in the field, but all grant applicants in the field. Such research will provide even more insight into the relationship between the NEA and the dance field. Additionally, an analysis of grants awarded in one decade only provides a snapshot of the Endowment’s more than 40-year history. For a more detailed perspective of federal funding to the dance field, further research ought to include more years of grants, including an analysis of several more years following the grant process restructuring and elimination of Choreographer Fellowships. I would predict that a study of grants awarded in years beyond restructuring would offer similar results to those in this thesis. I would expect to find about the same number of established organizations and perhaps a stream of new, small organizations. I would expect the genre distribution to be similar, with modern dance leading the group. A geographic analysis, perhaps, would show a continued trend of wider dispersion.
Another area of research that would contribute to the discussion initiated in this thesis is the accessibility and patterns of additional funding resources in the 1990s. How were state, local and regional funds to the dance field distributed in comparison to this national perspective? What trends were visible in private philanthropy to the field? How
117
did these funding streams change following the NEA restructuring, and what new funding opportunities have emerged?
4.3 Conclusion
From 1991 to 2000, the NEA faced serious overhauls in its structure, purpose and practice. The agency’s function seemed to shift from primarily serving artists to serving the public. In the early 1990s, grants were given to artists and arts organizations, fostering and encouraging artistic excellence. Toward the end of the decade and the turn of the century, grants became more project-specific and were offered only to organizations, with a few exceptions. The emphasis shifted from artists and disciplines to projects and public good. More money was distributed to state and regional partners to redistribute to artists and organizations. The agency was driven to provide to communities rather than provide direct support to artists. Programs and policies were in place that ensured all areas of the nation had access to the arts. Arts policy became more about the product and its significance to the community and the American arts landscape, not individual organizations or artists. The NEA’s transformation likely influenced the dance field’s own evolution.
Diversity and distribution of grant funds became more important over the years.
By the late 1990s, the NEA focused more on equitable geographic distribution. The
ArtsREACH program initiated in 1998, for example, brought funds to the states where
NEA grants were most underrepresented in the past. Attention was paid to multicultural or diverse projects as well as multi-state and projects with national significance. These trends in the Endowment impacted the dance field’s patterns of diversity and geographic
118
distribution. Today, dance artists and organizations exist throughout the country, and not just large urban areas, but smaller, rural communities, as well.
Arts education also became a growing priority for the NEA over the decade. As stated earlier, education and outreach grew through new programs and initiatives. Thus, while the agency may have shown less direct support to artists, it sought to cultivate and nurture new generations of artists and arts patrons. Arts education, outreach and engagement became integral components of many dance organizations and continue to be developed in conjunction with many dance projects. Many companies today incorporate community outreach and education through residencies, performances especially for school groups, artist discussions and other activities.
Another area of heightened NEA focus was research, planning and development.
Organizations were encouraged to plan for the future through Planning and Stabilization grants. The dance field received about $1.4 million in this category from 1997 to 2000, roughly five percent of the $26.4 million awarded in this category in those years. The
NEA assisted this through its Planning and Stabilization grants to organizations as well as research projects conducted by the agency through its Policy, Research and Analysis funds. This research component made the agency not only a funding mechanism, but a vehicle for service and, in some ways, advocacy.
The significant restructuring at the NEA in the 1990s drove artists and arts organizations to think differently about their work. Because the NEA restructured its categories according to themes, organizations were required to do the same. Because organizations were limited to one application, they had to think strategically about funding requests. It was imperative to understand audience and purpose of product.
119
Whether they were already doing it or not, they had to make it clear in grant applications and evaluations. Organizations had to think about what projects meant to their community, to the field and to the future of their organization. Moreover, the assessment and evaluation of projects may have become increasingly important due to added grant recipient requirements; organizations were mindful of demonstrating that public funds were applied to successful projects for public benefit.
“During the 1990s, says John Munger, research director for the national service organization Dance/USA, it was typical for no more than six to 10 of the 80 or so companies with budgets over $1 million to cut spending in any given year. Since 2001, at least 20 a year and as many as 44 have been compelled to downsize.”99 Additionally,
many mid sized grant recipient companies went out of business including California’s
AMAN Folk Ensemble and Bay Area Dance Series as well as New York’s Dan Wagoner
Dance Theatre and Codanceco. In the past few years, many companies, particularly
ballet, have been forced to trim their expenses, hiring fewer dancers or offering a shorter
performance season. However, though some organizations closed or downsized, others
found that small could present a more secure niche. Americans for the Arts noted in
2006 that an overwhelming majority of nonprofits in the U.S. in 2001 were small, with budgets of less than $500,000.10 Further, “small and midsized performing arts organizations are much better able than large organizations to serve local and niche
markets; additionally, there is more diversity in their artistic and cultural programming.10
It is clear the field still faces hardship. Changes are taking place based on today’s
economic uncertainty. While some changes may threaten the field, others are
encouraging. Munger said rather than focusing on performances, “what you offer is a
120
complete experience that begins before the performance even starts and may continue afterward.”9 Companies are increasing special events with productions. They are not necessarily changing the artistic product, but making it more engaging and accessible, inviting audiences to artist discussions, behind-the-scenes tours and more.
As the nation experiences challenging economic times, it is imperative for the arts to reflect on their history and evaluate their future. As NEA funds decreased in the
1990s, other funding sources increased. Now, government support for the arts, particularly national-level support, could prove more significant as other funding mechanisms decline, including corporate philanthropy, private donations and, for many dance companies, subscriptions and single ticket sales. As noted above, the economy of the early 21st century has caused arts organizations to think beyond previous funding
models and even artistic products. As a new American President and a new NEA
Chairman are about to enter office and citizens speculate what the future holds, one must
anticipate the unexpected, a new era of national arts policy.
The Endowment’s position as a catalyst for other support systems is still valuable.
NEA grants provide leveraging power and exposure to presenting organizations,
companies and choreographers working with companies, as well as academic institutions
and service organizations. The NEA “may be the nation’s highest-profile arts funder, but
its $144-million budget packs just two-thirds the inflation-adjusted buying power the
agency had at its 1992 peak.”11 It provides less money to each recipient, but instead
provides seed money for more projects in more areas. The Endowment is still an
important resource for the arts, but not necessarily a reliable source of funding. Its role in
arts research offers a useful tool for both arts advancement and public awareness.
121
Further, though on the brink of elimination in the past, the Endowment is still alive, a symbol of the value of the arts in American society.
NEA grants to the dance field from 1991 to 2000 help tell the story of dance in the 1990s. Though matching grants to organizations returned in the 2000s to Access to
Artistic Excellence discipline-based categories, many of the restrictions and guidelines implemented in the 1990s are still in place. The research provided in this thesis is still constructive, as the field will inevitably be impacted by another tide of changing political and economic conditions. As federal support systems evolve, the field must adapt and evaluate the weight the NEA should have in its funding structure. Dance companies and artists were resourceful in a world of uncertainty. The field adapted to changes in federal funding. Though predictions were bleak and debates were heated, the field survived the tumultuous 1990s. Through the end of the century to today, the dance field has grown decentralized, diversified and, in many ways, offers greater numbers of performances available to local communities.12
The findings in this thesis can, perhaps, offer some hope to the dance field.
Though support systems waiver, the dance field’s adaptability is admirable. It was able
to maintain a consistent proportion of grant dollars from the NEA in comparison with
other arts fields, despite restructuring and the elimination of most individual artist
awards. Its relationship with the Endowment can be protected regardless of future policy
transformations or agency reform. It is a sign that the field has the power to overcome
obstacles and remain competitive among all arts disciplines and vital to the American
public.
1 Pps. 532-533. Reynolds, N. & McCormick, M. (2003). No fixed points: Dance in the twentieth century. Yale University Press: New Haven and London.
122
2 Dance/USA (2001). Dance in America: Snap Facts 2001 Individual Donors. Retrieved July 2008.
123 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alper, N., et. al. (1996). Artists in the workforce: Employment and earnings, 1970-1990. National Endowment for the Arts Research Division Report #37. Santa Ana, CA: Seven Locks Press.
American Assembly, The (1997). The Arts and the Public Purpose. Harriman, NY: Arden House.
Americans for the Arts (2006, Spring). Growing culture through smaller arts groups. Americans for the Arts’ ArtsLink, pp.1 and 7.
Atwood, R. (1999, Winter). America’s changing political environment and the defense of the NEA. Attitude-The Dancers’ Magazine, 4-5.
Boehm, M. (2008, September 30). Arts fundraising shifts gears in a perilous economy. The Los Angeles Times.
Carr, C. (1999, September 28). The land of less. The Village Voice, p. 38.
Cherbo, J. & Wyszomirski, M. (2000). Mapping the public life of the arts in America. In J. Cherbo & M. J. Wyszomirski (Eds.), The public life of the arts in America (pp. 3-21). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Choi, J. (2002). American arts policy and the National Endowment for the Arts in the 1990s. Masters thesis, The American University, Washington DC.
Clark, M. (1998, May). Second year of NEA’s new grant structure a battle. Dance Magazine, Vol. 72 Issue 5.
Collins, K. (1999, September). NEA’s Ivey insists outreach essential for dance companies. Dance Magazine, 33.
Concerned Women for America (1997, May 13). The National Endowment for the Arts: Whose Art? Washington DC: Concerned Women for America.
Dance/USA (2001). Dance in America: Snap Facts 2001 Individual Donors. Retrieved July 2008.
124 Efland, A. (1995). Historical research methods for art educators. In P. Smith (Ed.), Art education historical methodology: An insider’s guide to doing and using (pp. 62- 69). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Fields, S. (1997, October 16). Art survives in spite of it all. The Washington Times, p. A17.
George, L. (2002). Organizing bodies: Creating and funding experimental dance in the United States, 1965—2000. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rice University, Houston, TX.
Hearing before the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations and Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives, 105th Cong., (May 13, 1997).
Hearing before the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, on the fiscal year 1995 budget request, 103rd Cong., (April 24, 1994).
Hearing of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, United States Senate, on examining proposed legislation authorizing funds for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, 106th Cong., (May 27, 1999).
Henderson, J. (2005). The State and the Politics of Culture: A Critical Analysis of the National Endowment for the Arts. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America.
Independent Commission, The (1990). A Report to Congress on the National Endowment for the Arts. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.
Kendall, E. (1983). Dancing: A Ford Foundation Report. New York: Ford Foundation.
Marquis, A. (1995). Art Lessons: learning from the rise and fall of public arts funding. New York: BasicBooks.
McCarthy, K., Brooks, A., Lowell, J., & Zakaras, L. (2001). Where are the performing arts headed? In K. McCarthy, A. Brooks, J. Lowell & L. Zakaras. The Performing Arts in a New Era (pp. 107-123). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Mulcahy, K. (1988). The politics of cultural oversight: the reauthorization process and the National Endowment for the Arts. In M. Wyszomirski (Ed.), Congress and the arts: A precarious alliance? (pp. 163-192). New York: ACA Books.
Munger, J. (2001a, April). Dancing with dollars in the millennium: A 10-year summary of trends. Dance Magazine, 3-14.
125
--- (2001b). Wrapping the nineties: highlights from the 1999 data survey. Dance/USA Journal, 17 (2), 14-17, 28.
National Endowment for the Arts (1988). Application guidelines fiscal year 1990. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.
--- (1991). Fiscal year 1991 annual report. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.
--- (1992). Fiscal year 1992 annual report. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.
--- (1993). Fiscal year 1993 annual report. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.
--- (1994). Fiscal year 1994 annual report. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.
--- (1995a). Fiscal year 1995 annual report. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.
--- (1995b). Grants to organizations application guidelines fiscal years 1996-1997. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.
--- (1996). Fiscal year 1996 annual report. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.
--- (1997). Fiscal year 1997 annual report. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.
--- (1998a). Dance organizations report 43 percent growth in economic census: 1987- 1992. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.
--- (1998b). Fiscal year 1998 annual report. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.
--- (1999). Fiscal year 1999 annual report. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.
--- (2000a). Fiscal year 2000 annual report. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.
--- (2000b). The National Endowment for the Arts, 1965-2000: a brief chronology of federal support for the arts. Washington DC: National Endowment for the Arts Office of Communication.
126
--- (2004). How the United States funds the arts. Washington DC: National Endowment for the Arts Office of Research and Analysis.
--- (2006a). A moving partnership: The NEA's 40 years of support of dance. NEA ARTS Vol. 1 pp. 4-5.
--- (2006b). National Endowment for the Arts: A Brief History-1965-2006. An Excerpt: The Beginning Through the Hanks Era. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
--- (2008). Artists in the Workforce: 1990-2005. National Endowment for the Arts Research Report #48. Washington DC: National Endowment for the Arts Research Division.
Netzer, D (1978). The Subsidized Muse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Netzer, D. & Parker, E. (1993). Dancemakers. National Endowment for the Arts Research Report #28. Washington DC: National Endowment for the Arts Research Division.
Nichols, B. & Smith, T. (2001). Growth in the U.S. Dance Fields: Evidence from the 1987, 1992 and 1997 Economic Census. Washington DC: National Endowment for the Arts Research Division.
Nichols, B. (2004). Artist Employment in 2003. Washington DC: National Endowment for the Arts Office of Research and Analysis.
President’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities (1997). Creative America, A Report to the President. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Renz, L. & Lawrence, S. (2003). Arts funding: An update on foundation trends. The Foundation Center in cooperation with Grantmakers in the Arts. New York: The Foundation Center.
Reynolds, N. & McCormick, M. (2003). No Fixed Points: Dance in the Twentieth Century. Yale University Press: New Haven and London.
Smith, T. (2003a, Summer). The effect of NEA grants on the contributions to nonprofit dance companies. The Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society, 98-113.
--- (2003b). Raising the barre: The geographic, financial, and economic trends of nonprofit dance companies. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts Research Division.
127
Stankiewicz, M. (1997). Historical research methods in art education. In S.D. LaPierre and E. Zimmerman (Eds.), Research methods and methodologies for art education (pp. 57-73). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Stokrocki, M. (1997). Qualitative forms of research methods. In S.D. LaPierre and E. Zimmerman (Eds.), Research methods and methodologies for art education (pp. 33-55). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, 104th Cong., (January 26, 1995).
Testimony before the United States Senate Appropriations Committee, 104th Cong., (May 8, 1996).
Testimony of Marshall Wittman Director of Legislative Affairs Christian Coalition before the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations United States House of Representatives, 104th Cong., (March 24, 1995).
Trescott, J. (1997, February 26). Presidential panel calls for doubled cultural funding. Report also recommends private sector intitiatives. The Washington Post, p. D01. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Outlook Handbook 2008-2009. Washington DC: Office of Occupational Statistics and Employment Projections.
Walsh, J.D. (1991, November 18). Art and government. Roll Call, Letters.
Wyszomirski, M. (1995a). From accord to discord: arts policy during and after the culture wars. In K. Mulcahy & M. Wyszomirski (Eds.), America’s commitment to culture: Government and the arts (pp. 1-46). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
--- (1996). From Nancy Hanks to Jane Alexander: Generating support for art’s sake at the National Endowment for the Arts. In Loverd, R., Leadership for the public service: power and policy in action (pp. 121-149). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
--- (1995b). The Politics of arts policy: subgovernment to issue network. In K. Mulcahy & M. Wyszomirski (Eds.), American’s commitment to culture: Government and the arts (p. 47-73). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Young, H. (1998, January). Preparing for the future. Dance Magazine, Vol. 72 Issue 1, 50-52.
Zesch, L. (1994, July). A new beginning for NEA. American Theatre, 62
128
APPENDIX A
GENERAL NONPROFIT ARTS ORGANIZATION CONTRIBUTED INCOME STRUCTURE
Nonprofit Arts Organization Contributed Income
Public Private
Federal State Local Regional Individuals Corporations Foundations Arts Arts Agency Agency
NEA
129
APPENDIX B
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS APPROPRIATIONS HISTORY SOURCE: HTTP://WWW.NEA.GOV
$ 167,731,000 Year Appropriation 1988
1966 $ 2,898,308 Year Appropriation
1967 $ 8,475,692 1989 $ 169,090,000
1968 $ 7,774,291 1990 $ 171,255,000
1969 $ 8,456,875 1991 $ 174,080,737
1970 $ 9,055,000 1992 $ 175,954,680
1971 $ 16,420,000 1993 $ 174,459,382
1972 $ 31,480,000 1994 $ 170,228,000
1973 $ 40,857,000 1995 $ 162,311,000
1974 $ 64,025,000 1996 $ 99,470,000
1975 $ 80,142,000 1997 $ 99,494,000
1976* $ 87,455,000 1998* $ 98,000,000
1976 $ 35,301,000 1999 $ 97,966,000
1977 $ 99,872,000 2000 $ 97,627,600
1978 $ 123,850,000 2001 $104,769,000
1979 $ 149,585,000 2002 $115,220,000
1980 $ 154,610,000 2003 $115,731,000
1981 $ 158,795,000 2004 $120,971,000
1982 $ 143,456,000 2005 $121,263,000
1983 $ 143,875,000 2006 $124,406,353
1984 $ 162,223,000 2007 $124,561,844
1985 $ 163,660,000 2008 $144,706,800
1986 $ 158,822,240 *1976 had a transitional period, as the government changed the fiscal year start from July 1 to October 1 1987 $ 165,281,000 (http://www.nea.gov).
130
APPENDIX C
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS CHAIRMAN AND DANCE PROGRAM DIRECTORS, 1965-PRESENT
NEA Chairs 1965-1969—Roger Stevens 1969-1977—Nancy Hanks 1977-1981—Livingston Biddle, Jr. 1981-1989—Frank Hodsoll 1989-1992—John Frohnmayer 1993-1997—Jane Alexander 1998-2002—Bill Ivey 2003-2009—Dana Goia
NEA Dance Program Directors 1967-1973—June Arey 1972-1974—Don Anderson 1975—Joseph Krakora 1976-1977—Suzanne Weil 1978-1981—Rhoda Grauer 1982-1983—Nigel Redden 1986-1995—Sali Ann Kriegsman 1997-present—Douglas Sonntag
131
APPENDIX D
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS FUNDING DISTRIBUTION AREAS, PRE- AND POST- RESTRUCTURING
1991 1997 Partnerships Partnerships Initiatives Initiatives Publications Publications Research Research Fellowships Fellowships (Literature, Jazz, Heritage) Individual Awards Grants to Organizations (matching grants) Grants to Organizations (matching grants) --Education & Access --Dance, Music, Theater, Opera, etc. --Planning & Stabilization --Creation & Presentation --Heritage & Preservation
132 APPENDIX E Dance Recipient Database
FY91 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION African American Dance Chuck Davis African Ensemble, Inc. American NC E C 1984 $319,550 $9,400 Grants to Companies S Aims of Modzawe, Inc. NY E C 1973 $196,655 $10,300 Grants to Companies NE Alvin Ailey Dance Alvin Ailey American Foundation, Inc. Dance Theater NY M C 1958 $6,765,031 $282,000 Grants to Companies NE AMAN Folk Ensemble CA E C 1964 $402,093 $65,800 Grants to Companies W American Ballroom Theater Company, Inc. NY O C 1985 $445,324 $16,900 Grants to Companies NE Art of the Matter Deborah Slater Dance Performance Foundation Theater CA M C 1989 $30,008 $9,400 Grants to Companies W Arts Catalyst Alliance, Inc. Nina Wiener NY M C UNK $148,875 $12,200 Grants to Companies NE Bailes Flamencos Rosa Montoya CA E C 1983 $148,770 $9,400 Grants to Companies W Ballet Chicago Company IL B C 1987 $904,443 $9,400 Grants to Companies NC Ballet Concierto de Puerto Rico, Inc. PR B C 1979 $475,957 $9,400 Grants to Companies T Ballet Hispanico of New York, Inc. NY M C 1970 $1,015,317 $35,700 Grants to Companies NE Ballet Metropolitan, Inc. BalletMet Columbus OH B C 1974 $3,156,765 $14,100 Grants to Companies NC
Ballet Tech Foundation, Inc. NY B C 1974 $2,475,495 $85,600 Grants to Companies NE Ballet Theatre Foundation, Inc. American Ballet Theatre NY B C 1939 $20,344,172 $301,000 Grants to Companies NE Ballet West UT B C 1963 $4,859,235 $101,600 Grants to Companies W Bella Lewitzky Dance Foundation CA M C 1966 $758,753 $70,500 Grants to Companies W Boston Ballet, Inc. MA B C 1963 $9,439,769 $141,100 Grants to Companies NE Capoeira Foundation, Inc. Dance Brazil NY E C 1975 $127,500 $14,100 Grants to Companies NE Cincinnati Ballet Company, Inc. OH B C 1958 $3,333,986 $18,800 Grants to Companies NC Cleveland Ballet OH B C 1976 $7,821,000 $18,800 Grants to Companies NC Codanceco, Inc. Nancy Duncan NY M C 1982 $72,198 $9,400 Grants to Companies NE Cross Performance, Inc. Ralph Lemon Company NY M C 1985 $123,930 $9,400 Grants to Companies NE Cunningham Dance Merce Cunningham Foundation, Inc. Dance Company NY M C 1953 $2,733,462 $376,000 Grants to Companies NE Dan Wagoner Dance Foundation, Inc. NY M C 1969 $246,227 $37,600 Grants to Companies NE Dance Brigade CA M C 1984 $185,965 $9,400 Grants to Companies W Susan Marshall & Dance Continuum, Inc. Company NY M C 1982 $146,119 $9,400 Grants to Companies NE
133 APPENDIX E Dance Recipient Database
FY91 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Liz Lerman Dance Dance Exchange, Inc. Exchange DC M C 1976 $359,750 $9,400 Grants to Companies S Dance Solos, Inc. Annabelle Gamson NY M C 1976 $55,825 $10,300 Grants to Companies NE Dance Theatre of Harlem, Inc. NY B C 1969 $6,018,635 $258,600 Grants to Companies NE Dances and Drums of Africa, Inc. NY E C 1974 $155,100 $9,400 Grants to Companies NE Dayton Contemporary Dayton Contemporary Dance Guild, Inc. Dance Company OH M C 1968 $605,637 $23,500 Grants to Companies NC Dean Dance and Music Foundation, Inc. Laura Dean NC M C 1971 $476,131 $98,800 Grants to Companies S Della Davidson Dance Company CA M C 1978 $72,760 $9,400 Grants to Companies W
Discalced, Inc. Mark Morris Dance Group NY M C 1980 $139,324 $26,300 Grants to Companies NE Eccentric Motions, Inc. Pooh Kaye NY M C 1986 $56,630 $14,100 Grants to Companies NE Ellen Kogan Solo Dance NY M C UNK $34,100 $9,400 Grants to Companies NE Erick Hawkins Dance Foundation, Inc. NY M C 1951 $303,154 $39,500 Grants to Companies NE Eugene Ballet Company OR B C 1978 $633,952 $9,400 Grants to Companies W Fort Worth Ballet Association Fort Worth Dallas Ballet TX B C 1959 $1,581,300 $9,400 Grants to Companies S Foundation for Dance Bill T. Jones/Arnie Zane Promotion, Inc. Dance Company NY M C 1982 $379,412 $37,600 Grants to Companies NE Friends of Ballets de San Juan, Inc. Ballets de San Juan PR B C 1954 $403,500 $10,300 Grants to Companies T Fua Dia Congo CA E C 1977 $74,265 $9,400 Grants to Companies W Garth Fagan Dance, Inc. NY M C 1970 $865,301 $75,200 Grants to Companies NE Gotham Dance, Inc. Bebe Miller Company NY M C 1985 $172,726 $18,800 Grants to Companies NE Guateque Folkloric Taller of Puerto Rico, Inc. PR E C 1988 $40,570 $9,400 Grants to Companies T Hartford Ballet Inc. CT B C 1972 $2,671,500 $9,400 Grants to Companies NE House Foundation for the Arts, Inc. Meredith Monk NY M C 1968 $575,670 $112,900 Grants to Companies NE Houston Ballet Foundation TX B C 1955 $7,434,226 $68,700 Grants to Companies S Hubbard Street Dance Chicago IL M C 1977 $1,312,323 $16,000 Grants to Companies NC Ice Theatre of New York, Inc. NY O C 1984 $113,627 $9,400 Grants to Companies NE
134 APPENDIX E Dance Recipient Database
FY91 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Maria Benitez Teatro Institute for Spanish Arts Flamenco NY E C 1970 $289,834 $43,400 Grants to Companies NE Inta, Inc. Eiko and Koma NY M C UNK $189,224 $32,900 Grants to Companies NE Jazz Tap Ensemble, Inc. CA O C 1979 $170,726 $45,100 Grants to Companies W Joe Goode Performance Group CA M C 1986 $113,975 $11,300 Grants to Companies W Joffrey Ballet of Chicago, Inc. IL B C 1956 $10,785,117 $230,400 Grants to Companies NC José Limón Dance Foundation, Inc. Limón Dance Company NY M C 1946 $611,541 $48,900 Grants to Companies NE Joseph Holmes Chicago Dance Theatre IL M C 1974 $655,079 $16,000 Grants to Companies NC Kankouran West African Dance Company DC E C 1983 $152,811 $9,400 Grants to Companies S Kansas City Ballet Association, Inc. Kansas City Ballet MO B C 1957 $1,650,944 $35,700 Grants to Companies NC Lubovitch Dance Lar Lubovitch Dance Foundation, Inc. Company NY M C 1968 $871,000 $65,800 Grants to Companies NE Lucinda Childs Dance Foundation, Ltd. NY M C 1973 $209,546 $61,100 Grants to Companies NE Lula Washington Contemporary Dance Lula Washington Dance Foundation Theater CA M C 1980 $150,837 $9,400 Grants to Companies W Margaret Jenkins Dance Company CA M C 1973 $721,249 $50,600 Grants to Companies W
Martha Graham Center of Contemporary Dance, Inc. NY M C 1926 $3,957,662 $235,000 Grants to Companies NE Miami City Ballet, Inc. FL B C 1985 $3,301,559 $37,600 Grants to Companies S
Mixed Bag Productions, Inc. Contraband CA M C 1976 $70,200 $10,300 Grants to Companies W Mordine and Company IL M C 1968 $189,652 $10,300 Grants to Companies NC Moving Earth, Inc. Kei Takei NY M C 1975 $107,840 $23,500 Grants to Companies NE Muntu Dance Theatre IL E C 1972 $195,000 $9,400 Grants to Companies NC New Dance Ensemble Linda Shapiro MN M C 1981 $245,310 $11,300 Grants to Companies NC Cleo Parker Robinson New Dance Theatre, Inc. Dance CO M C 1970 $295,069 $14,100 Grants to Companies W New York Baroque Dance Company, Inc. NY O C 1976 $104,627 $9,400 Grants to Companies NE New York City Ballet NY B C 1948 $24,904,633 $376,000 Grants to Companies NE
135 APPENDIX E Dance Recipient Database
FY91 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION
Nikolais/Louis Foundation Murray Louis & Nikolais for Dance, Inc. Dance NY M C 1948 $1,190,295 $89,300 Grants to Companies NE North Carolina Dance Theatre NC B C 1970 $1,072,483 $44,200 Grants to Companies S
Oakland Ballet Association CA B C 1965 $1,738,709 $32,000 Grants to Companies W Oberlin Dance Collective ODC/San Francisco CA M C 1971 $631,902 $37,600 Grants to Companies W Ohio Chamber Ballet Ohio Ballet OH B C 1968 $1,347,318 $55,000 Grants to Companies NC Pacific Northwest Ballet Association Pacific Northwest Ballet WA B C 1972 $6,309,900 $202,200 Grants to Companies W Parsons Dance Foundation, Inc. Parsons Dance Company NY M C 1987 $444,781 $9,400 Grants to Companies NE Paul Taylor Dance Paul Taylor Dance Foundation, Inc. Company NY M C 1954 $2,634,364 $310,400 Grants to Companies NE Pennsylvania Ballet Association Pennsylvania Ballet PA B C 1963 $5,717,705 $10,000 Grants to Companies NE Philadelphia Dance Company, Inc. Philadanco PA M C 1970 $507,964 $23,500 Grants to Companies NE Pick Up Performance Company, Inc. David Gordon NY M C 1971 $681,729 $73,400 Grants to Companies NE
Pilobolus, Inc. Pilobolus Dance Theatre CT M C 1971 $981,515 $20,000 Grants to Companies NE Pittsburgh Ballet Theatre, Inc. PA B C 1969 $4,135,136 $72,400 Grants to Companies NE Doug Elkins Dance PLAM Dancers, Inc. Company NY M C 1991 $19,099 $9,400 Grants to Companies NE Repertory Dance Theatre UT M C 1966 $299,000 $43,700 Grants to Companies W Rhapsody in Taps, Inc. CA O C 1981 $75,660 $9,400 Grants to Companies W
Rio Grande Union, Inc. Douglas Dunn & Dancers NY M C 1971 $84,276 $10,300 Grants to Companies NE San Francisco Ballet Association San Francisco Ballet CA B C 1933 $13,071,100 $244,500 Grants to Companies W
School of Hard Knocks, Inc. Yoshiko Chuma NY M C 1980 $88,315 $9,400 Grants to Companies NE Sharir & Bustamante Danceworks TX M C 1982 $246,475 $9,400 Grants to Companies S Solomons Company/Dance, Inc. NY M C 1973 $68,089 $13,200 Grants to Companies NE
136 APPENDIX E Dance Recipient Database
FY91 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Spanish Dance Theatre, Inc. MA E C 1977 $225,898 $9,400 Grants to Companies NE Spring Lake Productions, Inc. Martha Clarke CT M C 1979 $71,500 $53,600 Grants to Companies NE Stephen Petronio Dance Company, Inc. NY M C 1984 $207,990 $16,900 Grants to Companies NE Terra Moto, Inc. Victoria Marks NY M C 1989 $91,387 $9,400 Grants to Companies NE Transmedia Kinetrics Kenneth King NY M C UNK $19,408 $9,400 Grants to Companies NE Trisha Brown Dance Company, Inc. NY M C 1970 $1,141,806 $158,000 Grants to Companies NE U.B.W., Inc. Urban Bush Women NY M C 1984 $274,094 $12,200 Grants to Companies NE Washington Ballet DC B C 1966 $2,441,556 $32,000 Grants to Companies S Zenon Dance Company and School, Inc. MN M C 1983 $194,310 $9,400 Grants to Companies NC Zivili Kolo Ensemble, Inc. OH E C 1973 $100,292 $9,400 Grants to Companies NC Ambegaokar, Anjani J. CA E I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Andres, Jo NY X I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Bornstein, Rachelle A. NY M I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Braden, Kay F. TX M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships S Brown, James R. NY O I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Brown, Tony A. and Margolis, Kari G. NY O I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Caniparoli, Val W. CA B I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Casey, Pamela B. CA O I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Charlip, Remy CA O I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Chong, Ping NY M I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Cook, Charles C. NY O I $10,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Creach, Terry L. and Koester, Stephen J. NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Cummings, Blondell NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Daniels, Brenda J. NY M I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Elkins, Douglas B. NY M I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Farley, Alice P. NY O I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Feldman, Anita S. NY O I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Fenley, A. Molissa NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Foley, Kate M. CA O I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Forti, Simone VT M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Garver, Fred G. ME O I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Graney, Patricia M. WA M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Green, Charles NY O I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE
137 APPENDIX E Dance Recipient Database
FY91 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Greenberg, Neil D. NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Guergue, Margarita I. NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Halprin, Anna S. CA M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Hay, Deborah TX M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships S Houston-Jones, Ishmael NY X I $45,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Kelly, John J. NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Kimoto, Kumiko NY M I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Knight, Lakshmi NJ E I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Knott, Laura MA X I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Koplowitz, Stephan M. NY X I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Krieckhaus, Steven G. PA M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Kumar, Mythili R. CA E I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Ladzekpo, CK CA E I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Leahy, Sharon OH O I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NC McCullough, Rick NC B I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships S Nagrin, Daniel AZ X I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships W O'Connor, Tere R. NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Pelzig, Daniel NY B I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Pomare, Eleo NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Primus, Pearl E. NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Robinson, LaVaughn E. PA O I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Rogers, Wendy L. CA M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Rousseve, David J. NY M I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Salaam, Abdel R. NY E I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Soto, Merian NY E I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Spina, Peggy A. NY O I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Strickler, Fred CA O I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Tippet, Clark NY B I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Vazquez, Viveca PR X I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships T Wilson, Llory Cay WA M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Belle, Anne NY B I $20,000 Dance/Film/Video NE Cunningham Dance Foundation, Inc. NY M C 1953 $2,733,462 $40,000 Dance/Film/Video NE Dance Continuum, Inc. NY M C 1982 $146,119 $15,000 Dance/Film/Video NE Halprin, Anna S. CA M I $15,000 Dance/Film/Video W Institute of Contemporary Art, Boston MA X 1936 $1,694,323 $15,000 Dance/Film/Video NE Jose Limon Dance Foundation NY M C 1946 $611,541 $8,000 Dance/Film/Video NE Moulton, Charles NY X I $15,000 Dance/Film/Video NE
138 APPENDIX E Dance Recipient Database
FY91 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION New York Public Library Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundation NY X 1934 $232,331,193 $40,000 Dance/Film/Video NE Primus, Pearl E. NY M I $15,000 Dance/Film/Video NE Rio Grande Union, Inc. NY M 1971 $84,276 $10,000 Dance/Film/Video NE Twyla Tharp Foundation, Inc. NY M 1971 $54,082 $8,000 Dance/Film/Video NE 55th Street Dance Theater Foundation, Inc. NY X 1976 UNK $4,900 Grants to Presenters NE American Dance Festival, Inc. NC X 1934 $5,400,000 $68,300 Grants to Presenters S Anchorage Concert Association, Inc. AK X 1950 $2,509,165 $19,500 Grants to Presenters W Associated YM-YWHAs of Greater New York, Inc. NY X 1957 $118,032 $4,900 Grants to Presenters NE Boston Dance Umbrella MA X 1981 $1,161,634 $39,100 Grants to Presenters NE Brooklyn Academy of Music, Inc. NY X 1969 $20,472,461 $24,400 Grants to Presenters NE Catamount Film and Arts Company VT X 1975 $275,606 $4,900 Grants to Presenters NE Center for Contemporary Arts of Santa Fe, Inc. NM X 1983 $404,892 $4,900 Grants to Presenters W City Celebration, Inc. CA E UNK UNK $8,800 Grants to Presenters W City of San Antonio, Texas, for the Carver Community Cultural Center TX X 1972 $998,388 $9,800 Grants to Presenters S Cleveland Modern Dance Association OH M 1956 $214,302 $6,800 Grants to Presenters NC College Community Services, Inc. NY X 1954 $1,322,706 $4,900 Grants to Presenters NE Colorado Dance Festival, Inc. CO X 1982 $548,910 $27,300 Grants to Presenters W Columbia College IL X 1969 $1,400,868 $7,800 Grants to Presenters NC Contemporary Arts Center, New Orleans LA X 1976 $1,497,018 $9,800 Grants to Presenters NC Contemporary Dance Theater, Inc. OH M 1972 $225,745 $6,800 Grants to Presenters NC D.C. Wheel Productions, Inc. DC X 1980 $830,063 $14,600 Grants to Presenters S DanceAspen, Inc. CO X 1978 $980,152 $21,500 Grants to Presenters W
139 APPENDIX E Dance Recipient Database
FY91 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Dance Concert Society for Dance St. Louis MO X 1966 $2,040,389 $16,100 Grants to Presenters NC Dance Theater Workshop, Inc. NY X 1965 $2,551,944 $58,700 Grants to Presenters NE
Dancing in the Streets, Inc. NY X 1986 $370,222 $7,800 Grants to Presenters NE Danspace Project, Inc. NY X 1974 $522,223 $7,800 Grants to Presenters NE
Downtown Dance Company MD 1987 <25,000 $4,900 Grants to Presenters S Flynn Theatre for the Performing Arts, Limited VT X 1980 $5,065,682 $14,400 Grants to Presenters NE Gloriana Opera Company CA X 1976 $114,078 $4,900 Grants to Presenters W Haleakala, Inc. NY X 1971 $1,158,211 $17,600 Grants to Presenters NE Helena Presents MT X 1976 $691,518 $14,400 Grants to Presenters W Jacob's Pillow Dance Festival, Inc. MA X 1933 $3,402,786 $73,300 Grants to Presenters NE John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts DC X 1958 $85,317,043 $35,000 Grants to Presenters S Joyce Theater Foundation, Inc. NY X 1979 $3,825,088 $29,300 Grants to Presenters NE Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, Inc. NY X 1963 $70,285,026 $24,400 Grants to Presenters NE
Los Angeles Contemporary Exhibitons, Inc. CA X 1979 $292,246 $4,900 Grants to Presenters W Mandeleo Institute CA X UNK UNK $4,900 Grants to Presenters W Minnesota Dance Alliance MN X 1979 $452,587 $4,900 Grants to Presenters NC Ohio State University Research Foundation OH X 1943 $193,847,145 $19,500 Grants to Presenters NC On the Boards WA M 1979 $660,568 $17,600 Grants to Presenters W Painted Bride Art Center, Inc. PA X 1974 $721,407 $4,900 Grants to Presenters NE Performance Space 122, Inc. NY X 1979 $1,003,393 $26,300 Grants to Presenters NE Pittsburgh Dance Council, Inc. PA X 1972 $1,340,420 $21,500 Grants to Presenters NE Portland State University OR X 1946 $12,949,619 $11,700 Grants to Presenters W San Antonio Performing Arts Association TX X 1984 <25,000 $7,300 Grants to Presenters S
140 APPENDIX E Dance Recipient Database
FY91 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION San Diego Foundation for the Performing Arts, Inc. CA X 1982 <25,000 $4,900 Grants to Presenters W San Francisco Performances, Inc. CA X 1979 $4,631,052 $4,900 Grants to Presenters W Sharir Dance Company TX M 1982 $246,475 $6,800 Grants to Presenters S Society for the Performing Arts TX X 1966 $2,856,009 $15,000 Grants to Presenters S Spoleto Festival U.S.A. SC X 1977 $4,559,883 $22,000 Grants to Presenters S State Dance Association of Florida, Inc. FL X 1972 $431,658 $6,300 Grants to Presenters S Sushi, Inc. CA X 1980 $205,631 $7,300 Grants to Presenters W Theater Artaud CA X 1972 $607,033 $6,800 Grants to Presenters W University of California- Berkley CA X 1950 $111,695,299 $35,000 Grants to Presenters W University of Illinois- Champaign County IL X 1867 $149,912,387 $4,900 Grants to Presenters NC University of Iowa IA X 1956 $61,062,276 $24,400 Grants to Presenters NC University of Minnesota-- Twin Cities MN X 1851 $114,293,807 $17,600 Grants to Presenters NC University of Nebraska- Lincoln NE X 1936 $158,775,448 $9,800 Grants to Presenters NC University of Washington WA X 1861 $11,598,849 $11,700 Grants to Presenters W Walker Art Center, Inc. MN X 1927 $23,240,432 $39,300 Grants to Presenters NC Washington Performing Arts Society DC X 1965 $6,655,832 $27,300 Grants to Presenters S World Music Institute, Inc. NY X 1987 $2,571,559 $4,900 Grants to Presenters NE 55th Street Dance Theater Foundation, Inc. NY X 1976 UNK $6,700 General Services to the Field NE Affiliate Artists, Inc. NY X UNK UNK $10,600 General Services to the Field NE American Dance Festival, Inc. NC X 1934 $5,400,000 $4,400 General Services to the Field S American Tap Dance Orchestra, Inc. NY O 1986 $24,238 $4,400 General Services to the Field NE Artists Trust: A Resource for Washington WA X 1987 $763,695 $4,400 General Services to the Field W Arts Resources in Collaboration, Inc. NY X 1976 $86,867 $4,400 General Services to the Field NE Association of Ohio Dance Companies OH X 1976 $33,939 $4,400 General Services to the Field NC Boston Dance Umbrella MA X 1981 $1,161,634 $7,100 General Services to the Field NE
141 APPENDIX E Dance Recipient Database
FY91 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Brooklyn Arts Council NY X 1966 $638,450 $4,400 General Services to the Field NE Carlisle Project PA B 1986 $258,278 $6,600 General Services to the Field NE Chicago Dance Arts Coalition, Inc. IL X 1981 $33,128 $4,400 General Services to the Field NC City Celebration, Inc. CA E UNK UNK $6,200 General Services to the Field W Colorado Dance Alliance CO X 1980 <25,000 $4,400 General Services to the Field W Colorado Dance Festival, Inc. CO X 1982 $548,910 $4,400 General Services to the Field W
Cultural Council Foundation NY X UNK UNK $4,400 General Services to the Field NE D.C. Wheel Productions, Inc. DC X 1980 $830,063 $4,400 General Services to the Field S
Dance Notation Bureau, Inc. NY X 1940 $262,015 $13,300 General Services to the Field NE Dance Theater Workshop, Inc. NY X 1965 $2,551,944 $29,700 General Services to the Field NE Dance Umbrella TX X 1977 $1,161,634 $4,400 General Services to the Field S Dance/USA DC X 1982 $1,387,389 $31,000 General Services to the Field S DanceWorks, Inc. NY X 1976 $816,697 $30,100 General Services to the Field NE Dancer's Collective of Atlanta, Inc. GA X 1980 $108,243 $4,400 General Services to the Field S Dancers' Group CA X 1982 $559,126 $4,400 General Services to the Field W Dayton Contemporary Dance Guild, Inc. OH M 1968 $605,637 $4,400 General Services to the Field NC Dia Art Foundation, Inc. NY X 1974 $17,066,699 $4,400 General Services to the Field NE Ellen Webb Dance Foundation CA M 1982 $100,062 $4,400 General Services to the Field W
Ethnic Folk Arts Center, Inc. NY E 1974 $720,968 $5,300 General Services to the Field NE
Foundation for the Extension and Development of the American Professional Theatre, Inc. NY X 1970 UNK $10,600 General Services to the Field NE H.T. Dance Company, Inc. NY M 1978 $225,761 $4,400 General Services to the Field NE Haleakala, Inc. NY X 1971 $1,158,211 $6,400 General Services to the Field NE Inter-Media Art Center, Inc. NY X 1980 $891,891 $4,400 General Services to the Field NE Jack Faucett Associates MD X 1963 UNK $41,057 General Services to the Field S
142 APPENDIX E Dance Recipient Database
FY91 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Jacob's Pillow Dance Festival, Inc. MA X 1933 $3,402,786 $8,900 General Services to the Field NE Joyce Theater Foundation, Inc. NY X 1979 $3,825,088 $20,000 General Services to the Field NE Laban/Bartenieff Institute of Movement Studies, Inc. NY X 1985 $212,932 $4,400 General Services to the Field NE
Minnesota Dance Alliance MN X 1979 $452,587 $12,400 General Services to the Field NC Movement Research, Inc. NY X 1978 $305,585 $4,400 General Services to the Field NE New York Dance Center, Inc. NY X 1987 $33,353 $4,400 General Services to the Field NE New York Public Library Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundation NY X 1934 $232,331,193 $26,600 General Services to the Field NE On the Boards WA M 1979 $660,568 $7,500 General Services to the Field W Original Ballets Foundation, Inc. NY B 1974 $2,603,573 $5,000 General Services to the Field NE Performance Space 122, Inc. NY X 1979 $1,003,393 $12,400 General Services to the Field NE Performance Zone, Inc. NY X 1986 $186,190 $4,400 General Services to the Field NE
Philadelphia Dance Alliance PA X 1973 $353,311 $4,400 General Services to the Field NE Pittsburgh Dance Council, Inc. PA X 1972 $1,340,420 $4,400 General Services to the Field NE San Francisco Bay Area Dance Coalition, Inc. CA X 1974 $137,130 $14,200 General Services to the Field W State Dance Association of Florida, Inc. FL X 1972 $431,658 $11,700 General Services to the Field S Theater Artaud CA X 1972 $607,033 $6,200 General Services to the Field W Theatre Development Fund, Inc. NY X 1967 $22,615,749 $20,000 General Services to the Field NE The Yard, Inc. NY X 1973 $153,084 $4,400 General Services to the Field NE Yellow Springs Institute for Contemporary Studies and the Arts PA X 1982 $5,500 $4,400 General Services to the Field NE African American Dance Ensemble NC E 1984 $319,550 $5,665 Special Projects S American Dance Festival, Inc. NC X 1934 $5,400,000 $15,000 Special Projects S
143 APPENDIX E Dance Recipient Database
FY91 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Dance Theater Workshop, Inc. NY X 1965 $2,551,944 $100,000 Special Projects NE Jacob's Pillow Dance Festival, Inc. MA X 1933 $3,402,786 $15,000 Special Projects NE Pennsylvania Ballet Association PA B 1963 $5,717,705 $20,000 Special Projects NE Arts Midwest MN X 1982 $1,492,708 $170,050 Dance on Tour NC Southern Arts Federation GA X 1975 $1,667,728 $35,000 Dance on Tour S
144 FY92 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION African American Dance Chuck Davis African Ensemble, Inc. American NC E C 1984 $139,128 $9,400 Grants to Companies S Aims of Modzawe, Inc. NY E C 1973 $203,407 $10,400 Grants to Companies NE Alvin Ailey Dance Foundation, Alvin Ailey American Inc. Dance Theater NY M C 1958 $6,840,230 $279,900 Grants to Companies NE AMAN Folk Ensemble CA E C 1964 $440,656 $65,000 Grants to Companies W Arts Catalyst Alliance, Inc. Nina Wiener NY M C UNK $57,365 $9,400 Grants to Companies NE Atlanta Ballet, Inc. GA B C 1929 $2,544,300 $14,300 Grants to Companies S Bailes Flamencos Rosa Montoya CA E C 1983 $127,969 $9,400 Grants to Companies W Ballet Chicago Company IL B C 1987 $1,336,238 $9,400 Grants to Companies NC Ballet Hispanico of New York, Inc. NY M C 1970 $1,307,011 $29,200 Grants to Companies NE Ballet Metropolitan, Inc. BalletMet Columbus OH B C 1974 $3,079,473 $17,300 Grants to Companies NC Ballet Tech Foundation, Inc. NY B C 1974 $2,636,017 $79,000 Grants to Companies NE American Ballet Ballet Theatre Foundation, Inc. Theatre NY B C 1939 $19,941,092 $248,100 Grants to Companies NE Ballet West UT B C 1963 $4,541,073 $69,000 Grants to Companies W
Bella Lewitzky Dance Foundation CA M C 1966 $909,679 $72,000 Grants to Companies W Boston Ballet, Inc. MA B C 1963 $11,493,394 $143,600 Grants to Companies NE Capoeira Foundation, Inc. Dance Brazil NY E C 1975 $237,937 $17,300 Grants to Companies NE Caribbean Dance Company of the Virgin Islands, Inc. VI E C 1977 $311,381 $9,400 Grants to Companies T Cathy Weiss Performance Projects NY M C UNK $50,332 $9,400 Grants to Companies NE Center Dance Collective NJ M C 1979 $81,592 $9,400 Grants to Companies NE
Cincinnati Ballet Company, Inc. OH B C 1958 $2,935,557 $14,300 Grants to Companies NC Cleveland Ballet OH B C 1976 $6,400,316 $19,300 Grants to Companies NC Cranky Destroyers Stephanie Skura NY M C UNK $84,035 $9,400 Grants to Companies NE Cunningham Dance Foundation, Merce Cunningham Inc. Dance Company NY M C 1953 $2,852,443 $372,400 Grants to Companies NE
Dallas Black Dance Theatre, Inc. TX M C 1976 $407,504 $9,400 Grants to Companies S Dan Wagoner Dance Foundation, Inc. NY M C 1969 $208,570 $24,300 Grants to Companies NE Susan Marshall & Dance Continuum, Inc. Company NY M C 1982 $350,799 $19,300 Grants to Companies NE Liz Lerman Dance Dance Exchange, Inc. Exchange DC M C 1976 $270,792 $12,300 Grants to Companies S
145 FY92 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Dance Solos, Inc. Annabelle Gamson NY M C UNK $43,453 $10,400 Grants to Companies NE Dance Theatre of Harlem, Inc. NY B C 1969 $6,035,805 $261,000 Grants to Companies NE Dance Through Time CA O C 1980 $200,767 $9,400 Grants to Companies W
Dayton Contemporary Dance Dayton Contemporary Guild, Inc. Dance Company OH M C 1968 $611,528 $24,300 Grants to Companies NC Dean Dance and Music Foundation, Inc. Laura Dean NC M C 1971 $543,718 $69,000 Grants to Companies S
Della Davidson Dance Company CA M C 1978 $97,792 $9,400 Grants to Companies W Mark Morris Dance Discalced, Inc. Group NY M C 1980 $286,448 $39,200 Grants to Companies NE E. Monte Motion, Inc. Monte/Brown Dance NY M C 1981 $420,588 $9,400 Grants to Companies NE Eccentric Motions, Inc. Pooh Kaye NY M C 1986 $95,000 $12,300 Grants to Companies NE Ellen Kogan Solo Dance NY M C UNK $27,525 $9,400 Grants to Companies NE Erick Hawkins Dance Foundation, Inc. NY M C 1951 $432,233 $41,200 Grants to Companies NE Ethnic Dance Theatre MN E C 1979 $111,364 $9,400 Grants to Companies NC Eugene Ballet Company OR B C 1978 $765,491 $9,400 Grants to Companies W
Floricanto Dance Theatre Danza Floricanto/USA CA E C 1975 $103,186 $9,400 Grants to Companies W Forces of Nature, Inc. NY E C 1982 $174,000 $9,400 Grants to Companies NE Fort Worth Dallas Fort Worth Ballet Association Ballet TX B C 1959 $2,097,456 $9,400 Grants to Companies S
Foundation for Dance Promotion, Bill T. Jones/Arnie Inc. Zane Dance Company NY M C 1982 $724,700 $39,200 Grants to Companies NE Friends of Olympia Station Tandy Beal & Co. CA M C 1974 $370,293 $9,400 Grants to Companies W Fua Dia Congo CA E C 1977 $92,751 $9,400 Grants to Companies W Garth Fagan Dance, Inc. NY M C 1970 $998,227 $64,100 Grants to Companies NE
Gotham Dance, Inc. Bebe Miller Company NY M C 1985 $241,576 $19,300 Grants to Companies NE Guateque Folkloric Taller of Puerto Rico, Inc. PR E C 1988 $47,568 $9,400 Grants to Companies T H.T. Dance Company, Inc. Chen & Dancers NY M C 1978 $225,761 $9,400 Grants to Companies NE Hartford Ballet Inc. CT B C 1972 $2,724,202 $14,300 Grants to Companies NE Risa Jaroslow and High Tide Dance, Inc. Dancers NY M C 1977 $37,938 $9,400 Grants to Companies NE House Foundation for the Arts, Inc. Meredith Monk NY M C 1968 $452,568 $88,900 Grants to Companies NE
146 FY92 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Houston Ballet Foundation TX B C 1955 $9,079,831 $93,900 Grants to Companies S
Hubbard Street Dance Chicago IL M C 1977 $1,575,676 $15,300 Grants to Companies NC Ice Theatre of New York, Inc. NY O C 1984 $173,091 $9,400 Grants to Companies NE Ballet Internationale, Indianapolis Ballet Theatre, Inc. Inc. IN B C 1973 $754,382 $9,400 Grants to Companies NC Maria Benitez Teatro Institute for Spanish Arts Flamenco NY E C 1970 $375,070 $43,200 Grants to Companies NE Inta, Inc. Eiko and Koma NY M C UNK $146,095 $32,200 Grants to Companies NE Jazz Tap Ensemble, Inc. CA O C 1979 $215,048 $44,300 Grants to Companies W
Joe Goode Performance Group CA M C 1986 $163,527 $11,800 Grants to Companies W Joffrey Ballet of Chicago, Inc. IL B C 1956 $11,211,409 $248,100 Grants to Companies NC José Limón Dance Foundation, Limón Dance Inc. Company NY M C 1946 $534,710 $49,100 Grants to Companies NE Joseph Holmes Chicago Dance Theatre IL M C 1974 $583,990 $11,300 Grants to Companies NC Kankouran West African Dance Company DC E C 1983 $184,056 $9,400 Grants to Companies S Kansas City Ballet Association, Inc. Kansas City Ballet MO B C 1957 $1,962,189 $37,200 Grants to Companies NC Karen Bamonte previously known as Danceworks/Amphora Zero Moving PA M C 1972 $223,387 $9,400 Grants to Companies NE LINES Contemporary Ballet CA B C 1982 $173,410 $9,400 Grants to Companies W Lubovitch Dance Foundation, Lar Lubovitch Dance Inc. Company NY M C 1968 $887,000 $65,000 Grants to Companies NE Lucinda Childs Dance Foundation, Ltd. NY M C 1973 $243,331 $60,200 Grants to Companies NE
Lula Washington Contemporary Lula Washington Dance Foundation Dance Theater CA M C 1980 $287,119 $9,400 Grants to Companies W Malashock Dance & Company CA M C 1989 $73,963 $9,400 Grants to Companies W Margaret Jenkins Dance Company CA M C 1973 $726,040 $42,200 Grants to Companies W Martha Graham Center of Contemporary Dance, Inc. NY M C 1926 $4,834,839 $233,100 Grants to Companies NE Miami City Ballet, Inc. FL B C 1985 $4,063,313 $58,920 Grants to Companies S Ballet Foundation of Milwaukee Ballet Company, Inc. Milwaukee, Inc. WI B C 1970 $3,833,193 $9,400 Grants to Companies NC Mixed Bag Productions, Inc. Contraband CA M C 1976 $88,165 $10,400 Grants to Companies W
147 FY92 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Mordine and Company IL M C 1968 $180,554 $9,700 Grants to Companies NC Moving Earth, Inc. Kei Takei NY M C 1975 $144,130 $19,300 Grants to Companies NE Muntu Dance Theatre IL E C 1972 $227,050 $9,400 Grants to Companies NC
Nevada Dance Theater, Inc. Nevada Ballet Theater NV B C 1972 $1,246,960 $9,400 Grants to Companies W New Dance Ensemble Linda Shapiro MN M C 1982 $292,055 $10,600 Grants to Companies NC Cleo Parker Robinson New Dance Theatre, Inc. Dance CO M C 1970 $489,786 $14,800 Grants to Companies W New Jersey Ballet NJ B C 1958 $877,627 $9,400 Grants to Companies NE
Sara Pearson/Patrik New Life Dance, Inc. Widrig and Company NY M C 1987 $32,510 $9,400 Grants to Companies NE New York Baroque Dance Company, Inc. NY O C 1976 $104,550 $9,400 Grants to Companies NE New York City Ballet NY B C 1948 $26,682,508 $372,400 Grants to Companies NE Nikolais/Louis Foundation for Murray Louis & Dance, Inc. Nikolais Dance NY M C 1948 $1,121,700 $88,900 Grants to Companies NE North Carolina Dance Theatre NC B C 1970 $828,021 $44,200 Grants to Companies S Oakland Ballet Association CA B C 1965 $1,941,772 $32,200 Grants to Companies W Oberlin Dance Collective ODC/San Francisco CA M C 1971 $665,200 $19,300 Grants to Companies W Ohio Chamber Ballet Ohio Ballet OH B C 1968 $1,396,114 $55,100 Grants to Companies NC Pacific Northwest Ballet Pacific Northwest Association Ballet WA B C 1972 $6,452,700 $205,300 Grants to Companies W Paul Taylor Dance Foundation, Paul Taylor Dance Inc. Company NY M C 1954 $2,799,089 $297,900 Grants to Companies NE
Pennsylvania Ballet Association Pennsylvania Ballet PA B C 1963 $8,085,202 $39,200 Grants to Companies NE Philadelphia Dance Company, Inc. Philadanco PA M C 1970 $684,579 $24,300 Grants to Companies NE Pick Up Performance Company, Inc. David Gordon NY M C 1971 $521,422 $69,000 Grants to Companies NE Pilobolus Dance Pilobolus, Inc. Theatre CT M C 1971 $895,410 $19,300 Grants to Companies NE Pittsburgh Ballet Theatre, Inc. PA B C 1969 $4,107,512 $72,000 Grants to Companies NE Pittsburgh Dance Alloy Dance Alloy PA M C 1976 $280,475 $9,400 Grants to Companies NE Jane Comfort and Racing Thoughts, Inc. Company NY M C 1982 $43,631 $9,400 Grants to Companies NE Repertory Dance Theatre UT M C 1966 $417,500 $29,200 Grants to Companies W Richmond Ballet VA B C 1950 $1,595,438 $9,400 Grants to Companies S
148 FY92 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Douglas Dunn & Rio Grande Union, Inc. Dancers NY M C 1971 $139,172 $11,300 Grants to Companies NE Ririe-Woodbury Dance Foundation UT M C 1964 $337,673 $9,400 Grants to Companies W
San Francisco Ballet Association San Francisco Ballet CA B C 1933 $13,594,000 $244,100 Grants to Companies W School of Hard Knocks, Inc. Yoshiko Chuma NY M C 1980 $103,886 $9,400 Grants to Companies NE Sharir & Bustamante Danceworks TX M C 1982 $334,144 $9,400 Grants to Companies S
Solomons Company/Dance, Inc. NY M C 1973 $64,314 $13,300 Grants to Companies NE Spanish Dance Arts Company, Flamenco Vivo Carlota Inc. Santana NY E C 1983 $105,517 $9,400 Grants to Companies NE Spanish Dance Theatre, Inc. MA E C UNK $113,472 $9,400 Grants to Companies NE Stephen Petronio Dance Company, Inc. NY M C 1984 $195,201 $16,300 Grants to Companies NE Terra Moto, Inc. Victoria Marks NY M C 1989 $57,767 $9,400 Grants to Companies NE Transmedia Kinetrics Kenneth King NY M C UNK $20,117 $9,400 Grants to Companies NE Trisha Brown Dance Company, Inc. NY M C 1970 $1,626,901 $156,600 Grants to Companies NE U.B.W., Inc. Urban Bush Women NY M C 1984 $473,374 $12,300 Grants to Companies NE Washington Ballet DC B C 1966 $2,640,652 $34,200 Grants to Companies S
Zaccho S.F. Zaccho Dance Theatre CA M C 1980 $75,130 $9,400 Grants to Companies W Zenon Dance Company and School, Inc. MN M C 1983 $391,830 $9,400 Grants to Companies NC Zivili Kolo Ensemble, Inc. OH E C 1973 $102,144 $9,400 Grants to Companies NC Alessi, Alito OR O I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Ambegaokar, Anjani J. CA E I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Bezubka, Sonya NM M I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Birch, Nathan A. MD O I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships S Blossom, Beverly S. NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Cai, Lily CA E I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Carlson, Ann M. NY O I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Charlip, Remy CA O I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Conversano, Frank E. NY M I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Dorfman, David NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Elkins, Douglas B. NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Erkert, Jan K. IL M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NC Fain, Liss CA M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships W
149 FY92 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Foley, Kate M. CA O I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Gamonet de los Heros, Jimmy FL B I $45,000 Choreographer Fellowships S Holland, Fred A. NY X I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Hulton, Betsy D. NY X I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Iobst, Anne E. & Sexton, Lucy NY O I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Jasperse, John R. NY M I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Josa-Jones, Paula MA X I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Jungels, Dorothy A. RI X I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Kramer, Dawn J. MA M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Kumar, Mythili R. CA E I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Lamhut, Phyllis NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Leahy, Sharon OH O I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NC Lemon, Ralph S. NY M I $45,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Mahler, Donald NY B I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE McMahon, Jeffrey D. NY X I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Meier, Yvonne D. NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Monson, Jennifer NY X I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Motley, Pauline E. CO M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Neville, Phoebe NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Reitz, Dana F. NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Rosen, Amy Sue NY M I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Rousseve, David J. NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Rudner, Sara NY M I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Segovia, Rosita FL E I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships S Sendgraff, Terry A. CA O I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Simons, Ton E. NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Skaggs, Sarah J. NY M I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Slater, Deborah J. CA M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Streb, Elizabeth NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Swenson, Christian WA O I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Varone, Douglas J. NY M I $45,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Wicks, Sukanya Rahman ME E I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Wyrrick, Sharon A. VA X I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships S Young, Bill NY M I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Arts Resources in Collaboration, Inc. NY X 1976 $86,867 $20,000 Dance/Film/Video NE Babcock, Lynn K. MA O $11,000 Dance/Film/Video NE Dance Pioneers HI O 1992 $6,409 $20,000 Dance/Film/Video W Fiji Theater Company, Inc. NY M 1975 $278,915 $10,000 Dance/Film/Video NE Gladstein, Deborah NY X $10,000 Dance/Film/Video NE
150 FY92 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Haleakala, Inc. (The Kitchen) NY X 1971 $1,158,211 $10,000 Dance/Film/Video NE Goldoni, Lelia CA O I $21,500 Dance/Film/Video W New York Public Library Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundation NY X 1934 $232,331,193 $40,000 Dance/Film/Video NE Overfoot, Inc. NY M 1989 $45,811 $7,500 Dance/Film/Video NE Silvers, Sally NY M I $10,000 Dance/Film/Video NE Trisha Brown Company, Inc. NY M C 1970 $1,626,901 $10,000 Dance/Film/Video NE American Dance Festival, Inc. NC X 1934 $5,400,000 $68,300 Grants to Dance Presenters S Anchorage Concert Association, Inc. AK X 1950 $2,509,165 $10,600 Grants to Dance Presenters W Borough of Manhattan Community College Performing Arts Center, Inc. NY X 1983 $706,135 $4,700 Grants to Dance Presenters NE Boston Dance Umbrella MA X 1981 $1,161,634 $30,600 Grants to Dance Presenters NE
Brooklyn Academy of Music, Inc. NY X 1969 $20,472,461 $21,800 Grants to Dance Presenters NE Catamount Film and Arts Co. VT X 1975 $275,606 $4,700 Grants to Dance Presenters NE Center for Contemporary Arts of Santa Fe, Inc. NM X 1983 $404,892 $5,700 Grants to Dance Presenters W
Central Park Conservancy, Inc. NY X 1980 $30,152,000 $4,700 Grants to Dance Presenters NE City Celebration, Inc. CA E UNK UNK $9,500 Grants to Dance Presenters W City of San Antonio Texas (Carver Community Cultural Center) TX X 1972 $998,388 $10,500 Grants to Dance Presenters S Cleveland Modern Dance Association OH M 1965 $241,498 $6,600 Grants to Dance Presenters NC College Community Services, Inc. NY X 1954 $1,322,706 $6,500 Grants to Dance Presenters NE Colorado Dance Festival, Inc. CO X 1982 $548,910 $26,200 Grants to Dance Presenters W Columbia College IL X 1969 $1,400,868 $4,700 Grants to Dance Presenters NC Contemporary Dance Theater, Inc. OH M 1972 $225,745 $5,700 Grants to Dance Presenters NC Creative Time, Inc. NY X 1974 $730,697 $5,400 Grants to Dance Presenters NE D.C. Wheel Productions, Inc. DC X 1980 $830,063 $13,100 Grants to Dance Presenters S Dance Concert Society (Dance Saint Louis) MO X 1966 $2,040,389 $10,500 Grants to Dance Presenters NC
Dance Theater Workshop, Inc. NY X 1965 $2,551,944 $58,700 Grants to Dance Presenters NE Dance Umbrella TX X 1977 $1,161,634 $4,700 Grants to Dance Presenters S
151 FY92 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION DanceAspen, Inc. CO X 1978 $980,152 $14,100 Grants to Dance Presenters W Dancers' Collective of Atlanta, Inc. GA X 1980 $108,243 $4,700 Grants to Dance Presenters S Dancing in the Streets, Inc. NY X 1986 $370,222 $9,400 Grants to Dance Presenters NE Danspace Project, Inc. NY X 1974 $522,223 $7,600 Grants to Dance Presenters NE District Curators, Inc. DC X 1980 $309,401 $4,700 Grants to Dance Presenters S DiverseWorks, Inc. TX X 1982 $883,774 $4,700 Grants to Dance Presenters S Downtown Dance Company MD 1987 <25,000 $4,700 Grants to Dance Presenters S
Florida Dance Association, Inc. FL X 1972 $431,658 $4,700 Grants to Dance Presenters S Flynn Theatre for the Performing Arts, Ltd. VT X 1980 $5,065,682 $13,100 Grants to Dance Presenters NE Gloriana Opera Company CA X 1976 $114,078 $6,000 Grants to Dance Presenters W Haleakala, Inc. (The Kitchen) NY X 1971 $1,158,211 $15,700 Grants to Dance Presenters NE Helena Presents MT X 1976 $691,518 $14,100 Grants to Dance Presenters W Jacob's Pillow Dance Festival, Inc. MA X 1933 $3,402,786 $73,300 Grants to Dance Presenters NE John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts DC X 1958 $85,317,043 $35,000 Grants to Dance Presenters S
Joyce Theater Foundation, Inc. NY X 1979 $3,825,088 $26,200 Grants to Dance Presenters NE Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, Inc. NY X 1963 $70,285,026 $17,500 Grants to Dance Presenters NE
Miami-Dade Community College FL X 1966 $6,387,273 $4,700 Grants to Dance Presenters S Minnesota Dance Alliance MN X 1979 $452,587 $5,700 Grants to Dance Presenters NC
National Black Arts Festival, Inc. GA X 1988 $1,299,652 $4,700 Grants to Dance Presenters S New Orleans Ballet, Inc. LA B 1969 $778,694 $4,700 Grants to Dance Presenters S Ohio State University Research Foundation OH X 1943 $193,847,145 $17,500 Grants to Dance Presenters NC On the Boards WA M 1979 $660,568 $19,100 Grants to Dance Presenters W Painted Bride Art Center, Inc. PA X 1974 $721,407 $7,400 Grants to Dance Presenters NE Performance Space 122, Inc. NY X 1979 $1,003,393 $26,300 Grants to Dance Presenters NE Performance Support Services, Inc. WA X UNK $353,668 $4,700 Grants to Dance Presenters W Pittsburgh Dance Council, Inc. PA X 1972 $1,340,420 $20,100 Grants to Dance Presenters NE Portland State University OR X 1964 $8,241,010 $13,000 Grants to Dance Presenters W San Antonio Performing Arts Association TX X 1984 <25,000 $7,600 Grants to Dance Presenters S
152 FY92 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION San Francisco Performances, Inc. CA X 1979 $4,631,052 $4,700 Grants to Dance Presenters W Society for the Performing Arts TX X 1966 $2,856,009 $10,500 Grants to Dance Presenters S Spoleto Festival U.S.A. SC X 1977 $4,559,883 $9,500 Grants to Dance Presenters S Sushi, Inc. CA X 1980 $205,631 $8,500 Grants to Dance Presenters W Theater Artaud CA X 1972 $607,033 $9,300 Grants to Dance Presenters W Thelma Hill Performing Arts Center, Inc. NY X 1976 $50,101 $4,700 Grants to Dance Presenters NE
University of California-Berkeley CA X 1950 $111,695,299 $30,600 Grants to Dance Presenters W University of California-Los Angeles CA X 1919 $5,000,000+ $7,400 Grants to Dance Presenters W University of Iowa IA X 1956 $61,062,276 $17,500 Grants to Dance Presenters NC University of Minnesota-Twin Cities MN X 1851 $114,293,807 $10,500 Grants to Dance Presenters NC University of Nebraska-Lincoln NE X 1936 $158,775,448 $4,700 Grants to Dance Presenters NC University of Washington WA X 1861 $11,598,849 $6,600 Grants to Dance Presenters W Walker Art Center, Inc. MN X 1927 $23,240,432 $39,300 Grants to Dance Presenters NC Washington Performing Arts Society DC X 1965 $6,655,832 $27,300 Grants to Dance Presenters S World Music Institute, Inc. NY X 1987 $2,571,559 $4,700 Grants to Dance Presenters NE Affiliate Artists, Inc. NY UNK UNK $9,000 General Services to the Field NE American Tap Dance Orchestra, Inc. NY O 1986 $24,238 $5,000 General Services to the Field NE Boston Dance Umbrella MA X 1981 $1,161,634 $10,000 General Services to the Field NE Carlisle Project PA B 1986 $258,278 $5,000 General Services to the Field NE Circuit Network CA X 1984 $73,929 $5,000 General Services to the Field W Colorado Dance Festival, Inc. CO X 1982 $548,910 $5,000 General Services to the Field W Dance Bay Area CA X 1974 $137,130 $10,000 General Services to the Field W Dance Notation Bureau, Inc. NY X 1940 $262,015 $13,000 General Services to the Field NE Dance Resource Center of Greater Los Angeles CA X 1987 $58,608 $5,000 General Services to the Field W
Dance Theater Workshop, Inc. NY X 1965 $2,551,944 $30,000 General Services to the Field NE Dance Umbrella TX X 1977 $297,185 $5,000 General Services to the Field S Dance/USA DC X 1982 $1,387,389 $25,000 General Services to the Field S DanceWorks, Inc. NY X 1976 $816,697 $20,000 General Services to the Field NE Dancers' Collective of Atlanta, Inc. GA X 1980 $108,243 $5,000 General Services to the Field S
153 FY92 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Dia Center for the Arts Inc. NY X 1974 $17,066,699 $5,000 General Services to the Field NE Downtown Art Co., Inc. NY X 1987 <25,000 $5,000 General Services to the Field NE Ellen Webb Dance Foundation CA M 1982 $100,062 $5,000 General Services to the Field W
Florida Dance Association, Inc. FL X 1972 $431,658 $10,000 General Services to the Field S Friedman, Jeffrey P. CA X $5,000 General Services to the Field W H.T. Dance Company, Inc. (Chen and Dancers) NY X 1978 $225,761 $5,000 General Services to the Field NE Jack Faucett Associates MD X 1963 UNK $128,191 General Services to the Field S
Joyce Theater Foundation, Inc. NY X 1979 $3,825,088 $30,000 General Services to the Field NE Minnesota Dance Alliance MN X 1979 $452,587 $13,000 General Services to the Field NC New York Dance Center, Inc. NY X 1987 $33,353 $5,000 General Services to the Field NE New York Public Library Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundation NY X 1934 $232,331,193 $27,000 General Services to the Field NE On the Boards WA M 1979 $660,568 $5,000 General Services to the Field W
Original Ballets Foundation, Inc. NY B 1974 $2,475,495 $10,000 General Services to the Field NE Performance Space 122, Inc. NY X 1979 $1,003,393 $13,000 General Services to the Field NE Performance Zone, Inc. NY X 1986 $186,190 $5,000 General Services to the Field NE San Francisco Performing Arts Library and Museum CA X 1947 $600,042 $5,000 General Services to the Field W Theater Artaud CA X 1972 $607,033 $8,000 General Services to the Field W
Theatre Development Fund, Inc. NY X 1967 $22,615,749 $20,000 General Services to the Field NE Yellow Springs Institute for Contemporary Studies and the Arts PA X 1982 $5,500 $2,000 General Services to the Field NE
Council for Positive Images, Inc. DC X 1979 $24,015 $30,000 Special Projects S
Dance Theater Workshop, Inc. NY X 1965 $2,551,944 $100,000 Special Projects NE
Dance Theatre Workshop, Inc. NY X 1965 $2,551,944 $16,000 Special Projects NE Earth Circle Association CA E 1986 <25,000 $40,000 Special Projects W George Balanchine Foundation, Inc. NY B 1983 $153,229 $50,000 Special Projects NE Jacob's Pillow Dance Festival, Inc. MA X 1933 $3,402,786 $15,000 Special Projects NE
154 FY92 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Sommer, Sally NY X $50,000 Special Projects NE
Twin Cities Public Television, Inc. MN X 1958 $24,014,123 $95,000 Special Projects NC Mid-America Arts Alliance MO X 1972 $2,412,540 $117,000 Dance on Tour NC
155 FY93 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION African American Dance Chuck Davis African Ensemble, Inc. American NC E C 1984 $510,000 $13,000 Grants to Companies S Aims of Modzawe, Inc. NY E C 1973 $165,000 $15,000 Grants to Companies NE Alvin Ailey Dance Foundation, Alvin Ailey American Inc. Dance Theater NY M C 1958 $7,912,783 $280,000 Grants to Companies NE AMAN Folk Ensemble CA E C 1964 $663,179 $70,000 Grants to Companies W American Ballroom Theater Company, Inc. NY O C 1985 $174,900 $10,000 Grants to Companies NE Atlanta Ballet, Inc. GA B C 1929 $2,803,000 $10,000 Grants to Companies S Bailes Flamencos Rosa Montoya CA E C 1983 $181,400 $12,000 Grants to Companies W Ballet Chicago Company IL B C 1987 $1,662,485 $10,000 Grants to Companies NC Ballet Concierto de Puerto Rico, Inc. PR B C 1979 $618,098 $10,000 Grants to Companies T Ballet Hispanico of New York, Inc. NY M C 1970 $1,425,200 $29,000 Grants to Companies NE Ballet Metropolitan, Inc. BalletMet Columbus OH B C 1974 $3,313,500 $15,000 Grants to Companies NC Ballet Tech Foundation, Inc. NY B C 1974 $2,714,714 $70,000 Grants to Companies NE American Ballet Ballet Theatre Foundation, Inc. Theatre NY B C 1939 $15,866,000 $250,000 Grants to Companies NE Ballet West UT B C 1963 $4,343,574 $69,000 Grants to Companies W Bella Lewitzky Dance Foundation CA M C 1966 $955,369 $90,000 Grants to Companies W Boston Ballet, Inc. MA B C 1963 $12,514,668 $160,000 Grants to Companies NE Capoeira Foundation, Inc. Dance Brazil NY E C 1975 $270,300 $12,000 Grants to Companies NE Caribbean Dance Company of the Virgin Islands, Inc. VI E C 1977 $467,000 $10,000 Grants to Companies T Center Dance Collective NJ M C 1979 $92,134 $10,000 Grants to Companies NE Cleveland Ballet OH B C 1976 $5,072,000 $10,000 Grants to Companies NC Cranky Destroyers Stephanie Skura NY M C UNK $70,400 $11,000 Grants to Companies NE Cunningham Dance Merce Cunningham Foundation, Inc. Dance Company NY M C 1953 $3,690,600 $325,000 Grants to Companies NE Susan Marshall & Dance Continuum, Inc. Company NY M C 1982 $270,867 $22,000 Grants to Companies NE Liz Lerman Dance Dance Exchange, Inc. Exchange DC M C 1976 $535,800 $20,000 Grants to Companies S Dance Solos, Inc. Annabelle Gamson NY M C 1976 $98,484 $12,000 Grants to Companies NE
Dance Theatre of Harlem, Inc. NY B C 1969 $6,000,000 $275,000 Grants to Companies NE Dances and Drums of Africa, Inc. NY E C 1974 $295,490 $14,000 Grants to Companies NE
156 FY93 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION
Dayton Contemporary Dance Dayton Contemporary Guild, Inc. Dance Company OH M C 1968 $815,400 $24,000 Grants to Companies NC Dean Dance and Music Foundation, Inc. Laura Dean NY M C 1971 $350,000 $70,000 Grants to Companies NE Della Davidson Dance Company CA M C 1978 $99,000 $11,000 Grants to Companies W Mark Morris Dance Discalced, Inc. Group NY M C 1980 $1,960,950 $45,000 Grants to Companies NE Donald Byrd Dance Donald Byrd/The Foundation, Inc. Group NY M C 1978 $300,000 $10,000 Grants to Companies NE Eccentric Motions, Inc. Pooh Kaye NY M C 1986 $93,500 $12,000 Grants to Companies NE Ellen Kogan Solo Dance NY M C UNK $25,900 $10,000 Grants to Companies NE
Ellen Webb Dance Foundation CA M C 1982 $100,062 $10,000 Grants to Companies W Erick Hawkins Dance Foundation, Inc. NY M C 1951 $460,745 $55,000 Grants to Companies NE Ethnic Dance Theatre MN E C 1979 $119,840 $10,000 Grants to Companies NC Eugene Ballet Company OR B C 1978 $936,180 $10,000 Grants to Companies W
Floricanto Dance Theatre Danza Floricanto/USA CA E C 1975 $153,500 $12,000 Grants to Companies W Forces of Nature, Inc. NY E C 1982 $293,900 $11,000 Grants to Companies NE
Foundation for Dance Bill T. Jones/Arnie Promotion, Inc. Zane Dance Company NY M C 1982 $437,952 $45,000 Grants to Companies NE Friends of Ballets de San Juan, Inc. Ballets de San Juan PR B C 1954 $250,000 $10,000 Grants to Companies T Garth Fagan Dance, Inc. NY M C 1970 $1,195,350 $68,000 Grants to Companies NE
Gotham Dance, Inc. Bebe Miller Company NY M C 1985 $254,820 $21,000 Grants to Companies NE House Foundation for the Arts, Inc. Meredith Monk NY M C 1968 $774,000 $100,000 Grants to Companies NE Houston Ballet Foundation TX B C 1955 $10,141,669 $97,000 Grants to Companies S
Hubbard Street Dance Chicago IL M C 1977 $2,027,520 $12,000 Grants to Companies NC Ice Theatre of New York, Inc. NY O C 1984 $181,890 $12,000 Grants to Companies NE Maria Benitez Teatro Institute for Spanish Arts Flamenco NY E C 1970 $532,000 $43,000 Grants to Companies NE Inta, Inc. Eiko and Koma NY M C UNK $242,300 $35,000 Grants to Companies NE Isaacs McCaleb & Dancers CA M C 1974 $239,851 $10,000 Grants to Companies W
157 FY93 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Jazz Tap Ensemble, Inc. CA O C 1979 $248,749 $44,000 Grants to Companies W
Joe Goode Performance Group CA M C 1986 $240,784 $20,000 Grants to Companies W
Joffrey Ballet of Chicago, Inc. IL B C 1956 $6,269,924 $230,000 Grants to Companies NC José Limón Dance Foundation, Limón Dance Inc. Company NY M C 1946 $761,930 $50,000 Grants to Companies NE Joseph Holmes Chicago Dance Theatre IL M C 1974 $757,100 $10,000 Grants to Companies NC Kankouran West African Dance Company DC E C 1983 $183,900 $10,000 Grants to Companies S Kansas City Ballet Association, Inc. Kansas City Ballet MO B C 1957 $2,127,835 $37,000 Grants to Companies NC Karen Bamonte previously known as Danceworks/Amphora Zero Moving PA M C 1972 $301,475 $10,000 Grants to Companies NE Ko-Thi, Inc. WI E C 1969 $495,000 $10,000 Grants to Companies NC LINES Contemporary Ballet CA B C 1982 $528,816 $12,000 Grants to Companies W
Loretta Livingston and Dancers CA M C 1984 $111,927 $10,000 Grants to Companies W Lubovitch Dance Foundation, Lar Lubovitch Dance Inc. Company NY M C 1968 $1,164,263 $57,000 Grants to Companies NE Lucinda Childs Dance Foundation, Ltd. NY M C 1973 $379,430 $66,000 Grants to Companies NE Lula Washington Contemporary Dance Lula Washington Foundation Dance Theater CA M C 1980 $590,601 $10,000 Grants to Companies W Manhattan Tap, Inc. NY O C 1986 $116,500 $10,000 Grants to Companies NE Margaret Jenkins Dance Company CA M C 1973 $798,850 $45,000 Grants to Companies W Martha Graham Center of Contemporary Dance, Inc. NY M C 1926 $1,954,088 $235,000 Grants to Companies NE Mary Street Dance Theatre, Inc. FL M C 1985 $71,360 $10,000 Grants to Companies S
Memory of African Culture, Inc. DC E C 1983 $65,900 $10,000 Grants to Companies S Miami City Ballet, Inc. FL B C 1985 $6,491,974 $60,000 Grants to Companies S Mixed Bag Productions, Inc. Contraband CA M C 1976 $150,600 $12,000 Grants to Companies W Mordine and Company IL M C 1968 $205,030 $10,000 Grants to Companies NC Muntu Dance Theatre IL E C 1972 $368,040 $10,000 Grants to Companies NC New Dance Ensemble Linda Shapiro MN M C 1981 $359,620 $14,000 Grants to Companies NC
158 FY93 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Cleo Parker Robinson New Dance Theatre, Inc. Dance CO M C 1970 $621,943 $17,000 Grants to Companies W New York Baroque Dance Company, Inc. NY O C 1976 $154,103 $12,000 Grants to Companies NE New York Chinese Cultural Chinese Folk Dance Center, Inc. Company NY E C 1973 $90,000 $10,000 Grants to Companies NE New York City Ballet NY B C 1948 $31,138,760 $325,000 Grants to Companies NE New York City Ballet NY B C 1948 $31,138,760 $250,000 Grants to Companies NE Nikolais/Louis Foundation for Murray Louis & Dance, Inc. Nikolais Dance NY M C 1948 $1,024,700 $89,000 Grants to Companies NE
North Carolina Dance Theatre NC B C 1970 $757,164 $30,000 Grants to Companies S Oakland Ballet Association CA B C 1965 $2,302,072 $25,000 Grants to Companies W Oberlin Dance Collective ODC/San Francisco CA M C 1971 $825,568 $19,000 Grants to Companies W Ohio Chamber Ballet Ohio Ballet OH B C 1968 $1,411,612 $57,000 Grants to Companies NC Pacific Northwest Ballet Pacific Northwest Association Ballet WA B C 1972 $7,888,800 $208,000 Grants to Companies W Paul Taylor Dance Foundation, Paul Taylor Dance Inc. Company NY M C 1954 $2,567,500 $300,000 Grants to Companies NE Paul Taylor Dance Foundation, Inc. NY M C 1954 $2,567,500 $100,000 Grants to Companies NE Pennsylvania Ballet Association Pennsylvania Ballet PA B C 1963 $7,000,000 $40,000 Grants to Companies NE Pennsylvania Dance Theatre, Inc. PA M C 1979 $199,500 $10,000 Grants to Companies NE Philadelphia Dance Company, Inc. Philadanco PA M C 1970 $818,100 $26,000 Grants to Companies NE Pick Up Performance Company, Inc. David Gordon NY M C 1971 $607,800 $75,000 Grants to Companies NE Pilobolus Dance Pilobolus, Inc. Theatre CT M C 1971 $1,035,500 $10,000 Grants to Companies NE
Pittsburgh Ballet Theatre, Inc. PA B C 1969 $4,887,075 $65,000 Grants to Companies NE Pittsburgh Dance Alloy Dance Alloy PA M C 1976 $325,910 $10,000 Grants to Companies NE Jane Comfort and Racing Thoughts, Inc. Company NY M C 1982 $45,467 $10,000 Grants to Companies NE Repertory Dance Theatre UT M C 1966 $472,900 $25,000 Grants to Companies W Rhapsody in Taps, Inc. CA O C 1981 $117,225 $10,000 Grants to Companies W Douglas Dunn & Rio Grande Union, Inc. Dancers NY M C 1971 $227,518 $18,000 Grants to Companies NE
159 FY93 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION San Francisco Ballet Association San Francisco Ballet CA B C 1933 $16,817,000 $260,000 Grants to Companies W School of Hard Knocks, Inc. Yoshiko Chuma NY M C 1980 $70,300 $11,000 Grants to Companies NE Sharir & Bustamante Danceworks TX M C 1982 $381,496 $10,000 Grants to Companies S Solomons Company/Dance, Inc. NY M C 1973 $90,050 $15,000 Grants to Companies NE Stephen Petronio Dance Company, Inc. NY M C 1984 $263,050 $18,000 Grants to Companies NE Terra Moto, Inc. Victoria Marks NY M C 1989 $61,136 $10,000 Grants to Companies NE Trisha Brown Dance Company, Inc. NY M C 1970 $1,450,600 $200,000 Grants to Companies NE U.B.W., Inc. Urban Bush Women NY M C 1984 $606,642 $14,000 Grants to Companies NE Washington Ballet DC B C 1966 $2,641,000 $26,000 Grants to Companies S Zenon Dance Company and School, Inc. MN M C 1983 $454,370 $10,000 Grants to Companies NC Zivili Kolo Ensemble, Inc. OH E C 1973 $130,283 $10,000 Grants to Companies NC Atkins, Cholly NV O I $45,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Birch, Nathan A. MD O I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships S Bufalino, Brenda NY O I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Clemente, Steve and Colon, Richard NY O I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Creach, Terry L. and Koester, Steven NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Dove, Ulyses NY M I $45,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Fenley, A. Molissa NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Fleming, Donald J. NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Fleming, Maureen Pl NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Garver, Fred Garbo MA O I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Glover, Savion NY O I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Graney, Pat M. WA M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Greco, Jose C. PA E I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Green, Check NY O I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Harishankar, Ramya CA E I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Hauser, Susana di Palma MN E I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NC Hay, Deborah TX M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships S Kelly, John J. NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Kimoto, Kumiko NY M I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Knight, Lakshmi NJ E I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Koplowitz, Stephan M. NY X I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE
160 FY93 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Krieckhaus, Steve G. PA M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Ladzekpo, C.K. CA E I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Lee, Eva J. HI M I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships W McCullough, Rick NC B I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships S Monson, Jennifer NY X I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Nguyen, Long CA M I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships W O'Connor, Tere R. NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE O'Slynne, Timothy IL X I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NC Primus, Pearl E. NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Ramaswamy, Ranee MN E I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NC Rethorst, Susan NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Rivera, Manolo NY E I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Robinson, LaVaughn E. PA O I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Rogoff, Tamar NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Shaw, JoAnna M. NY X I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Skaggs, Sarah J. NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Slyde, Jimmy MA O I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Soto, Merian NY E I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Stuart, Meg NY M I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Terry, Keith L. CA O I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Uchizono, Donna N. NY M I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Waller, Diane L. MN O I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NC Warshaw, Randy L. NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Wilson, Llory Cay WA M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Young, Bill NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE
American Dance Festival, Inc. NC X P 1934 $5,400,000 $63,400 Grants to Dance Presenters S Anchorage Concert Association AK X P 1950 $2,509,165 $13,700 Grants to Dance Presenters W Boston Dance Umbrella MA X P 1981 $1,161,634 $34,200 Grants to Dance Presenters NE Brooklyn Academy of Music Inc. NY X P 1969 $20,472,461 $34,300 Grants to Dance Presenters NE Byrne Miller Dance Theater Inc. SC M C 1971 $28,293 $5,000 Grants to Dance Presenters S Catamount Film and Arts Co VT X P 1975 $275,606 $5,000 Grants to Dance Presenters NE Center for Contemporary Arts of Santa Fe Inc. NM X P 1983 $404,892 $5,000 Grants to Dance Presenters W City Celebration Inc. CA E UNK UNK $8,800 Grants to Dance Presenters W
Colorado Dance Festival Inc. CO X P 1982 $548,910 $25,400 Grants to Dance Presenters W
161 FY93 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Columbus College IL X E 1969 $1,400,868 $10,300 Grants to Dance Presenters NC Contemporary Dance Theater Inc. OH M P 1972 $225,745 $5,000 Grants to Dance Presenters NC Creative Time Inc. NY X P 1974 $730,697 $5,000 Grants to Dance Presenters NC D.C. Wheel Productions DC X P 1980 $830,063 $9,800 Grants to Dance Presenters S Dance Saint Louis MO X P 1966 $2,040,389 $11,700 Grants to Dance Presenters NC
Dance Theater Workshop, Inc. NY X P 1965 $2,551,944 $50,000 Grants to Dance Presenters NE Dance Umbrella TX X P 1977 $1,161,634 $5,000 Grants to Dance Presenters S DanceAspen Inc. CO X C 1978 $980,152 $12,700 Grants to Dance Presenters W Dancers Collective of Atlanta Inc. GA X P 1980 $108,243 $6,800 Grants to Dance Presenters S Dancing in the Streets Inc. NY X C 1986 $370,222 $7,800 Grants to Dance Presenters NE Danspace Project Inc. NY X P 1974 $522,223 $6,800 Grants to Dance Presenters NE DiverseWorks Inc. TX X P 1982 $883,774 $5,400 Grants to Dance Presenters S
Florida Dance Association Inc. FL X P 1972 $431,658 $5,400 Grants to Dance Presenters S Flynn Theatre for the Performing Arts Ltd VT X P 1980 $5,065,682 $14,700 Grants to Dance Presenters NE Gloriana Opera Company CA X C 1976 $114,078 $5,400 Grants to Dance Presenters W Haleakala, Inc. NY X P 1971 $1,158,211 $9,800 Grants to Dance Presenters NE Helena Presents MT X P 1976 $691,518 $13,800 Grants to Dance Presenters W Jacob's Pillow Dance Festival Inc. MA X P 1933 $3,402,786 $78,400 Grants to Dance Presenters NE John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts DC X P 1958 $85,317,043 $36,100 Grants to Dance Presenters S
Joyce Theater Foundation Inc. NY X P 1979 $3,825,088 $34,300 Grants to Dance Presenters NE Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts Inc. NY X P 1963 $70,285,026 $14,700 Grants to Dance Presenters NE Miami-Dade Community College FL X E 1966 $6,387,273 $5,000 Grants to Dance Presenters S Miami-Dade Community College FL X E 1966 $6,387,273 $940 Grants to Dance Presenters S Minnesota Dance Alliance MN X S 1979 $452,587 $5,900 Grants to Dance Presenters NC Ohio State Research Foundation OH X E 1943 $193,847,145 $19,600 Grants to Dance Presenters NC On the Boards WA M P 1979 $660,568 $17,600 Grants to Dance Presenters W Painted Bride Art Center, Inc. PA X P 1974 $721,407 $5,900 Grants to Dance Presenters NE Performance Space 122 Inc. NY X P 1979 $1,003,393 $17,700 Grants to Dance Presenters NE
162 FY93 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION
Pittsburgh Dance Council Inc. PA X P 1972 $1,340,420 $18,600 Grants to Dance Presenters NE San Antonio, City of TX X 1718 $5,000,000+ $11,200 Grants to Dance Presenters S San Francisco Performances, Inc. CA X P 1979 $4,631,052 $6,400 Grants to Dance Presenters W
Society for the Performing Arts TX X P 1966 $2,856,009 $12,700 Grants to Dance Presenters S Sushi, Inc. CA X P 1980 $205,631 $7,400 Grants to Dance Presenters W Theater Artaud CA X C 1972 $607,033 $9,800 Grants to Dance Presenters W Thelma Hill Performing Arts Center Inc. NY X P 1976 $50,101 $5,000 Grants to Dance Presenters NE
University of California-Berkley CA X E 1950 $111,695,299 $29,400 Grants to Dance Presenters W University of Iowa IA X E 1956 $61,062,276 $17,100 Grants to Dance Presenters NC University of Minnesota-Twin Cities MN X E 1851 $114,293,807 $10,800 Grants to Dance Presenters NC University of Washington WA X E 1861 $11,598,849 $9,800 Grants to Dance Presenters W Walker Art Center Inc. MN X P 1927 $23,240,432 $35,100 Grants to Dance Presenters NC Washington Performing Arts Society DC X P 1965 $6,655,832 $25,400 Grants to Dance Presenters S World Music Institute Inc. NY X P 1987 $2,571,559 $5,900 Grants to Dance Presenters NE
Dance Theater Workshop Inc. NY X P 1965 $2,551,944 $95,000 Special Projects NE Dance/USA DC X S 1982 $1,387,389 $10,000 Special Projects S Mid-America Arts Alliance MO X S 1972 $2,412,540 $94,840 Special Projects NC Mid-Atlantic Arts Foundation Inc. MD X S 1979 $2,163,230 $42,635 Special Projects S
Western States Arts Federation NM X S 1974 $1,412,902 $100,000 Special Projects W Arts Resources in Collaboration Inc. NY X O 1976 $86,867 $4,850 General Services to the Field NE Bay Area Dance Series CA X P 1984 $117,197 $4,850 General Services to the Field W Boston Dance Umbrella MA X P 1981 $1,161,634 $4,850 General Services to the Field NE Carlisle Project PA B C 1986 $258,278 $4,850 General Services to the Field NE City Center 55th Street Theater Foundation NY X P 1976 UNK $4,850 General Services to the Field NE Colorado Dance Festival CO X P 1982 $548,910 $4,850 General Services to the Field W Dallas Black Dance Theatre Inc. TX M C 1976 $2,356,492 $9,000 General Services to the Field S Dance Bay Area CA X P 1974 $137,130 $9,650 General Services to the Field W
163 FY93 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Dance Notation Bureau Inc. NY X S 1940 $262,015 $4,850 General Services to the Field NE
Dance Theater Workshop Inc. NY X P 1965 $2,551,944 $28,850 General Services to the Field NE Dance Umbrella TX X P 1977 $1,161,634 $4,850 General Services to the Field S Dance/USA DC X S 1982 $1,387,389 $28,850 General Services to the Field S DanceWorks Inc. (Pentacle) NY X S 1976 $816,697 $19,250 General Services to the Field NE Downtown Art Co. Inc. NY X S 1987 <25,000 $4,850 General Services to the Field NE First Impressions Performances CA X P 1989 <25,000 $4,850 General Services to the Field W
Florida Dance Association Inc. FL X P 1972 $431,658 $2,000 General Services to the Field S H.T. Dance Company NY M C 1978 $323,670 $4,850 General Services to the Field NE Haleakala Inc. NY X P 1971 $1,158,211 $4,850 General Services to the Field NE Jack Faucett Associates Inc. MD X O 1963 UNK $129,202 General Services to the Field S
Joyce Theater Foundation Inc. NY X P 1979 $3,825,088 $19,250 General Services to the Field NE Minnesota Dance Alliance MN X S 1979 $452,587 $12,550 General Services to the Field NC
New York Public Library Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations NY X E 1934 $232,331,193 $14,450 General Services to the Field NE On the Boards WA M P 1979 $660,568 $4,850 General Services to the Field W
Original Ballets Foundation Inc. NY B C 1974 $2,603,573 $5,850 General Services to the Field NE Performance Space 122 Inc. NY X P 1979 $1,003,393 $4,850 General Services to the Field NE Performance Zone Inc.(The Field) NY X S 1986 $186,190 $4,850 General Services to the Field NE Preserve Inc. MA X S 1981 $86,934 $4,850 General Services to the Field NE Theater Artaud CA X C 1972 $607,033 $7,650 General Services to the Field W Theatre Development Fund Inc. NY X S 1967 $22,615,749 $19,250 General Services to the Field NE Yard Inc. NY X P 1973 $153,084 $4,850 General Services to the Field NE
164 FY94 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION African American Dance Chuck Davis African Ensemble, Inc. American NC E C 1984 $506,027 $15,000 Grants to Companies S Aims of Modzawe, Inc. NY E C 1973 $139,909 $17,000 Grants to Companies NE Alvin Ailey Dance Alvin Ailey American Foundation, Inc. Dance Theater NY M C 1958 $7,053,016 $280,000 Grants to Companies NE AMAN Folk Ensemble CA E C 1964 $662,852 $70,000 Grants to Companies W American Ballroom Theater Company, Inc. NY O C 1985 $284,850 $15,000 Grants to Companies NE Atlanta Ballet, Inc. GA B C 1929 $2,872,287 $10,000 Grants to Companies S Bailes Flamencos Rosa Montoya CA E C 1983 $175,702 $18,000 Grants to Companies W Ballet Chicago Company IL B C 1987 $1,653,357 $11,000 Grants to Companies NC Ballet Concierto de Puerto Rico, Inc. PR B C 1978 $608,571 $10,000 Grants to Companies T Ballet Hispanico of New York, Inc. NY M C 1970 $1,442,924 $30,000 Grants to Companies NE Ballet Metropolitan, Inc. BalletMet Columbus OH B C 1974 $3,263,565 $20,000 Grants to Companies NC
Ballet Tech Foundation, Inc. NY B C 1974 $2,729,616 $75,000 Grants to Companies NE Ballet Theatre Foundation, Inc. American Ballet Theatre NY B C 1939 $13,681,593 $250,000 Grants to Companies NE Ballet West UT B C 1963 $4,358,727 $65,000 Grants to Companies W Bella Lewitzky Dance Foundation CA M C 1966 $750,599 $95,000 Grants to Companies W Boston Ballet, Inc. MA B C 1963 $12,996,790 $170,000 Grants to Companies NE Capoeira Foundation, Inc. Dance Brazil NY E C 1975 $302,649 $15,000 Grants to Companies NE
Caribbean Dance Company of the Virgin Islands, Inc. VI E C 1977 $316,761 $10,000 Grants to Companies T Cincinnati Ballet Company, Inc. OH B C 1977 $2,747,175 $10,000 Grants to Companies NC Cleveland Ballet OH B C 1976 $8,201,855 $20,000 Grants to Companies NC Contemporary Dance Arts, Inc. Shapiro & Smith Dance NY M C 1985 $115,657 $10,000 Grants to Companies NE Cunningham Dance Merce Cunningham Dance Foundation, Inc. Company NY M C 1953 $2,783,792 $300,000 Grants to Companies NE Dance Collective Mass Movement, Inc. MA M C 1973 $69,412 $10,000 Grants to Companies NE Susan Marshall & Dance Continuum, Inc. Company NY M C 1982 $286,787 $25,000 Grants to Companies NE Liz Lerman Dance Dance Exchange, Inc. Exchange DC M C 1976 $502,000 $20,000 Grants to Companies S
165 FY94 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Dance Solos, Inc. Annabelle Gamson NY M C 1976 $87,249 $15,000 Grants to Companies NE Dance Theatre of Harlem, Inc. NY B C 1969 $7,030,544 $260,000 Grants to Companies NE Dances and Drums of Africa, Inc. NY E C 1974 $90,484 $15,000 Grants to Companies NE Dayton Contemporary Dance Dayton Contemporary Guild, Inc. Dance Company OH M C 1968 $786,474 $26,000 Grants to Companies NC Dean Dance and Music Foundation, Inc. Laura Dean NY M C 1971 $297,900 $72,000 Grants to Companies NE Della Davidson Dance Company CA M C 1978 $104,226 $10,000 Grants to Companies W
Discalced, Inc. Mark Morris Dance Group NY M C 1980 $1,850,960 $45,000 Grants to Companies NE Donald Byrd Dance Foundation, Inc. Donald Byrd/The Group NY M C 1978 $207,139 $12,000 Grants to Companies NE Ellen Kogan Solo Dance NY M C UNK $24,625 $10,000 Grants to Companies NE Erick Hawkins Dance Foundation, Inc. NY M C 1951 $408,886 $60,000 Grants to Companies NE Ethnic Dance Theatre MN E C 1979 $107,746 $10,000 Grants to Companies NC Eugene Ballet Company OR B C 1978 $909,788 $12,000 Grants to Companies W Floricanto Dance Theatre Danza Floricanto/USA CA E C 1975 $80,564 $13,000 Grants to Companies W Forces of Nature, Inc. NY E C 1982 $165,800 $10,000 Grants to Companies NE Foundation for Dance Bill T. Jones/Arnie Zane Promotion, Inc. Dance Company NY M C 1982 $685,580 $60,000 Grants to Companies NE Friends of Ballets de San Juan, Inc. Ballets de San Juan PR B C 1954 $257,360 $13,000 Grants to Companies T Fua Dia Congo CA E C 1977 $65,489 $10,000 Grants to Companies W Garth Fagan Dance, Inc. NY M C 1970 $985,065 $75,000 Grants to Companies NE Gotham Dance, Inc. Bebe Miller Company NY M C 1985 $254,652 $23,000 Grants to Companies NE Guateque Folkloric Taller of Puerto Rico, Inc. PR E C 1988 $39,900 $10,000 Grants to Companies T H.T. Dance Company, Inc. Chen & Dancers NY M C 1978 $259,969 $10,000 Grants to Companies NE Hartford Ballet Inc. CT B C 1972 $2,347,000 $10,000 Grants to Companies NE AVAZ International Dance Heritage & Tradition, Inc. Theatre CA E C 1977 $119,957 $10,000 Grants to Companies W House Foundation for the Arts, Inc. Meredith Monk NY M C 1968 $700,458 $95,000 Grants to Companies NE Houston Ballet Foundation TX B C 1955 $10,421,246 $105,000 Grants to Companies S Hubbard Street Dance Chicago IL M C 1977 $1,948,137 $12,000 Grants to Companies NC
166 FY94 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION
Ice Theatre of New York, Inc. NY O C 1984 $184,164 $14,000 Grants to Companies NE Maria Benitez Teatro Institute for Spanish Arts Flamenco NY E C 1970 $415,413 $45,000 Grants to Companies NE Inta, Inc. Eiko and Koma NY M C UNK $230,980 $30,000 Grants to Companies NE
Isaacs McCaleb & Dancers also Three's Company CA M C 1974 $225,988 $10,000 Grants to Companies W Jazz Tap Ensemble, Inc. CA O C 1979 $205,545 $45,000 Grants to Companies W Joe Goode Performance Group CA M C 1986 $238,470 $23,000 Grants to Companies W
Joffrey Ballet of Chicago, Inc. IL B C 1956 $7,319,404 $215,000 Grants to Companies NC José Limón Dance Foundation, Inc. Limón Dance Company NY M C 1946 $582,064 $53,000 Grants to Companies NE Kansas City Ballet Association, Inc. Kansas City Ballet MO B C 1957 $2,167,803 $39,000 Grants to Companies NC Karen Bamonte previously known as Zero Danceworks/Amphora Moving PA M C 1972 $261,019 $10,000 Grants to Companies NE Keep the Country Dancing, Foot & Fiddle Dance Inc. Company NY O C 1991 $166,877 $10,000 Grants to Companies NE
LINES Contemporary Ballet CA B C 1982 $465,590 $15,000 Grants to Companies W Loretta Livingston and Dancers CA M C 1984 $88,186 $10,000 Grants to Companies W Lubovitch Dance Foundation, Lar Lubovitch Dance Inc. Company NY M C 1968 $1,023,663 $45,000 Grants to Companies NE Lucinda Childs Dance Foundation, Ltd. NY M C 1973 $362,268 $70,000 Grants to Companies NE Lula Washington Contemporary Dance Lula Washington Dance Foundation Theater CA M C 1980 $590,601 $13,000 Grants to Companies W Manhattan Tap, Inc. NY O C 1986 $107,804 $10,000 Grants to Companies NE Margaret Jenkins Dance Company CA M C 1973 $750,600 $50,000 Grants to Companies W Martha Graham Center of Contemporary Dance, Inc. NY M C 1926 $2,831,021 $200,000 Grants to Companies NE Miami City Ballet, Inc. FL B C 1985 $6,224,031 $60,000 Grants to Companies S
Mixed Bag Productions, Inc. Contraband CA M C 1976 $122,455 $14,000 Grants to Companies W Mordine and Company IL M C 1968 $205,030 $13,000 Grants to Companies NC
167 FY94 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Muntu Dance Theatre IL E C 1972 $373,115 $15,000 Grants to Companies NC Nai-Ni Chen Dance Company, Inc. NJ M C 1986 $85,652 $10,000 Grants to Companies NE Cleo Parker Robinson New Dance Theatre, Inc. Dance CO M C 1970 $729,896 $20,000 Grants to Companies W Sara Pearson/Patrik Widrig New Life Dance, Inc. and Company NY M C 1987 $74,791 $10,000 Grants to Companies NE New York Chinese Cultural Chinese Folk Dance Center, Inc. Company NY E C 1973 $87,398 $10,000 Grants to Companies NE New York City Ballet NY B C 1948 $33,813,950 $300,000 Grants to Companies NE Nikolais/Louis Foundation for Murray Louis & Nikolais Dance, Inc. Dance NY M C 1948 $700,902 $91,000 Grants to Companies NE North Carolina Dance Theatre NC B C 1970 $528,584 $35,000 Grants to Companies S
Oakland Ballet Association CA B C 1965 $2,312,083 $10,000 Grants to Companies W Oberlin Dance Collective ODC/San Francisco CA M C 1971 $847,549 $19,000 Grants to Companies W Ohio Chamber Ballet Ohio Ballet OH B C 1968 $1,414,453 $60,000 Grants to Companies NC Omaha Ballet Society NE B C 1967 $1,082,377 $10,000 Grants to Companies NC Pacific Northwest Ballet Association Pacific Northwest Ballet WA B C 1972 $8,374,053 $205,000 Grants to Companies W Parsons Dance Foundation, Inc. Parsons Dance Company NY M C 1987 $557,337 $10,000 Grants to Companies NE Paul Taylor Dance Paul Taylor Dance Foundation, Inc. Company NY M C 1954 $3,067,168 $275,000 Grants to Companies NE Pennsylvania Ballet Association Pennsylvania Ballet PA B C 1963 $5,816,080 $38,000 Grants to Companies NE Pennsylvania Dance Theatre, Inc. PA M C 1979 $188,070 $10,000 Grants to Companies NE Philadelphia Dance Company, Inc. Philadanco PA M C 1970 $828,168 $31,000 Grants to Companies NE Pick Up Performance Company, Inc. David Gordon NY M C 1971 $408,400 $77,000 Grants to Companies NE
Pilobolus, Inc. Pilobolus Dance Theatre CT M C 1971 $1,018,172 $10,000 Grants to Companies NE
Pittsburgh Ballet Theatre, Inc. PA B C 1969 $4,834,100 $65,000 Grants to Companies NE Pittsburgh Dance Alloy Dance Alloy PA M C 1976 $336,599 $11,000 Grants to Companies NE Doug Elkins Dance PLAM Dancers, Inc. Company NY M C 1991 $137,913 $13,000 Grants to Companies NE
168 FY94 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Repertory Dance Theatre UT M C 1966 $462,600 $20,000 Grants to Companies W Rhapsody in Taps, Inc. CA O C 1981 $94,353 $12,000 Grants to Companies W Richmond Ballet VA B C 1950 $1,764,088 $10,000 Grants to Companies S Ringside, Inc. STREB/Ringside NY M C 1978 $218,621 $12,000 Grants to Companies NE
Rio Grande Union, Inc. Douglas Dunn & Dancers NY M C 1971 $210,066 $20,000 Grants to Companies NE Ririe-Woodbury Dance Foundation UT M C 1964 $447,675 $13,000 Grants to Companies W San Francisco Ballet Association San Francisco Ballet CA B C 1933 $16,298,400 $255,000 Grants to Companies W
School of Hard Knocks, Inc. Yoshiko Chuma NY M C 1980 $84,100 $10,000 Grants to Companies NE Sharir & Bustamante Danceworks TX M C 1982 $363,357 $10,000 Grants to Companies S Solomons Company/Dance, Inc. NY M C 1973 $74,622 $10,000 Grants to Companies NE Stephen Petronio Dance Company, Inc. NY M C 1984 $264,242 $19,000 Grants to Companies NE
Third Street Dance Ton Simons and Dancers NY M C 1987 $37,000 $10,000 Grants to Companies NE Trisha Brown Dance Company, Inc. NY M C 1970 $1,306,175 $195,000 Grants to Companies NE U.B.W., Inc. Urban Bush Women NY M C 1984 $651,362 $14,000 Grants to Companies NE Washington Ballet DC B C 1966 $2,912,489 $16,000 Grants to Companies S Zivili Kolo Ensemble, Inc. OH E C 1973 $118,728 $15,000 Grants to Companies NC Addy, Yacub T. NY E I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Ambegaokar, Anjani J. CA E I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Beal, Tandy J. CA X I $45,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Blossom, Beverly NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Brown, James R. NY O I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Browne, Harriet NY O I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Bruning, Diane Coburn NY B I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Bustamante, Jose Luis TX M I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships S Carlson, Ann M. NY O I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Carson, Eileen O. MD O I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships S Charlip, Remy CA O I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Chvala, Joseph M. MN O I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NC Comfort, Jane C. NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Daniels, Brenda J. NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Dorfman, David NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE
169 FY94 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Erickson, Betsy J. CA B I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Fujima, Kansuma CA E I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Hadel, Timothy A. NY M I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Hardenbergh, Marylee MN O I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NC Jasperse, John NY M I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Josa-Jones, Paula MA X I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Jungels, Dorothy RI X I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE King, Kenneth F. NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Konte, Assane DC E I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships S Lacey, Jennifer M. NY M I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Madsen, Wade R. WA M I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Manning, Frankie NY O I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Marks, Victoria E. NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE McIntyre, Diane NY X I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Nguyen, Long CA M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships W O'Slynne, Timothy IL X I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NC Perea, Alicia L. NM M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Polsky, Rose A. CA M I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Pomare, Eleo NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Rajagopalan, Hema IL E I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NC Reitz, Dana NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Richard, Byron M. and Erin Thompson MN M I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NC Rousseve, David J. NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Rudner, Sara NY M I $45,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE
Schaffer, Karl and Eric Stein CA M I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Skura, Stephanie WA M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Strickler, Fred CA O I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Turocy, Catherine NY O I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Uchizono, Donna N. NY M I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Walker, Dianne Y. MA O I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Wilson, Reginald NY X I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Wong, Mel CA M I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Wynn, Kevin A. NY M I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Yearby, Marlies NY X I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE American Dance Festival NC X P 1934 $5,400,000 $7,000 Services to the Field S Artists Trust: A Resource for Washington WA X S 1987 $763,695 $5,000 Services to the Field W Boston Dance Umbrella MA X P 1981 $1,161,634 $5,000 Services to the Field NE
170 FY94 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION
Chicago Dance Arts Coalition IL X S 1981 $33,128 $17,500 Services to the Field NC City Center 55th Street Dance Theater Foundation NY X P 1976 UNK $18,000 Services to the Field NE Colorado Dance Festival CO X P 1982 $548,910 $5,000 Services to the Field W Dance Notation Bureau NY X S 1940 $262,015 $5,000 Services to the Field NE Dance Theater Workshop NY X P 1965 $2,551,944 $29,000 Services to the Field NE Dance Umbrella TX X P 1977 $1,161,634 $6,000 Services to the Field S Dance/USA DC X S 1982 $1,387,389 $27,500 Services to the Field S
Dancers Collective of Atlanta GA X P 1980 $108,243 $5,000 Services to the Field S DanceWorks, Inc. NY X S 1976 $816,697 $20,000 Services to the Field NE D.C. Youth Ensemble DC X E 1980 $164,102 $8,500 Services to the Field S Dia Art Foundation NY X P 1974 $17,066,699 $5,000 Services to the Field NE Downtown Art Company NY X C 1987 <25,000 $6,000 Services to the Field NE Ellen Webb Dance Foundation CA M C 1982 $100,062 $5,000 Services to the Field W Florida, State Dance Association of FL X P 1972 $384,958 $6,000 Services to the Field S Joyce Theater Foundation NY X P 1979 $3,825,088 $20,000 Services to the Field NE Minnesota Dance Alliance MN X S 1979 $452,587 $10,000 Services to the Field NC Movement Research, Inc. NY X P 1978 $305,585 $7,500 Services to the Field NE New York Dance Center NY X S 1987 $33,353 $5,000 Services to the Field NE New York Public Library Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundation NY X E 1934 $232,331,193 $20,000 Services to the Field NE On the Boards WA M P 1979 $660,568 $7,000 Services to the Field W Performance Space 122 NY X P 1979 $1,003,393 $6,000 Services to the Field NE Performance Zone, Inc. NY X S 1986 $186,190 $6,000 Services to the Field NE Pittsburgh Dance Council PA X P 1972 $1,340,420 $5,000 Services to the Field NE San Francisco Performing Arts Library and Museum CA X E 1947 $600,042 $5,000 Services to the Field W Theater Artaud CA X C 1972 $607,033 $8,500 Services to the Field W Theatre Development Fund NY X S 1967 $22,615,749 $20,000 Services to the Field NE Very Special Arts New Mexico NM X O 1981 $484,875 $5,000 Services to the Field W Jack Faucett Associates MD X O 1963 UNK $119,000 Services to the Field S
Council for Positive Images DC X 1980 $45,019 $20,000 Special Projects S Dance Notation Bureau NY X S 1940 $262,015 $10,000 Special Projects NE
171 FY94 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Dance Theater Workshop, Inc. NY X P 1965 $2,551,944 $90,000 Special Projects NE Mid-America Arts Alliance MO X S 1972 $2,412,540 $102,093 Special Projects NC Mid Atlantic Arts Foundation MD X S 1979 $2,163,230 $100,000 Special Projects S National Council for the Traditional Arts MD X P 1933 $1,340,033 $40,000 Special Projects S Hawkins, Erick NY M I $20,000 Master Teachers/Mentors NE Primus, Pearl NY M I $20,000 Master Teachers/Mentors NE Sokolow, Anna NJ M I $20,000 Master Teachers/Mentors NE
172 FY95 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION African American Dance Chuck Davis African Ensemble, Inc. American NC E C 1984 $407,200 $18,000 Grants to Companies S Alvin Ailey Dance Alvin Ailey American Foundation, Inc. Dance Theater NY M C 1958 $9,371,014 $295,000 Grants to Companies NE AMAN Folk Ensemble CA E C 1964 $549,873 $65,000 Grants to Companies W American Ballroom Theater Company, Inc. NY O C 1985 $476,740 $13,000 Grants to Companies NE Bailes Flamencos Rosa Montoya CA E C 1983 $155,765 $19,500 Grants to Companies W Ballet Concierto de Puerto Rico, Inc. PR B C 1979 $555,787 $12,000 Grants to Companies T Ballet Hispanico of New York, Inc. NY M C 1970 $1,807,071 $35,000 Grants to Companies NE Ballet Metropolitan, Inc. BalletMet Columbus OH B C 1974 $3,715,266 $15,000 Grants to Companies NC
Ballet Tech Foundation, Inc. NY B C 1974 $2,923,525 $75,000 Grants to Companies NE Ballet Theatre Foundation, Inc. American Ballet Theatre NY B C 1939 $13,120,929 $260,000 Grants to Companies NE Ballet West UT B C 1963 $4,135,295 $65,000 Grants to Companies W Bella Lewitzky Dance Foundation CA M C 1966 $803,761 $75,000 Grants to Companies W Big Tree Productions, Inc. Tere O'Connor Dance NY M C 1982 $64,500 $10,000 Grants to Companies NE Boston Ballet, Inc. MA B C 1963 $11,786,342 $175,000 Grants to Companies NE Capoeira Foundation, Inc. Dance Brazil NY E C 1975 $231,084 $17,000 Grants to Companies NE
Caribbean Dance Company of the Virgin Islands, Inc. VI E C 1977 $363,582 $10,000 Grants to Companies T Cincinnati Ballet Company, Inc. OH B C 1958 $2,860,972 $10,000 Grants to Companies NC Cleveland Ballet OH B C 1976 $5,870,484 $10,000 Grants to Companies NC CODA Creach/Company NY M C 1984 $102,833 $10,000 Grants to Companies NE Cunningham Dance Merce Cunningham Dance Foundation, Inc. Company NY M C 1953 $3,128,406 $300,000 Grants to Companies NE Dance Brigade CA M C 1984 $170,520 $10,000 Grants to Companies W Susan Marshall & Dance Continuum, Inc. Company NY M C 1982 $199,452 $30,000 Grants to Companies NE Liz Lerman Dance Dance Exchange, Inc. Exchange DC M C 1976 $309,910 $20,000 Grants to Companies S Dance Theatre of Harlem, Inc. NY B C 1969 $5,199,075 $270,000 Grants to Companies NE
173 FY95 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Dayton Contemporary Dance Dayton Contemporary Guild, Inc. Dance Company OH M C 1968 $828,902 $35,000 Grants to Companies NC Dean Dance and Music Foundation, Inc. Laura Dean NY M C 1971 $182,500 $72,000 Grants to Companies NE
Discalced, Inc. Mark Morris Dance Group NY M C 1980 $1,874,396 $72,000 Grants to Companies NE Erick Hawkins Dance Foundation, Inc. NY M C 1951 $525,037 $60,000 Grants to Companies NE Ethnic Dance Theatre MN E C 1979 $122,066 $10,000 Grants to Companies NC Eugene Ballet Company OR B C 1978 $1,011,477 $12,000 Grants to Companies W Floricanto Dance Theatre Danza Floricanto/USA CA E C 1975 $98,862 $14,000 Grants to Companies W Foundation for Dance Bill T. Jones/Arnie Zane Promotion, Inc. Dance Company NY M C 1982 $1,002,439 $82,000 Grants to Companies NE Fua Dia Congo CA E C 1977 $62,559 $10,500 Grants to Companies W Garth Fagan Dance, Inc. NY M C 1970 $948,001 $85,000 Grants to Companies NE Gotham Dance, Inc. Bebe Miller Company NY M C 1985 $318,602 $33,000 Grants to Companies NE Guateque Folkloric Taller of Puerto Rico, Inc. PR E C 1988 $50,507 $11,000 Grants to Companies T H.T. Dance Company, Inc. Chen & Dancers NY M C 1978 $323,670 $15,000 Grants to Companies NE Hartford Ballet Inc. CT B C 1972 $2,564,800 $10,000 Grants to Companies NE AVAZ International Dance Heritage & Tradition, Inc. Theatre CA E C 1977 $59,066 $10,000 Grants to Companies W House Foundation for the Arts, Inc. Meredith Monk NY M C 1968 $667,754 $95,000 Grants to Companies NE Houston Ballet Foundation TX B C 1955 $9,848,310 $90,000 Grants to Companies S Hubbard Street Dance Chicago IL M C 1977 $2,209,085 $10,000 Grants to Companies NC Hundred Grand Dance Foundation, Inc. Bill Young & Dancers NY M C 1990 $55,350 $10,000 Grants to Companies NE Maria Benitez Teatro Institute for Spanish Arts Flamenco NY E C 1970 $500,250 $48,000 Grants to Companies NE Inta, Inc. Eiko and Koma NY M C UNK $192,677 $30,000 Grants to Companies NE Jazz Tap Ensemble, Inc. CA O C 1979 $266,394 $48,000 Grants to Companies W Joe Goode Performance Group CA M C 1986 $279,857 $25,000 Grants to Companies W
Joffrey Ballet of Chicago, Inc. IL B C 1956 $5,315,913 $200,000 Grants to Companies NC José Limón Dance Foundation, Inc. Limón Dance Company NY M C 1946 $671,507 $55,000 Grants to Companies NE
174 FY95 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Kansas City Ballet Association, Inc. Kansas City Ballet MO B C 1957 $2,477,740 $30,000 Grants to Companies NC Keep the Country Dancing, Foot & Fiddle Dance Inc. Company NY O C 1991 $230,839 $12,000 Grants to Companies NE Ko-Thi, Inc. WI E C 1969 $550,000 $12,000 Grants to Companies NC
LINES Contemporary Ballet CA B C 1982 $459,979 $15,000 Grants to Companies W Lubovitch Dance Foundation, Lar Lubovitch Dance Inc. Company NY M C 1968 $880,700 $35,000 Grants to Companies NE Lucinda Childs Dance Foundation, Ltd. NY M C 1973 $209,658 $75,000 Grants to Companies NE Lula Washington Contemporary Dance Lula Washington Dance Foundation Theater CA M C 1980 $276,405 $10,000 Grants to Companies W Manhattan Tap, Inc. NY O C 1986 $102,958 $10,000 Grants to Companies NE Margaret Jenkins Dance Company CA M C 1973 $763,500 $55,000 Grants to Companies W Martha Graham Center of Contemporary Dance, Inc. NY M C 1926 $1,693,479 $190,000 Grants to Companies NE Miami City Ballet, Inc. FL B C 1985 $6,350,000 $60,000 Grants to Companies S
Mixed Bag Productions, Inc. Contraband CA M C 1976 $246,603 $15,000 Grants to Companies W Muntu Dance Theatre IL E C 1972 $401,335 $15,000 Grants to Companies NC Cleo Parker Robinson New Dance Theatre, Inc. Dance CO M C 1970 $875,713 $25,000 Grants to Companies W Sara Pearson/Patrik New Life Dance, Inc. Widrig and Company NY M C 1987 $86,600 $12,000 Grants to Companies NE New York Chinese Cultural Chinese Folk Dance Center, Inc. Company NY E C 1973 $201,390 $10,000 Grants to Companies NE New York City Ballet NY B C 1948 $34,281,667 $300,000 Grants to Companies NE Nikolais/Louis Foundation for Murray Louis & Nikolais Dance, Inc. Dance NY M C 1948 $761,070 $85,000 Grants to Companies NE North Carolina Dance Theatre NC B C 1970 $891,762 $25,000 Grants to Companies S
Oakland Ballet Association CA B C 1965 $2,295,672 $12,000 Grants to Companies W Oberlin Dance Collective ODC/San Francisco CA M C 1971 $839,604 $20,000 Grants to Companies W Ohio Chamber Ballet Ohio Ballet OH B C 1968 $1,405,840 $60,000 Grants to Companies NC Oregon Ballet Theatre OR B C 1989 $2,635,482 $10,000 Grants to Companies W
175 FY95 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Pacific Northwest Ballet Association Pacific Northwest Ballet WA B C 1972 $8,351,623 $190,000 Grants to Companies W Paul Taylor Dance Paul Taylor Dance Foundation, Inc. Company NY M C 1954 $3,275,054 $275,000 Grants to Companies NE Pennsylvania Ballet Association Pennsylvania Ballet PA B C 1963 $5,978,535 $25,000 Grants to Companies NE Philadelphia Dance Company, Inc. Philadanco PA M C 1970 $931,751 $35,000 Grants to Companies NE Pick Up Performance Company, Inc. David Gordon NY M C 1971 $849,185 $80,000 Grants to Companies NE
Pilobolus, Inc. Pilobolus Dance Theatre CT M C 1971 $1,144,470 $10,000 Grants to Companies NE Pittsburgh Ballet Theatre, Inc. PA B C 1969 $5,019,264 $65,000 Grants to Companies NE Pittsburgh Dance Alloy Dance Alloy PA M C 1976 $327,324 $12,000 Grants to Companies NE Doug Elkins Dance PLAM Dancers, Inc. Company NY M C 1991 $169,155 $17,000 Grants to Companies NE
Princeton Ballet Society, Inc. American Repertory Ballet NJ B C 1961 $1,596,250 $10,000 Grants to Companies NE Repertory Dance Theatre UT M C 1966 $412,797 $20,000 Grants to Companies W Rhapsody in Taps, Inc. CA O C 1981 $116,540 $10,000 Grants to Companies W Richmond Ballet VA B C 1950 $1,852,578 $12,000 Grants to Companies S Ringside, Inc. STREB/Ringside NY M C 1978 $124,874 $20,000 Grants to Companies NE
Rio Grande Union, Inc. Douglas Dunn & Dancers NY M C 1971 $218,645 $22,000 Grants to Companies NE Ririe-Woodbury Dance Foundation UT M C 1964 $476,486 $10,000 Grants to Companies W San Francisco Ballet Association San Francisco Ballet CA B C 1933 $16,160,000 $265,000 Grants to Companies W
School of Hard Knocks, Inc. Yoshiko Chuma NY M C 1980 $78,500 $12,000 Grants to Companies NE Sharir & Bustamante Danceworks TX M C 1982 $362,733 $10,000 Grants to Companies S Solomons Company/Dance, Inc. NY M C 1973 $74,318 $12,000 Grants to Companies NE Stephen Petronio Dance Company, Inc. NY M C 1984 $238,976 $20,000 Grants to Companies NE
Third Street Dance Ton Simons and Dancers NY M C 1987 $47,996 $10,000 Grants to Companies NE
176 FY95 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Trisha Brown Dance Company, Inc. NY M C 1970 $1,727,437 $200,000 Grants to Companies NE U.B.W., Inc. Urban Bush Women NY M C 1984 $573,913 $20,000 Grants to Companies NE Washington Ballet DC B C 1966 $2,907,910 $10,000 Grants to Companies S Zivili Kolo Ensemble, Inc. OH E C 1973 $117,278 $20,000 Grants to Companies NC Alessi, Alito OR O I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships W Armitage, Karole NY M I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships NE Atkinson, Charles NV O I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships W Bowers, Martha NY X I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships NE Bromberg, Ellen R. AZ M I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships W Brown, James R. NY O I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships NE Brown, Ronald K. NY M I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships NE Brown, Ronald K. NY M I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Browne, Harriet NY O I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships NE Bufalino, Brenda D. NY O I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Buraczeski, Daniel J. NY O I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Burgos, Juan J. TX I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships S Bustamante, Jose Luis TX M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships S Byrd, Donald NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Caniparoli, Val W. CA B I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Chen, Nai-Ni NJ M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Chin, Kiken OR X I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships W Chuma, Yoshiko NY M I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships NE Chvala, Joseph M. MN O I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NC Clemente, Steve and Richard Colon NY O I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships NE Comfort, Jane C. NY M I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships NE Dendy, Mark B. NY X I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Di Palma, Susana MN E I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships NC Dorfman, David C. NY M I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships NE Dove, Ulysses NY M I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships NE Eisen, Robert F. IL M I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships NC Gamonet de Los Heros, Jimmy FL B I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships S Giffin, John R. OH B I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NC Graney, Patricia M. WA M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Greenberg, Neil D. NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Gross, Sally NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Haigood, Joanna CA M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Haim, Mark S. NY M I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships NE
177 FY95 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Harishankar, Ramya CA E I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Hay, Deborah TX M I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships S Hixson, Lin L. IL X I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships NC Howard, Mark IL E I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships NC Howard, Mark IL E I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NC Jasperse, John R. NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Jones, Rosalie M. NM E I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Jungels, Dorothy A. RI X I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships NE Kaye, Pooh NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Kelly, John J. NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Kimoto, Kumiko NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Klein, Demetrius A. FL M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships S Konte, Assane DC E I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships S Koplowitz, Stephan M. NY X I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships NE Lacey, Jenifer M. NY M I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Lamhut, Phyllis NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Leahy, Sharon B. OH O I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NC Leake, William NY X I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships NE Lee, Hae Kyung CA M I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Lemon, Ralph S. NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Leulieux, Tania CA I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Leulieux, Tania CA I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships W Madsen, Wade R. WA M I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships W McConneloug, Shawn MN M I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships NC McCullough, Rick NC B I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships S McIntyre, Dianne R. NY X I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships NE McIntyre, Trey B. TX B I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships S McIntyre, Trey B. TX B I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships S McKayle, Donald C. CA M I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships W McMahon, Jeffrey D. NY X I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships NE
McPherson, Dianne Dunya TX O I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships S Monson, Jennifer NY X I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Parsons, David NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Pimsler, Stuart G. OH M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NC Posin, Kathryn NY M I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Pulvermacher, Neta NY X I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Raghavan, Jothi MD E I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships S Rajagopalan, Hema IL E I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships NC
178 FY95 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Richard, Byron M. and Erin Thompson MN M I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships NC Robinson, LaVaughn E. PA O I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Rogers, Wendy L. CA M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Rousseve, David J. NY M I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships NE Salaam, Abdel R. NY E I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Shapiro, Danial N. and Joan Smith MN M I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships NC Shiraishi, Hisatoshi P NY E I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Skaggs, Sarah J. NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Sohl-Donnell Linda J. CA O I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships W Soto, Merian NY E I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Terry, Keth CA O I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships W Turocy, Catherine M. NY O I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships NE Varone, Doug J. NY M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Weaver, Jon S. CA M I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Wilson, Llory Cay TX M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships S Wilson, Reginald NY X I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Wilson, Reginald NY X I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships NE Wong, Mel CA M I $20,000 Choreographer Fellowships W Wynn, Kevin A. NY M I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Yaelisa CA E I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships W Zambrano, David C. NJ M I $7,000 Choreographer Fellowships NE Zawerucha, Stefa K. NY M I $9,100 Choreographer Fellowships NE American Dance Festival, Inc. NC X P 1934 $5,400,000 $5,000 Services to the Field S Bay Area Dance Series CA X P 1984 $117,197 $5,000 Services to the Field W Career Transition for Dancers NY X S 1985 $1,279,494 $5,000 Services to the Field NE Carlisle Project PA B C 1986 $258,278 $5,000 Services to the Field NE City Center 55th Street Theater Foundation, Inc. NY X P 1976 UNK $16,000 Services to the Field NE
Colorado Dance Festival, Inc CO X P 1982 $548,910 $5,000 Services to the Field W
DC Wheels Productions Inc. DC X P 1980 $830,063 $5,000 Services to the Field S
Dance Notation Bureau, Inc. NY X S 1940 $262,015 $6,000 Services to the Field NE Dance Theater Workshop, Inc. NY X P 1965 $2,551,944 $27,000 Services to the Field NE
179 FY95 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Dance Umbrella TX X P 1977 $297,185 $5,000 Services to the Field S Dance/USA DC X S 1982 $1,387,389 $27,500 Services to the Field S DanceWorks, Inc. NY X S 1976 $816,697 $20,000 Services to the Field NE Florida Dance Association, Inc. FL X P 1972 $431,658 $8,000 Services to the Field S H.T.Dance Company Inc. NY M C 1978 $323,670 $5,000 Services to the Field NE Joyce Theater Foundation, Inc. NY X P 1979 $3,825,088 $22,500 Services to the Field NE Minnesota Dance Alliance MN X S 1979 $452,587 $12,500 Services to the Field NC Movement Research Inc. NY X P 1978 $305,585 $9,000 Services to the Field NE
New York Dance Center Inc. NY X S 1987 $33,353 $5,000 Services to the Field NE New York Public Library for the Performing Arts NY X E 1965 UNK $22,500 Services to the Field NE On the Boards WA M P 1979 $660,568 $5,000 Services to the Field W Philadelphia Dance Company PA M C 1970 $931,751 $10,000 Services to the Field NE Pittsburgh Dance Alloy PA M C 1976 $327,324 $5,000 Services to the Field NE Preserve, Inc. MA X S 1981 $86,934 $7,500 Services to the Field NE San Francisco Performing Arts Library and Museum CA X E 1947 $600,042 $5,000 Services to the Field W Theater Artaud CA X C 1972 $607,033 $9,000 Services to the Field W Theatre Development Fund Inc. NY X S 1967 $22,615,749 $22,500 Services to the Field NE Jack Faucett & Associates MD X O 1963 UNK $95,000 Services to the Field S Dance Theater Workshop, Inc. NY X P 1965 $2,551,944 $62,300 Special Projects NE Mid-America Arts Alliance MO X S 1972 $2,412,540 $27,147 Special Projects NC
180 FY96 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION African American Dance Chuck Davis African Ensemble, Inc. American NC E C 1984 $503,237 $14,200 Grants to Companies S Alvin Ailey Dance Alvin Ailey American Foundation, Inc. Dance Theater NY M C 1958 $8,914,002 $125,000 Grants to Companies NE AMAN Folk Ensemble CA E C 1964 $740,126 $33,100 Grants to Companies W Arpino Ballet of Ilinois, Inc. IL B C 1956 $9,199,001 $23,700 Grants to Companies NC Atlanta Ballet, Inc. GA B C 1929 $3,023,745 $7,100 Grants to Companies S Bailes Flamencos Rosa Montoya CA E C 1983 $140,681 $7,100 Grants to Companies W Ballet Arizona AZ B C 1986 $2,307,016 $7,100 Grants to Companies W Ballet Concierto de Puerto Rico, Inc. PR B C 1979 $536,197 $7,100 Grants to Companies T Ballet Hispanico of New York, Inc. NY M C 1970 $1,944,225 $23,700 Grants to Companies NE Ballet Metropolitan, Inc. BalletMet Columbus OH B C 1974 $3,470,032 $7,100 Grants to Companies NC
Ballet Tech Foundation, Inc. NY B C 1974 $3,196,936 $55,000 Grants to Companies NE Ballet Theatre Foundation, Inc. American Ballet Theatre NY B C 1939 $15,754,248 $150,000 Grants to Companies NE Ballet West UT B C 1963 $4,852,992 $28,400 Grants to Companies W Bella Lewitzky Dance Foundation CA M C 1966 $1,018,169 $35,450 Grants to Companies W Big Tree Productions, Inc. Tere O'Connor Dance NY M C 1982 $57,671 $7,100 Grants to Companies NE Boston Ballet, Inc. MA B C 1963 $12,801,799 $100,000 Grants to Companies NE Capoeira Foundation, Inc. Dance Brazil NY E C 1975 $389,332 $11,350 Grants to Companies NE
Caribbean Dance Company of the Virgin Islands, Inc. VI E C 1977 $340,243 $7,100 Grants to Companies T Cincinnati Ballet Company, Inc. OH B C 1958 $3,190,859 $7,100 Grants to Companies NC Cleveland Ballet OH B C 1976 $5,909,188 $7,100 Grants to Companies NC CODA Creach/Company NY M C 1984 $100,701 $7,100 Grants to Companies NE Cunningham Dance Merce Cunningham Foundation, Inc. Dance Company NY M C 1953 $3,604,191 $150,000 Grants to Companies NE Susan Marshall & Dance Continuum, Inc. Company NY M C 1982 $244,967 $16,000 Grants to Companies NE Liz Lerman Dance Dance Exchange, Inc. Exchange DC M C 1976 $597,150 $11,850 Grants to Companies S Dance Theatre of Harlem, Inc. NY B C 1969 $7,295,684 $120,000 Grants to Companies NE
181 FY96 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Dayton Contemporary Dance Dayton Contemporary Guild, Inc. Dance Company OH M C 1968 $749,633 $23,700 Grants to Companies NC Della Davidson Dance Company CA M C 1978 $93,832 $7,100 Grants to Companies W Mark Morris Dance Discalced, Inc. Group NY M C 1980 $1,447,481 $55,000 Grants to Companies NE Erick Hawkins Dance Foundation, Inc. NY M C 1951 $347,022 $23,700 Grants to Companies NE Ethnic Dance Theatre MN E C 1979 $165,538 $7,100 Grants to Companies NC Eugene Ballet Company OR B C 1978 $991,999 $7,100 Grants to Companies W
Floricanto Dance Theatre Danza Floricanto/USA CA E C 1975 $81,403 $7,100 Grants to Companies W
Foundation for Dance Bill T. Jones/Arnie Zane Promotion, Inc. Dance Company NY M C 1982 $1,079,623 $50,000 Grants to Companies NE Garth Fagan Dance, Inc. NY M C 1970 $1,165,787 $56,700 Grants to Companies NE Gotham Dance, Inc. Bebe Miller Company NY M C 1985 $302,939 $21,800 Grants to Companies NE Guadalupe Cultural Arts Center TX E C 1980 $219,005 $7,100 Grants to Companies S Guateque Folkloric Taller of Puerto Rico, Inc. PR E C 1988 $50,507 $7,100 Grants to Companies T H.T. Dance Company, Inc. Chen & Dancers NY M C 1978 $425,518 $9,450 Grants to Companies NE Hartford Ballet Inc. CT B C 1972 $2,814 $7,100 Grants to Companies NE AVAZ International Heritage & Tradition, Inc. Dance Theatre CA E C 1977 $86,460 $7,100 Grants to Companies W House Foundation for the Arts, Inc. Meredith Monk NY M C 1968 $395,353 $56,700 Grants to Companies NE Houston Ballet Foundation TX B C 1955 $9,923,371 $37,800 Grants to Companies S Hubbard Street Dance Chicago IL M C 1977 $2,526,404 $7,100 Grants to Companies NC
Ice Theatre of New York, Inc. NY O C 1984 $179,172 $7,100 Grants to Companies NE Maria Benitez Teatro Institute for Spanish Arts Flamenco NM E C 1970 $581,856 $28,350 Grants to Companies W Inta, Inc. Eiko and Koma NY M C UNK $280,397 $18,900 Grants to Companies NE Jazz Tap Ensemble, Inc. CA O C 1979 $280,003 $28,350 Grants to Companies W Joe Goode Performance Group CA M C 1986 $275,392 $11,350 Grants to Companies W José Limón Dance Foundation, Inc. Limón Dance Company NY M C 1946 $954,740 $28,400 Grants to Companies NE
182 FY96 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Kansas City Ballet Association, Inc. Kansas City Ballet MO B C 1957 $2,740,754 $18,900 Grants to Companies NC Ko-Thi, Inc. WI E C 1969 $556,938 $9,450 Grants to Companies NC
LINES Contemporary Ballet CA B C 1982 $428,040 $11,350 Grants to Companies W Lubovitch Dance Foundation, Lar Lubovitch Dance Inc. Company NY M C 1968 $832,300 $16,100 Grants to Companies NE Lucinda Childs Dance Foundation, Ltd. NY M C 1973 $589,344 $30,000 Grants to Companies NE Manhattan Tap, Inc. NY O C 1986 $101,601 $7,100 Grants to Companies NE Margaret Jenkins Dance Company CA M C 1973 $570,800 $20,400 Grants to Companies W Martha Graham Center of Contemporary Dance, Inc. NY M C 1926 $3,196,055 $75,000 Grants to Companies NE Miami City Ballet, Inc. FL B C 1985 $6,629,640 $42,550 Grants to Companies S
Mixed Bag Productions, Inc. Contraband CA M C 1976 $58,871 $7,100 Grants to Companies W Muntu Dance Theatre IL E C 1972 $389,800 $12,250 Grants to Companies NC Cleo Parker Robinson New Dance Theatre, Inc. Dance CO M C 1970 $891,872 $17,000 Grants to Companies W New York Chinese Cultural Chinese Folk Dance Center, Inc. Company NY E C 1973 $261,013 $7,100 Grants to Companies NE New York City Ballet NY B C 1948 $31,075,059 $150,000 Grants to Companies NE Nikolais/Louis Foundation for Murray Louis & Nikolais Dance, Inc. Dance NY M C 1948 $759,735 $39,700 Grants to Companies NE North Carolina Dance Theatre NC B C 1970 $1,208,307 $9,450 Grants to Companies S
Oakland Ballet Association CA B C 1965 $2,072,614 $9,450 Grants to Companies W Oberlin Dance Collective ODC/San Francisco CA M C 1971 $947,142 $9,450 Grants to Companies W Ohio Chamber Ballet Ohio Ballet OH B C 1968 $1,143,188 $33,100 Grants to Companies NC Oregon Ballet Theatre OR B C 1989 $3,933,279 $7,100 Grants to Companies W Pacific Northwest Ballet Association Pacific Northwest Ballet WA B C 1972 $9,489,194 $100,000 Grants to Companies W Paul Taylor Dance Paul Taylor Dance Foundation, Inc. Company NY M C 1954 $3,330,915 $150,000 Grants to Companies NE Pennsylvania Ballet Association Pennsylvania Ballet PA B C 1963 $5,711,583 $9,450 Grants to Companies NE Philadelphia Dance Company, Inc. Philadanco PA M C 1970 $875,229 $23,650 Grants to Companies NE
183 FY96 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Pick Up Performance Company, Inc. David Gordon NY M C 1971 $251,000 $35,000 Grants to Companies NE
Pittsburgh Ballet Theatre, Inc. PA B C 1969 $6,496,992 $33,100 Grants to Companies NE Pittsburgh Dance Alloy Dance Alloy PA M C 1976 $420,851 $9,450 Grants to Companies NE Doug Elkins Dance PLAM Dancers, Inc. Company NY M C 1991 $261,536 $11,350 Grants to Companies NE American Repertory Princeton Ballet Society, Inc. Ballet NJ B C 1961 $1,589,617 $7,100 Grants to Companies NE Repertory Dance Theatre UT M C 1966 $395,400 $9,450 Grants to Companies W Richmond Ballet VA B C 1950 $1,936,018 $7,100 Grants to Companies S Ringside, Inc. STREB/Ringside NY M C 1978 $254,684 $13,250 Grants to Companies NE Douglas Dunn & Rio Grande Union, Inc. Dancers NY M C 1971 $99,392 $14,200 Grants to Companies NE Ririe-Woodbury Dance Foundation UT M C 1964 $597,544 $7,100 Grants to Companies W San Francisco Ballet Association San Francisco Ballet CA B C 1933 $15,973 $135,000 Grants to Companies W Sharir & Bustamante Danceworks TX M C 1982 $368,975 $7,100 Grants to Companies S Stephen Petronio Dance Company, Inc. NY M C 1984 $272,648 $9,450 Grants to Companies NE Trisha Brown Dance Company, Inc. NY M C 1970 $1,276,323 $90,000 Grants to Companies NE U.B.W., Inc. Urban Bush Women NY M C 1984 $659,322 $14,200 Grants to Companies NE Washington Ballet DC B C 1966 $2,662,733 $7,100 Grants to Companies S Zivili Kolo Ensemble, Inc. OH E C 1973 $176,040 $9,450 Grants to Companies NC Dance Theater Workshop NY X P 1965 $2,551,944 $150,000 Special Projects NE New England Foundation for the Arts MA X O 1976 $3,397,291 $1,000,000 Special Projects NE New York City Ballet, Inc. NY B C 1948 $31,075,059 $200,000 Special Projects NE Arts Midwest MN X P 1982 $1,492,708 $18,096 Dance on Tour NC Mid Atlantic Arts Foundation MD X S 1979 $2,163,230 $18,096 Dance on Tour S Mid-America Arts Alliance MO X S 1972 $2,412,540 $18,096 Dance on Tour NC New England Foundation for the Arts MA X O 1976 $3,397,291 $18,097 Dance on Tour NE Southern Arts Federation GA X S 1975 $1,667,728 $18,097 Dance on Tour S Western States Arts Federation NM X S 1974 $1,412,902 $18,098 Dance on Tour W
184 FY96 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Chicago Dance Arts Coalition, Inc IL X S 1981 $33,128 $12,000 General Services to the Field NC Colorado Dance Festival CO X P 1982 $548,910 $5,000 General Services to the Field W Dance Notation Bureau NY X S 1940 $262,015 $5,000 General Services to the Field NE Dance Theatre Workshop NY X P 1965 $2,551,944 $12,000 General Services to the Field NE Dance Umbrella TX X P 1977 $297,185 $5,000 General Services to the Field S Dance/USA DC X S 1982 $1,387,389 $12,000 General Services to the Field S Dance/USA DC X S 1982 $1,387,389 $20,000 General Services to the Field S DanceWorks, Inc. NY X S 1976 $816,697 $5,000 General Services to the Field NE Florida Dance Association FL X P 1972 $431,658 $5,000 General Services to the Field S Joyce Theater Foundation NY X P 1979 $3,825,088 $9,000 General Services to the Field NE Movement Research, Inc. NY X P 1978 $305,585 $5,000 General Services to the Field NE New York Public Library Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations NY X E 1934 $232,331,193 $5,000 General Services to the Field NE On the Boards WA M P 1979 $660,568 $5,000 General Services to the Field W Original Ballets Foundation, Inc. NY B C 1974 $2,603,573 $5,000 General Services to the Field NE Performance Zone, Inc. NY X S 1986 $186,190 $5,000 General Services to the Field NE Theater Artaud CA X C 1972 $607,033 $5,000 General Services to the Field W Jack Faucett & Associates MD X O 1963 UNK $75,000 General Services to the Field S
185 FY97 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Alvin Ailey American Alvin Ailey Dance Foundation, Inc. Dance Theater NY M C 1958 $9,187,305 $150,000 Creation & Presentation NE AMAN Folk Ensemble CA E C 1964 $557,685 $40,000 Creation & Presentation W American Dance Festival, Inc. ADF NC X P 1934 $2,561,399 $200,000 Creation & Presentation S Anchorage Concert Association, Inc. AK X P 1950 $2,509,165 $50,000 Creation & Presentation W Ballet Arizona AZ B C 1986 $4,262,255 $70,000 Creation & Presentation W Ballet Tech Foundation, Inc. NY B C 1974 $2,947,852 $90,000 Creation & Presentation NE
Ballet Theatre Foundation, Inc. American Ballet Theatre NY B C 1939 $16,673,072 $150,000 Creation & Presentation NE Bay Area Dance Series CA X P 1984 $117,197 $15,000 Creation & Presentation W Boston Ballet, Inc. MA B C 1963 $13,219,012 $75,000 Creation & Presentation NE Caribbean Dance Company of the Virgin Islands, Inc. VI E C 1977 $311,623 $15,000 Creation & Presentation T on behalf of Central Park City Parks Foundation Summerstage NY X O 1989 $1,082,655 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE CityFolk OH X P 1980 $503,959 $22,000 Creation & Presentation NC Colorado Dance Festival, Inc. CO X P 1982 $443,155 $40,000 Creation & Presentation W on behalf of The Dance Columbia College Center IL X P 1969 $1,608,900 $40,000 Creation & Presentation NC
Contemporary Dance Theater, Inc. OH X P 1972 $164,807 $12,000 Creation & Presentation NC Cunningham Dance Foundation, Merce Cunningham Inc. Dance Company NY M C 1953 $4,181,082 $200,000 Creation & Presentation NE Cuyahoga Community College District OH X P 1961 $228,324 $30,000 Creation & Presentation NC Susan Marshall & Dance Continuum, Inc. Company NY M C 1982 $317,801 $35,000 Creation & Presentation NE Dancing in the Streets, Inc. NY X P 1983 $405,637 $18,000 Creation & Presentation NE Danspace Project, Inc. NY X P 1974 $365,906 $20,000 Creation & Presentation NE Dayton Contemporary Dance Dayton Contemporary Guild, Inc. Dance Company OH M C 1968 $705,063 $25,000 Creation & Presentation NC DC Wheel Productions, Inc. Dance Place DC X P 1980 $630,000 $18,000 Creation & Presentation S Mark Morris Dance Discalced, Inc. Group NY M C 1980 $1,838,489 $150,000 Creation & Presentation NE Doug Varone and DOVA, Inc. Dancers NY M C 1986 $310,868 $35,000 Creation & Presentation NE Foundation for Dance Promotion, Bill T. Jones/Arnie Zane Inc. Dance Company NY M C 1982 $1,698,103 $50,000 Creation & Presentation NE Garth Fagan Dance, Inc. NY M C 1970 $1,051,640 $70,000 Creation & Presentation NE
186 FY97 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Gotham Dance, Inc. Bebe Miller Company NY M C 1985 $230,936 $20,000 Creation & Presentation NE
House Foundation for the Arts, Inc. Meredith Monk NY M C 1968 $585,085 $55,000 Creation & Presentation NE Hubbard Street Dance Chicago IL M C 1977 $3,006,445 $70,000 Creation & Presentation NC Maria Benitez Teatro Institute for Spanish Arts Flamenco NM E C 1970 $632,100 $25,000 Creation & Presentation W Inta, Inc. Eiko and Koma NY M C UNK $242,380 $35,000 Creation & Presentation NE
Jacob's Pillow Dance Festival, Inc. MA X P 1933 $3,017,997 $85,000 Creation & Presentation NE Jazz Tap Ensemble, Inc. CA O C 1979 $266,660 $50,000 Creation & Presentation W John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts DC X P 1958 $85,317,043 $98,500 Creation & Presentation S José Limón Dance Foundation, Inc. Limón Dance Company NY M C 1946 $940,301 $77,500 Creation & Presentation NE Joyce Theater Foundation, Inc. NY X P 1979 $3,352,067 $200,000 Creation & Presentation NE La Tania Flamenco Music and Dance CA E C 1993 $47,211 $23,500 Creation & Presentation W LINES Contemporary Ballet CA B C 1982 $701,324 $40,000 Creation & Presentation W Lucinda Childs Dance Foundation, Ltd. NY M C 1973 $437,024 $40,000 Creation & Presentation NE Manhattan Tap, Inc. NY O C 1986 $75,010 $15,000 Creation & Presentation NE Martha Graham Center of Contemporary Dance, Inc. NY M C 1926 $2,542,289 $40,000 Creation & Presentation NE Miami City Ballet, Inc. FL B C 1985 $7,172,326 $100,000 Creation & Presentation S Muntu Dance Theatre IL E C 1972 $552,677 $20,000 Creation & Presentation NC New Orleans Ballet Association LA X P 1969 $778,694 $37,500 Creation & Presentation S New York City Ballet NY B C 1948 $34,753,000 $125,000 Creation & Presentation NE Oakland Ballet Association CA B C 1965 $2,034,169 $20,000 Creation & Presentation W One Seventy One Cedar, Inc. 171 Cedar Arts Center NY X P 1966 $300,748 $15,000 Creation & Presentation NE Paul Taylor Dance Foundation, Paul Taylor Dance Inc. Company NY M C 1954 $3,112,278 $150,000 Creation & Presentation NE Pittsburgh Dance Alloy Dance Alloy PA M C 1976 $418,487 $15,000 Creation & Presentation NE Pittsburgh Trust for Cultural on behalf of Pittsburgh Resources Dance Council PA X P 1984 $1,273,595 $40,000 Creation & Presentation NE Doug Elkins Dance PLAM Dancers, Inc. Company NY M C 1991 $216,013 $14,000 Creation & Presentation NE Regents of the University of on behalf of Cal California at Berkeley Performances CA X P 1906 $5,138,087 $162,500 Creation & Presentation W Ringside, Inc. STREB/Ringside NY M C 1978 $242,500 $35,000 Creation & Presentation NE
187 FY97 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION
San Francisco Ballet Association San Francisco Ballet CA B C 1933 $18,041,761 $125,000 Creation & Presentation W Stephen Petronio Dance Company, Inc. NY M C 1984 $450,887 $25,000 Creation & Presentation NE David Whispering Voice, Inc. Rousseve/REALITY NY M C 1988 $274,859 $40,000 Creation & Presentation NE World Music, Inc. MA X P 1990 $514,652 $20,000 Creation & Presentation NE Alvin Ailey American Alvin Ailey Dance Foundation, Inc. Dance Theater NY M C 1958 $9,187,305 $200,000 Education & Access NE
Ballet Hispanico of New York, Inc. NY M C 1970 $2,026,310 $54,500 Education & Access NE Liz Lerman Dance Dance Exchange, Inc. Exchange DC M C 1976 $569,767 $20,000 Education & Access S Dance Theatre of Harlem, Inc. NY B C 1969 $7,215,407 $200,000 Education & Access NE Dance Umbrella Boston, Inc. MA X P 1981 $1,161,634 $40,000 Education & Access NE Eugene Ballet Company OR B C 1978 $1,051,103 $20,000 Education & Access W Florida Dance Association, Inc. FL X P 1972 $431,658 $25,000 Education & Access S H.T. Dance Company, Inc. Chen & Dancers NY M C 1978 $397,147 $49,000 Education & Access NE Ko-Thi, Inc. WI E C 1969 $616,906 $40,000 Education & Access NC Pacific Northwest Ballet Association Pacific Northwest Ballet WA B C 1972 $9,716,959 $50,000 Education & Access W Pittsburgh Ballet Theatre, Inc. PA B C 1969 $5,715,504 $50,000 Education & Access NE Professional Flair, Inc. Dancing Wheels OH M C 1980 $182,199 $25,000 Education & Access NC
Ririe-Woodbury Dance Foundation UT M C 1964 $447,105 $45,000 Education & Access W Abhinaya Dance Company of San Jose, Inc. CA E C 1980 $97,086 $15,000 Heritage & Preservation W African American Dance Chuck Davis African Ensemble, Inc. American NC E C 1984 $498,843 $50,000 Heritage & Preservation S Arts Resources in Collaboration, Inc. Eye on Dance NY X O 1976 $131,796 $19,000 Heritage & Preservation NE
Bella Lewitzky Dance Foundation CA M C 1966 $840,888 $23,500 Heritage & Preservation W Dance Notation Bureau, Inc. NY X S 1940 $277,734 $20,000 Heritage & Preservation NE Erick Hawkins Dance Foundation, Inc. NY M C 1951 $406,308 $50,000 Heritage & Preservation NE Kings Majestic Corporation 651, An Arts Center NY X P 1988 $1,484,105 $60,000 Heritage & Preservation NE New York Baroque Dance Company, Inc. NY O C 1976 $195,955 $15,000 Heritage & Preservation NE Preserve, Inc. VA X S 1981 $40,650 $30,000 Heritage & Preservation S
188 FY97 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION DanceWorks, Inc. Pentacle NY X S 1976 $615,577 $50,000 Planning & Stabilization NE Donald Byrd Dance Foundation, Inc. Donald Byrd/The Group NY M C 1978 $244,333 $40,000 Planning & Stabilization NE
Jacob's Pillow Dance Festival, Inc. MA X P 1933 $3,017,997 $125,000 Planning & Stabilization NE Minnesota Dance Alliance Dance Today MN X S 1979 $452,587 $21,000 Planning & Stabilization NC On the Boards WA M P 1979 $660,568 $100,000 Planning & Stabilization W
Philadelphia Dance Company, Inc. Philadanco PA M C 1970 $1,386,321 $50,000 Planning & Stabilization NE Richmond Ballet VA B C 1950 $2,018,629 $50,000 Planning & Stabilization S Trisha Brown Dance Company, Inc. NY M C 1970 $1,477,738 $62,500 Planning & Stabilization NE U.B.W., Inc. Urban Bush Women NY M C 1984 $792,162 $25,000 Planning & Stabilization NE
189 FY98 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION One Seventy One Cedar, Inc. 171 Cedar Arts Center NY X P 1966 $360,715 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE American Dance Festival, Inc. ADF NC X P 1934 $2,469,388 $65,000 Creation & Presentation S Alvin Ailey American Alvin Ailey Dance Foundation, Inc. Dance Theater NY M C 1958 $9,744,868 $120,000 Creation & Presentation NE Ballet Theatre Foundation, Inc. American Ballet Theatre NY B C 1939 $20,646,662 $120,000 Creation & Presentation NE Ballet Metropolitan, Inc. BalletMet Columbus OH B C 1974 $4,413,393 $20,000 Creation & Presentation NC Gotham Dance, Inc. Bebe Miller Company NY M C 1985 $382,517 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE Hundred Grand Dance Foundation, Inc. Bill Young & Dancers NY M C 1990 $56,265 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE Brooklyn Center for the College Community Services, Inc. Performing Arts NY X P 1951 $1,190,983 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE Field Papers, Inc. Dana Reitz VT M C 1983 $30,386 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE Capoeira Foundation, Inc. Dance Brazil NY E C 1975 $374,201 $10,000 Creation & Presentation W DC Wheel Productions, Inc. Dance Place DC X P 1980 $830,063 $15,000 Creation & Presentation NE Art Sweats, Inc. David Dorfman Dance NY M C 1985 $361,338 $15,000 Creation & Presentation NE
Whispering Voice, Inc. David Rousseve/REALITY NY M C 1988 $309,613 $18,000 Creation & Presentation S Doug Elkins Dance PLAM Dancers, Inc. Company NY M C 1991 $218,956 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NC
DOVA, Inc. Doug Varone and Dancers NY M C 1986 $254,798 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE Inta, Inc. Eiko and Koma NY M C UNK $182,404 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE
Duncan Avenue Arts Collaborative Everett Dance Theatre RI M C 1986 $239,877 $20,000 Creation & Presentation NE Spanish Dance Arts Company, Flamenco Vivo Carlota Inc. Santana NY E C 1983 $227,538 $12,000 Creation & Presentation NE
Thin Man Dance, Inc. John Jasperse Company NY M C 1988 $61,774 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE Dagmar Collective, Inc. John Kelly & Company NY M C 1984 $25,833 $15,000 Creation & Presentation NE Kansas City Ballet Association, Inc. Kansas City Ballet MO B C 1957 $2,442,544 $20,000 Creation & Presentation NE Lar Lubovitch Dance Lubovitch Dance Foundation, Inc. Company NY M C 1968 $320,000 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE Maria Benitez Teatro Institute for Spanish Arts Flamenco NM E C 1970 $534,912 $15,000 Creation & Presentation NE Cunningham Dance Foundation, Merce Cunningham Dance Inc. Company NY M C 1953 $3,456,315 $120,000 Creation & Presentation NE House Foundation for the Arts, Inc. Meredith Monk NY M C 1968 $628,171 $50,000 Creation & Presentation NE
190 FY98 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Nikolais/Louis Foundation for Murray Louis & Nikolais Dance, Inc. Dance NY M C 1948 $530,515 $30,000 Creation & Presentation NC Ohio Chamber Ballet Ohio Ballet OH B C 1968 $1,602,513 $20,000 Creation & Presentation NE Regents of the University of on behalf of Cal California at Berkeley Performances CA X P 1906 $5,246,456 $50,000 Creation & Presentation NE on behalf of Krannert Center for the Performing University of Illinois Arts IL X P 1867 $1,152,541 $18,000 Creation & Presentation S on behalf of The Dance Columbia College Center IL X P 1969 $1,283,000 $40,000 Creation & Presentation W Paul Taylor Dance Foundation, Paul Taylor Dance Inc. Company NY M C 1954 $3,458,355 $110,000 Creation & Presentation NE
Pennsylvania Ballet Association Pennsylvania Ballet PA B C 1963 $6,353,049 $20,000 Creation & Presentation NE Cross Performance, Inc. Ralph Lemon Company NY M C 1985 $216,730 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE evidence, inc. Ronald K. Brown/evidence NY M C 1985 $33,304 $5,000 Creation & Presentation NE
San Francisco Ballet Association San Francisco Ballet CA B C 1933 $19,010,104 $100,000 Creation & Presentation NC Society for the Performing Arts SPA TX X P 1966 $2,418,825 $18,000 Creation & Presentation NE Ringside, Inc. STREB/Ringside NY M C 1978 $610,478 $20,000 Creation & Presentation W Susan Marshall & Dance Continuum, Inc. Company NY M C 1982 $240,272 $35,000 Creation & Presentation NC 33 Fainting Spells WA M C 1994 $36,300 $5,000 Creation & Presentation NE Ballet Arizona AZ B C 1986 $2,801,127 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NC Ballet Concierto de Puerto Rico, Inc. PR B C 1979 $816,075 $5,000 Creation & Presentation W Ballet Espanol, Inc. KY E C 1987 $29,256 $5,000 Creation & Presentation NE Ballet Tech Foundation, Inc. NY B C 1974 $3,421,344 $20,000 Creation & Presentation NE Caribbean Dance Company of the Virgin Islands, Inc. VI E C 1977 $351,356 $7,500 Creation & Presentation NE Colorado Dance Festival, Inc. CO X P 1982 $576,524 $40,000 Creation & Presentation NE Contemporary Dance Theater, Inc. OH X P 1972 $189,383 $10,000 Creation & Presentation W Dance Umbrella Austin TX X P 1977 $297,185 $15,000 Creation & Presentation S Dance Umbrella Boston, Inc. MA X P 1981 $759,712 $30,000 Creation & Presentation NE Danspace Project, Inc. NY X P 1974 $384,344 $18,000 Creation & Presentation NE Garth Fagan Dance, Inc. NY M C 1970 $949,045 $25,000 Creation & Presentation NE Guateque Folkloric Taller of Puerto Rico, Inc. PR E C 1988 $72,625 $5,000 Creation & Presentation W
191 FY98 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Houston Ballet Foundation TX B C 1955 $9,875,530 $45,000 Creation & Presentation W
Hubbard Street Dance Chicago IL M C 1977 $3,267,495 $35,000 Creation & Presentation T
Jacob's Pillow Dance Festival, Inc. MA X P 1933 $2,802,582 $60,000 Creation & Presentation S
Jacob's Pillow Dance Festival, Inc. MA X P 1933 $2,802,582 $100,000 Creation & Presentation NE Jazz Tap Ensemble, Inc. CA O C 1979 $377,942 $25,000 Creation & Presentation T JAZZDANCE by Danny Buraczeski MN O C 1979 $157,085 $10,000 Creation & Presentation W Jo Ha Kyu Performance Group, Inc. MA M C 1981 $49,502 $5,000 Creation & Presentation NC Joyce Theater Foundation, Inc. NY X P 1979 $3,321,386 $90,000 Creation & Presentation S LINES Contemporary Ballet CA B C 1982 $925,869 $18,000 Creation & Presentation NE Lucinda Childs Dance Foundation, Ltd. NY M C 1973 $602,119 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE Manhattan Tap, Inc. NY O C 1986 $58,142 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE Margaret Jenkins Dance Company CA M C 1973 $577,873 $40,000 Creation & Presentation T Miami City Ballet, Inc. FL B C 1985 $7,422,002 $50,000 Creation & Presentation S
New Orleans Ballet Association LA B P 1969 $860,282 $25,000 Creation & Presentation NC New York City Ballet NY B C 1948 $34,166 $100,000 Creation & Presentation NE North Carolina Dance Theatre NC B C 1970 $1,613,351 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE On the Boards WA M P 1979 $610,382 $45,000 Creation & Presentation W Ragamala Music and Dance Theater MN E C 1992 $93,217 $5,000 Creation & Presentation NC Repertory Dance Theatre UT M C 1966 $413,891 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE Sally Silvers and Dancers NY M C 1980 $45,000 $5,000 Creation & Presentation NE Stuart Pimsler Dance and Theater, Inc. MN M C 1978 $206,001 $10,000 Creation & Presentation W Theatre Flamenco of San Francisco CA E C 1966 $95,334 $5,000 Creation & Presentation NE Trisha Brown Dance Company, Inc. NY M C 1970 $1,963,883 $90,000 Creation & Presentation NE Washington Performing Arts Society DC X P 1965 $5,157,411 $35,000 Creation & Presentation W World Music, Inc. MA X P 1990 $700,805 $10,000 Creation & Presentation S Yard, Inc. MA X P 1973 $153,084 $5,000 Creation & Presentation S Zivili Kolo Ensemble, Inc. OH E C 1973 $127,308 $7,500 Creation & Presentation NE
192 FY98 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION H.T. Dance Company, Inc. Chen & Dancers NY M C 1978 $402,718 $30,000 Education & Access S Cleo Parker Robinson New Dance Theatre, Inc. Dance CO M C 1970 $994,391 $20,000 Education & Access W Professional Flair, Inc. Dancing Wheels OH M C 1980 $202,860 $10,000 Education & Access NC Donald Byrd Dance Foundation, Inc. Donald Byrd/The Group NY M C 1978 $1,051,529 $21,000 Education & Access W on behalf of Bates Dance Bates College Festival ME X P 1982 $284,448 $10,000 Education & Access NE Pittsburgh Trust for Cultural on behalf of Pittsburgh Resources Dance Council PA X P 1984 $1,091,595 $30,000 Education & Access NC Pacific Northwest Ballet Association Pacific Northwest Ballet WA B C 1972 $9,832,561 $65,000 Education & Access W U.B.W., Inc. Urban Bush Women NY M C 1984 $920,941 $30,000 Education & Access NE American Ballroom Theater Company, Inc. NY O C 1984 $163,995 $10,000 Education & Access S Andrew Cacho African Drummers and Dancers Economic Development, Inc. DC E C 1969 $76,617 $10,000 Education & Access NE Dance Theatre of Harlem, Inc. NY B C 1969 $6,456,445 $115,000 Education & Access NE Eugene Ballet Company OR B C 1978 $1,212,263 $30,000 Education & Access NC Florida Dance Association, Inc. FL X P 1972 $413,797 $30,000 Education & Access NE Hartford Ballet Inc. CT B C 1972 $907,966 $20,000 Education & Access S Ko-Thi, Inc. WI E C 1969 $616,955 $25,000 Education & Access NE Louisiana Presenters Network LA X P 1992 $119,262 $30,000 Education & Access W NORD/NOBA Center for Dance LA B O 1969 $137,089 $7,000 Education & Access S Oakland Ballet Association CA B C 1965 $2,719,843 $20,000 Education & Access NE Spoleto Festival U.S.A. SC X P 1977 $4,559,883 $60,000 Education & Access NC Arts Resources in Collaboration, Inc. Eye on Dance NY X O 1976 $130,507 $10,000 Heritage & Preservation S José Limón Dance Foundation, Inc. Limón Dance Company NY M C 1946 $1,412,404 $35,000 Heritage & Preservation S Dance Notation Bureau, Inc. NY X S 1940 $218,037 $30,000 Heritage & Preservation W International Tap Association CO O S 1987 $31,500 $10,000 Heritage & Preservation S LEGACY Oral History Project CA M O 1988 $15,862 $10,000 Heritage & Preservation NE New York Baroque Dance Company, Inc. NY O C 1976 $73,518 $20,000 Heritage & Preservation W
Olatunji Center of African Culture NY E C 1964 $145,500 $25,000 Heritage & Preservation W Preserve, Inc. VA X S 1981 $25,447 $20,000 Heritage & Preservation NE Roots of Brazil, Inc. NY E C 1987 $84,561 $5,000 Heritage & Preservation NE
193 FY98 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION New England Foundation for the Arts MA X O 1976 $5,000,000 $500,000 Leadership Initiative S Liz Lerman Dance Dance Exchange, Inc. Exchange MD M C 1976 $732,458 $50,000 Planning & Stabilization NE
Discalced, Inc. Mark Morris Dance Group NY M C 1980 $2,717,433 $75,000 Planning & Stabilization NE Atlanta Ballet, Inc. GA B C 1929 $4,898,456 $50,000 Planning & Stabilization S Ballet West UT B C 1963 $5,564,645 $50,000 Planning & Stabilization W Dance/USA DC X S 1982 $1,387,389 $50,000 Planning & Stabilization S
Joe Goode Performance Group CA M C 1986 $344,851 $40,000 Planning & Stabilization W Muntu Dance Theatre IL E C 1972 $574,687 $40,000 Planning & Stabilization NC
194 FY99 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION One Seventy One Cedar, Inc. 171 Cedar Arts Center NY X P 1966 $513,023 $5,000 Creation & Presentation NE American Dance Festival, Inc. ADF NC X P 1934 $2,592,998 $70,000 Creation & Presentation S State of Alabama Ballet, Inc. Alabama Ballet AL B C 1981 $716,800 $5,000 Creation & Presentation S Alvin Ailey American Alvin Ailey Dance Foundation, Inc. Dance Theater NY M C 1958 $12,237,165 $100,000 Creation & Presentation S
Ballet Theatre Foundation, Inc. American Ballet Theatre NY B C 1939 $23,625,729 $100,000 Creation & Presentation NE AVAZ International Heritage & Tradition, Inc. Dance Theatre CA E C 1977 $89,763 $5,000 Creation & Presentation NE Gotham Dance, Inc. Bebe Miller Company NY M C 1985 $275,327 $10,000 Creation & Presentation W Foundation for Dance Promotion, Bill T. Jones/Arnie Zane Inc. Dance Company NY M C 1982 $1,545,753 $35,000 Creation & Presentation NC Brooklyn Center for the College Community Services, Inc. Performing Arts NY X P 1951 $1,148,434 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE CODA Creach/Company NY M C 1984 $62,408 $7,500 Creation & Presentation NE Capoeira Foundation, Inc. Dance Brazil NY E C 1975 $151,090 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE DC Wheel Productions, Inc. Dance Place DC X P 1980 $568,000 $15,000 Creation & Presentation NE Art Sweats, Inc. David Dorfman Dance NY M C 1985 $304,423 $10,000 Creation & Presentation W David Whispering Voice, Inc. Rousseve/REALITY NY M C 1988 $258,912 $5,000 Creation & Presentation NE Doug Elkins Dance PLAM Dancers, Inc. Company NY M C 1991 $205,342 $7,500 Creation & Presentation NE Doug Varone and DOVA, Inc. Dancers NY M C 1986 $284,996 $7,500 Creation & Presentation S Inta, Inc. Eiko and Koma NY M C UNK $150,325 $20,000 Creation & Presentation W
Kansas City Ballet Association, Inc. Kansas City Ballet MO B C 1957 $2,627,973 $15,000 Creation & Presentation NE
José Limón Dance Foundation, Inc. Limón Dance Company NY M C 1946 $1,198,002 $35,000 Creation & Presentation NE Liz Lerman Dance Dance Exchange, Inc. Exchange MD M C 1976 $962,020 $20,000 Creation & Presentation NE Kentucky Dance Council, Inc. Louisville Ballet KY B C 1952 $2,357,492 $7,500 Creation & Presentation NE Lula Washington Contemporary Lula Washington Dance Dance Foundation Theater CA M C 1980 $606,486 $20,000 Creation & Presentation W Mark Morris Dance Discalced, Inc. Group NY M C 1980 $2,999,660 $70,000 Creation & Presentation NE Merce Cunningham Cunningham Dance Foundation, Inc. Dance Company NY M C 1953 $3,021,310 $100,000 Creation & Presentation NE
House Foundation for the Arts, Inc. Meredith Monk NY M C 1968 $767,396 $25,000 Creation & Presentation NE
195 FY99 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Nikolais/Louis Foundation for Dance, Murray Louis & Nikolais Inc. Dance NY M C 1948 $426,018 $20,000 Creation & Presentation NE on behalf of Bates Dance Bates College Festival ME X P 1982 $340,199 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE on behalf of Celebrate Fund for the Borough of Brooklyn Brooklyn NY X P 1979 $393,474 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NC on behalf of Dept. of Arizona State University Public Events AZ X P 1984 $4,519,838 $15,000 Creation & Presentation NE Pittsburgh Trust for Cultural on behalf of Pittsburgh Resources Dance Council PA X P 1984 $1,515,362 $30,000 Creation & Presentation S on behalf of The Dance Columbia College Center IL X P 1969 $1,486,300 $25,000 Creation & Presentation S Paul Taylor Dance Paul Taylor Dance Foundation, Inc. Company NY M C 1954 $3,836,627 $100,000 Creation & Presentation W Pennsylvania Ballet Association Pennsylvania Ballet PA B C 1963 $6,246,658 $15,000 Creation & Presentation W DanceWorks, Inc. Pentacle NY X S 1976 $594,116 $70,000 Creation & Presentation NE
Philadelphia Dance Company, Inc. Philadanco PA M C 1970 $918,700 $40,000 Creation & Presentation NE Ronald K. evidence, inc. Brown/evidence NY M C 1985 $26,191 $5,000 Creation & Presentation NE Bailes Flamencos Rosa Montoya CA E C 1983 $170,097 $5,000 Creation & Presentation NE San Francisco Ballet Association San Francisco Ballet CA B C 1933 $19,034,574 $100,000 Creation & Presentation NC Ringside, Inc. STREB/Ringside NY M C 1978 $512,638 $15,000 Creation & Presentation NE Susan Marshall & Dance Continuum, Inc. Company NY M C 1982 $204,412 $20,000 Creation & Presentation NE U.B.W., Inc. Urban Bush Women NY M C 1984 $685,048 $20,000 Creation & Presentation W School of Hard Knocks, Inc. Yoshiko Chuma NY M C 1980 $152,000 $5,000 Creation & Presentation NE Academy of Indian Performing Arts, Inc. MA E C 1987 $2,638 $5,000 Creation & Presentation NC AMAN Folk Ensemble CA E C 1964 $320,406 $5,000 Creation & Presentation W
Anchorage Concert Association, Inc. AK X P 1950 $3,024,316 $40,000 Creation & Presentation NE Ballet Arizona AZ B C 1986 $2,708,471 $7,500 Creation & Presentation W Ballet Hispanico of New York, Inc. NY M C 1970 $2,055,461 $25,000 Creation & Presentation NE Ballet Memphis TN B C 1975 $1,883,887 $5,000 Creation & Presentation NE Ballet West UT B C 1963 $5,456,216 $30,000 Creation & Presentation NE Boston Ballet, Inc. MA B C 1963 $16,240,547 $40,000 Creation & Presentation NE City of Las Vegas NV X P 1905 $79,070 $5,000 Creation & Presentation NE Colorado Dance Festival, Inc. CO X P 1982 $548,910 $25,000 Creation & Presentation NE Dance Theater Workshop, Inc. NY X P 1965 $2,551,944 $70,000 Creation & Presentation NE
196 FY99 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Dance Umbrella Austin TX X P 1977 $287,000 $20,000 Creation & Presentation W Dance Umbrella Boston, Inc. MA X P 1981 $1,275,864 $25,000 Creation & Presentation W Dancers Collective of Atlanta, Inc. GA X P 1980 $108,243 $7,500 Creation & Presentation NE Danspace Project, Inc. NY X P 1974 $574,053 $25,000 Creation & Presentation NE Garth Fagan Dance, Inc. NY M C 1970 $844,415 $25,000 Creation & Presentation NE Houston Ballet Foundation TX B C 1955 $10,267,546 $30,000 Creation & Presentation NE Hubbard Street Dance Chicago IL M C 1977 $3,446,685 $40,000 Creation & Presentation NE
Jacob's Pillow Dance Festival, Inc. MA X P 1933 $2,909,529 $70,000 Creation & Presentation W Jazz Tap Ensemble, Inc. CA O C 1979 $311,556 $10,000 Creation & Presentation W
JAZZDANCE by Danny Buraczeski MN O C 1979 $301,989 $5,000 Creation & Presentation W Joe Goode Performance Group CA M C 1986 $237,294 $7,500 Creation & Presentation NE John Harms Concerts, Inc. NJ X P 1976 $1,803,607 $10,000 Creation & Presentation S Joyce Theater Foundation, Inc. NY X P 1979 $3,773,477 $70,000 Creation & Presentation W LINES Contemporary Ballet CA B C 1982 $982,548 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE Miami City Ballet, Inc. FL B C 1985 $8,108,672 $40,000 Creation & Presentation W Movement Research, Inc. NY X P 1978 $232,215 $5,000 Creation & Presentation W
National Performance Network, Inc. LA X P 1985 $1,442,971 $70,000 Creation & Presentation NE North Carolina Dance Theatre NC B C 1970 $2,018,140 $7,500 Creation & Presentation S Oregon Ballet Theatre OR B C 1989 $3,999,155 $5,000 Creation & Presentation NE Rhapsody in Taps, Inc. CA O C 1981 $135,121 $5,000 Creation & Presentation S Stuart Pimsler Dance and Theater, Inc. OH M C 1978 $234,106 $5,000 Creation & Presentation NE Tennessee Dance Theatre, Inc. TN M C 1975 $358,779 $5,000 Creation & Presentation NE
Trisha Brown Dance Company, Inc. NY M C 1970 $1,566,604 $70,000 Creation & Presentation S University Musical Society MI X O 1879 $4,710,612 $35,000 Creation & Presentation NC
Washington Performing Arts Society DC X P 1965 $5,817,687 $30,000 Creation & Presentation NE Zivili Kolo Ensemble, Inc. OH E C 1973 $144,982 $10,000 Creation & Presentation W American Dance Festival, Inc. ADF NC X P 1934 $2,592,998 $50,000 Education & Access NC Ballet Metropolitan, Inc. BalletMet Columbus OH B C 1974 $4,329,247 $20,000 Education & Access W H.T. Dance Company, Inc. Chen & Dancers NY M C 1978 $349,406 $10,000 Education & Access NE Cleo Parker Robinson New Dance Theatre, Inc. Dance CO M C 1970 $976,726 $20,000 Education & Access NE Dr. Schaeffer and Mr. MoveSpeakSpin Stern CA M C 1987 $65,001 $5,000 Education & Access W
197 FY99 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION
Duncan Avenue Arts Collaborative Everett Dance Theatre RI M C 1986 $272,041 $10,000 Education & Access S Flamenco Vivo Carlota Spanish Dance Arts Company, Inc. Santana NY E C 1983 $504,093 $5,000 Education & Access NE Jane Comfort and Racing Thoughts, Inc. Company NY M C 1982 $75,254 $5,000 Education & Access S Ohio Chamber Ballet Ohio Ballet OH B C 1968 $2,037,148 $15,000 Education & Access S
Pacific Northwest Ballet Association Pacific Northwest Ballet WA B C 1972 $10,601,044 $65,000 Education & Access W
Parsons Dance Foundation, Inc. Parsons Dance Company NY M C 1987 $1,326,639 $10,000 Education & Access W Pat Graney Performance Pat Graney Company WA M C 1988 $254,639 $20,000 Education & Access NC
Ballet Concierto de Puerto Rico, Inc. PR B C 1979 $846,900 $10,000 Education & Access S Ballet Tech Foundation, Inc. NY B C 1974 $3,145,177 $30,000 Education & Access NE Caribbean Dance Company of the Virgin Islands, Inc. VI E C 1977 $342,400 $10,000 Education & Access NC Cincinnati Ballet Company, Inc. OH B C 1958 $3,297,925 $10,000 Education & Access S Colorado Ballet Company CO B C 1961 $3,438,239 $5,000 Education & Access NC Connecticut Ballet Theatre, Inc. CT B C 1981 $350,832 $5,000 Education & Access T Cortez & Company Dance Foundation, Inc. NY M C 1991 $44,966 $5,000 Education & Access NE Dance St. Louis MO X P 1966 $2,040,389 $11,000 Education & Access T Dance Theatre of Harlem, Inc. NY B C 1969 $6,495,573 $60,000 Education & Access NC Dance Umbrella Boston, Inc. MA X P 1981 $1,159,138 $30,000 Education & Access W Dancing in the Streets, Inc. NY X P 1983 $458,378 $20,000 Education & Access NE Eugene Ballet Company OR B C 1978 $1,204,074 $20,000 Education & Access NE Festival Dance & Performing Arts Association, Inc. ID X P 1989 $308,183 $5,000 Education & Access NC Florida Dance Association, Inc. FL X P 1972 $363,315 $25,000 Education & Access NE Honolulu Dance Theatre, Ltd. HI M C 1993 $82,587 $5,000 Education & Access NE
Houston Community College System TX E C 1976 $864,000 $10,000 Education & Access NE
Jacob's Pillow Dance Festival, Inc. MA X P 1933 $2,909,529 $50,000 Education & Access W Kansas City Friends of Alvin Ailey MO M E 1984 $522,301 $25,000 Education & Access NC Katherine Dunham Centers for Arts and Humanities IL M O 1994 $441,692 $35,000 Education & Access S Ko-Thi, Inc. WI E C 1969 $713,239 $20,000 Education & Access W New Orleans Ballet Association LA B P 1969 $993,536 $20,000 Education & Access S
198 FY99 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION
Ragamala Music and Dance Theater MN E C 1992 $112,791 $5,000 Education & Access NE Repertory Dance Theatre UT M C 1966 $470,340 $10,000 Education & Access NC Richmond Ballet VA B C 1950 $2,547,437 $15,000 Education & Access NC
Ririe-Woodbury Dance Foundation UT M C 1964 $562,974 $10,000 Education & Access NC San Diego Dance Institute CA X O 1990 $106,037 $10,000 Education & Access S University of Southern Mississippi MS X E 1947 $4,114,775 $10,000 Education & Access NC Very Special Arts Montana MT X O 1985 $39,027 $10,000 Education & Access W Floricanto Dance Theatre Danza Floricanto/USA CA E C 1975 $76,195 $5,000 Heritage & Preservation S
Arts Resources in Collaboration, Inc. Eye on Dance NY X O 1976 $86,867 $10,000 Heritage & Preservation W Brown University RI X E 1764 $939,402 $40,000 Heritage & Preservation W Dance Notation Bureau, Inc. NY X S 1949 $290,548 $20,000 Heritage & Preservation S International Tap Association CO O S 1987 $32,965 $10,000 Heritage & Preservation W
La Tania Flamenco Music and Dance CA E C 1993 $217,466 $10,000 Heritage & Preservation NE Muntu Dance Theatre IL E C 1972 $634,231 $12,000 Heritage & Preservation NE New York Baroque Dance Company, Inc. NY O C 1976 $101,326 $10,000 Heritage & Preservation W New-York Historical Society NY X O 1804 $6,747,679 $25,000 Heritage & Preservation W Nritya Jyoti Dance Theatre MN E C 1989 $78,026 $5,000 Heritage & Preservation NC Olatunji Center of African Culture NY E C 1964 $137,500 $10,000 Heritage & Preservation NE Philadelphia Folklore Project PA E O 1987 $132,116 $10,000 Heritage & Preservation NE Preserve, Inc. NY X S 1981 $86,934 $15,000 Heritage & Preservation NC San Diego Area Dance Alliance CA X S 1985 $110,281 $5,000 Heritage & Preservation NE Southern Methodist University TX X E 1915 $27,143 $30,000 Heritage & Preservation NE Trinity Irish Dance Company IL E C 1987 $395,000 $10,000 Heritage & Preservation NE
New England Foundation for the Arts MA X O 1976 $5,000,000 $500,000 Leadership Initiative W Maria Benitez Teatro Institute for Spanish Arts Flamenco NM E C 1970 $560,708 $20,000 Planning & Stabilization S DanceWorks, Inc. Pentacle NY X S 1976 $594,116 $30,000 Planning & Stabilization NC
Pilobolus, Inc. Pilobolus Dance Theatre CT M C 1971 $1,218,024 $18,000 Planning & Stabilization NE Dance/USA DC X S 1982 $828,919 $45,000 Planning & Stabilization S International Association of Blacks in Dance PA X S 1988 $31,544 $20,000 Planning & Stabilization NE New York City Ballet NY B C 1948 $36,439,000 $200,000 Planning & Stabilization NE Pittsburgh Ballet Theatre, Inc. PA B C 1969 $6,333,592 $100,000 Planning & Stabilization NE
199 FY99 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED INCOME GRANT CATEGORY REGION Shawn McConneloug and her Orchestra MN M C 1993 $21,229 $10,000 Planning & Stabilization NC
200 FY00 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED TOTAL GRANT CATEGORY REGION Professional Flair, Inc. Dancing Wheels OH M C 1980 $349,600 $5,000 Access NE
Celebrity Series of Boston, Inc. FleetBoston Celebrity Series MA X P 1938 $4,113,687 $10,000 Access NE
Parsons Dance Foundation, Inc. Parsons Dance Company NY M C 1987 $1,251,042 $10,000 Access S Sara Pearson/Patrik Widrig New Life Dance, Inc. and Company NY M C 1987 $60,000 $10,000 Access S Andrew Cacho African Drummers and Dancers Economic Development, Inc. DC E C 1969 $124,483 $10,000 Access NE Atlanta Ballet, Inc. GA B C 1929 $7,027,664 $20,000 Access NE Ballet East Dance Company TX E C 1980 $54,854 $5,000 Access NC Batoto Yetu, Inc. NY E C 1990 $150,342 $10,000 Access NC Center for Cultural Exchange ME X O 1984 $471,756 $5,000 Access NE Dancing in the Streets, Inc. NY X P 1983 $652,041 $20,000 Access NE Eugene Ballet Company OR B C 1978 $1,403,843 $20,000 Access NE Festival Dance & Performing Arts Association, Inc. ID X P 1989 $385,345 $5,000 Access NE Foster King Dance Collection CA X O 2000 $133,077 $10,000 Access W International House of Philadelphia PA X O 1910 $4,227,076 $30,000 Access NE
Kansas City Friends of Alvin Ailey MO M E 1984 $849,505 $10,000 Access NE Minot Area Council of the Arts, Inc. ND X O 1978 $63,015 $5,000 Access S Natya Dance Theatre IL E C 1974 $258,449 $10,000 Access NC NORD/NOBA Center for Dance LA B O 1969 $164,075 $5,000 Access W Oakland Ballet Association CA B C 1965 $1,766,022 $15,000 Access NE
Sharir & Bustamante Danceworks TX M C 1982 $447,169 $10,000 Access NE One Seventy One Cedar, Inc. 171 Cedar Arts Center NY X P 1966 $516,718 $5,000 Creation & Presentation NC Kings Majestic Corporation 651, An Arts Center NY X P 1988 $1,492,760 $20,000 Creation & Presentation NE American Dance Festival, Inc. ADF NC X P 1934 $3,876,745 $70,000 Creation & Presentation NE State of Alabama Ballet, Inc. Alabama Ballet AL B C 1981 $833,815 $5,000 Creation & Presentation NE Alvin Ailey American Dance Alvin Ailey Dance Foundation, Inc. Theater NY M C 1958 $12,975,497 $80,000 Creation & Presentation W Ballet Theatre Foundation, Inc. American Ballet Theatre NY B C 1939 $25,104,192 $100,000 Creation & Presentation NE Ballet Foundation of Milwaukee Ballet Company, Inc. Milwaukee, Inc. WI B C 1970 $5,095,716 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE Ballet Metropolitan, Inc. BalletMet Columbus OH B C 1974 $4,339,936 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE
201 FY00 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED TOTAL GRANT CATEGORY REGION Gotham Dance, Inc. Bebe Miller Company NY M C 1985 $366,903 $20,000 Creation & Presentation NE Foundation for Dance Promotion, Bill T. Jones/Arnie Zane Inc. Dance Company NY M C 1982 $1,487,348 $25,000 Creation & Presentation NC Brooklyn Center for the College Community Services, Inc. Performing Arts NY X P 1951 $1,322,706 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE H.T. Dance Company, Inc. Chen & Dancers NY M C 1978 $349,406 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE Field Papers, Inc. Dana Reitz VT M C 1983 $23,744 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NC DC Wheel Productions, Inc. Dance Place DC X P 1980 $723,559 $20,000 Creation & Presentation NE Art Sweats, Inc. David Dorfman Dance NY M C 1985 $462,372 $10,000 Creation & Presentation S Pick Up Performance Company, Inc. David Gordon NY M C 1971 $367,395 $10,000 Creation & Presentation S Dayton Contemporary Dance Dayton Contemporary Guild, Inc. Dance Company OH M C 1968 $866,605 $20,000 Creation & Presentation W Donald Byrd Dance Foundation, Inc. Donald Byrd/The Group NY M C 1978 $1,355,905 $10,000 Creation & Presentation W Doug Elkins Dance PLAM Dancers, Inc. Company NY M C 1991 $137,405 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE
DOVA, Inc. Doug Varone and Dancers NY M C 1986 $400,857 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE Inta, Inc. Eiko and Koma NY M C UNK $402,715 $20,000 Creation & Presentation NE
Duncan Avenue Arts Collaborative Everett Dance Theatre RI M C 1986 $248,520 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE
Racing Thoughts, Inc. Jane Comfort and Company NY M C 1982 $79,814 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NC Joe Chvala and the Flying Flying Foot Forum Foot Forum MN O C 1991 $138,144 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE Thin Man Dance, Inc. John Jasperse Company NY M C 1988 $150,361 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE Dagmar Collective, Inc. John Kelly & Company NY M C 1984 $84,472 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NC Kentucky Dance Council, Inc. Louisville Ballet KY B C 1952 $2,477,800 $10,000 Creation & Presentation S
Lula Washington Contemporary Lula Washington Dance Dance Foundation Theater CA M C 1980 $546,483 $20,000 Creation & Presentation W Maria Benitez Teatro Institute for Spanish Arts Flamenco NM E C 1970 $603,435 $25,000 Creation & Presentation NE Discalced, Inc. Mark Morris Dance Group NY M C 1980 $3,318,563 $70,000 Creation & Presentation W Cunningham Dance Foundation, Merce Cunningham Dance Inc. Company NY M C 1953 $2,811,864 $100,000 Creation & Presentation NE House Foundation for the Arts, Inc. Meredith Monk NY M C 1968 $771,054 $30,000 Creation & Presentation NE
202 FY00 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED TOTAL GRANT CATEGORY REGION Nikolais/Louis Foundation for Murray Louis & Nikolais Dance, Inc. Dance NY M C 1948 $512,941 $20,000 Creation & Presentation NE Ohio Chamber Ballet Ohio Ballet OH B C 1968 $2,037,148 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE on behalf of Bates Dance Bates College Festival ME X P 1982 $412,188 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE Pittsburgh Trust for Cultural on behalf of Pittsburgh Resources Dance Council PA X P 1984 $1,384,772 $20,000 Creation & Presentation NE on behalf of The Dance Columbia College Center IL X P 1969 $1,400,868 $20,000 Creation & Presentation NE on behalf of the Performing University of Texas Arts Center TX X P 1981 $9,214,036 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE Pat Graney Performance Pat Graney Company WA M C 1988 $224,093 $10,000 Creation & Presentation W Paul Taylor Dance Foundation, Paul Taylor Dance Inc. Company NY M C 1954 $3,466,225 $80,000 Creation & Presentation NE
Pennsylvania Ballet Association Pennsylvania Ballet PA B C 1963 $6,904,086 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE DanceWorks, Inc. Pentacle NY X S 1976 $816,697 $30,000 Creation & Presentation NE Philadelphia Dance Company, Inc. Philadanco PA M C 1970 $1,191,228 $30,000 Creation & Presentation W Pilobolus, Inc. Pilobolus Dance Theatre CT M C 1971 $1,338,553 $20,000 Creation & Presentation NE Cross Performance, Inc. Ralph Lemon Company NY M C 1985 $295,313 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE evidence, inc. Ronald K. Brown/evidence NY M C 1985 $121,451 $5,000 Creation & Presentation NE
San Francisco Ballet Association San Francisco Ballet CA B C 1933 $20,588,214 $70,000 Creation & Presentation W Ringside, Inc. STREB/Ringside NY M C 1978 $459,600 $15,000 Creation & Presentation S
Dance Continuum, Inc. Susan Marshall & Company NY M C 1982 $317,752 $10,000 Creation & Presentation S Alex Regional Theatre Board The Alex Theatre CA X P 1992 $1,550,008 $10,000 Creation & Presentation S U.B.W., Inc. Urban Bush Women NY M C 1984 $865,843 $20,000 Creation & Presentation NE School of Hard Knocks, Inc. Yoshiko Chuma NY M C 1980 $122,500 $5,000 Creation & Presentation NE Zaccho S.F. Zaccho Dance Theatre CA M C 1980 $322,115 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE Academy of Indian Performing Arts, Inc. MA E C 1988 $2,638 $5,000 Creation & Presentation W AMAN Folk Ensemble CA E C 1964 $300,730 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NC Anchorage Concert Association, Inc. AK X P 1950 $2,306,550 $40,000 Creation & Presentation W Association to Preserve the Eatonville Community, Inc., The FL X P 1988 $670,684 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE
203 FY00 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED TOTAL GRANT CATEGORY REGION Ballet Concierto de Puerto Rico, Inc. PR B C 1979 $949,877 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NC
Ballet Hispanico of New York, Inc. NY M C 1970 $2,308,626 $20,000 Creation & Presentation NC Boston Ballet, Inc. MA B C 1963 $16,763,680 $30,000 Creation & Presentation NC Bre Dance Theatre CA M C 1999 $22,100 $5,000 Creation & Presentation S Cincinnati Ballet Company, Inc. OH B C 1958 $3,297,925 $10,000 Creation & Presentation W Contemporary Dance Theater, Inc. OH M P 1972 $225,944 $10,000 Creation & Presentation S Cuyahoga Community College District OH X P 1961 $301,138 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE Dance Films Association, Inc. NY X P 1956 $40,690 $5,000 Creation & Presentation W Dance Theater Workshop, Inc. NY X P 1965 $2,795,184 $70,000 Creation & Presentation W Dance Umbrella Austin TX X P 1977 $211,493 $10,000 Creation & Presentation S Dance Umbrella Boston, Inc. MA X P 1981 $1,159,138 $25,000 Creation & Presentation T Danspace Project, Inc. NY X P 1974 $552,559 $25,000 Creation & Presentation NE East Bay Center for the Performing Arts CA X P 1969 $1,012,373 $15,000 Creation & Presentation NE Garth Fagan Dance, Inc. NY M C 1970 $926,550 $20,000 Creation & Presentation W Houston Ballet Foundation TX B C 1955 $11,367,989 $30,000 Creation & Presentation NC
Hubbard Street Dance Chicago IL M C 1977 $3,164,773 $30,000 Creation & Presentation NC International Tap Association CO O S 1987 $394,831 $25,000 Creation & Presentation NC Jacob's Pillow Dance Festival, Inc. MA X P 1933 $3,402,786 $70,000 Creation & Presentation NE Jazz Tap Ensemble, Inc. CA O C 1979 $221,048 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE JAZZDANCE by Danny Buraczeski MN O C 1979 $141,470 $10,000 Creation & Presentation S Joffrey Ballet of Chicago, Inc. IL B C 1956 $6,054,747 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE Joyce Theater Foundation, Inc. NY X P 1979 $3,825,088 $70,000 Creation & Presentation NE June Watanabe in Company CA M C 1980 $20,674 $5,000 Creation & Presentation W La Tania Flamenco Music and Dance CA E C 1993 $217,461 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE La Tania Flamenco Music and Dance CA E C 1993 $1,065,465 $10,000 Creation & Presentation S LINES Contemporary Ballet CA B C 1982 $1,065,465 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NC Louisiana Presenters Network LA X P 1992 $34,600 $10,000 Creation & Presentation W Manhattan Tap, Inc. NY O C 1986 $226,060 $5,000 Creation & Presentation NE
Mark Dendy Dance and Theater NY M C 1983 $37,763 $10,000 Creation & Presentation W
204 FY00 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED TOTAL GRANT CATEGORY REGION Martha Graham Center of Contemporary Dance, Inc. NY M C 1926 $1,876,853 $30,000 Creation & Presentation NC Montana Ballet Company, Inc. MT B C 1984 $171,677 $5,000 Creation & Presentation NC Movement Research, Inc. NY X P 1978 $261,063 $5,000 Creation & Presentation NE National Institute of Flamenco, The NM E C 1986 $149,000 $5,000 Creation & Presentation W National Performance Network, Inc. LA X P 1985 $750,000 $70,000 Creation & Presentation W
New Orleans Ballet Association LA B P 1969 $1,069,473 $20,000 Creation & Presentation W New York City Ballet NY B C 1948 $38,898,705 $80,000 Creation & Presentation W North Carolina Dance Theatre NC B C 1970 $2,268,471 $10,000 Creation & Presentation S Oregon Ballet Theatre OR B C 1989 $4,144,445 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE Pearl Ubungen Dancers & Musicians CA M C 1997 $82,505 $5,000 Creation & Presentation NE Pittsburgh Ballet Theatre, Inc. PA B C 1969 $9,128,426 $30,000 Creation & Presentation NE Rennie Harris Puremovement PA O C 1991 $274,265 $10,000 Creation & Presentation W Rhapsody in Taps, Inc. CA O C 1981 $86,446 $5,000 Creation & Presentation NE Rhythm in Shoes, Inc. OH O C 1980 $384,961 $10,000 Creation & Presentation W Richmond Ballet VA B C 1950 $2,526,616 $20,000 Creation & Presentation S Stephen Petronio Dance Company, Inc. NY M C 1984 $405,621 $10,000 Creation & Presentation S Thalia Mara Arts International Foundation MS X P 1991 $165,000 $5,000 Creation & Presentation NE Tigertail Productions, Inc. FL X P 1979 $210,000 $5,000 Creation & Presentation S Trisha Brown Dance Company, Inc. NY M C 1970 $1,536,028 $70,000 Creation & Presentation W Tulsa Ballet Theatre, Inc. OK B C 1956 $2,458,404 $5,000 Creation & Presentation W University Musical Society MI X P 1879 $4,587,279 $40,000 Creation & Presentation NE Wagon Train Project, Inc. NE X P 1991 $190,255 $10,000 Creation & Presentation NE Washington Performing Arts Society DC X P 1965 $6,708,228 $30,000 Creation & Presentation W Yard, Inc. MA X P 1973 $178,416 $7,000 Creation & Presentation NC Zivili Kolo Ensemble, Inc. OH E C 1973 $113,760 $10,000 Creation & Presentation S Cleo Parker Robinson New Dance Theatre, Inc. Dance CO M C 1970 $1,018,500 $20,000 Education NE Pittsburgh Dance Alloy Dance Alloy PA M C 1976 $690,500 $5,000 Education S
MoveSpeakSpin Dr. Schaeffer and Mr. Stern CA M C 1987 $33,761 $8,000 Education S
205 FY00 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED TOTAL GRANT CATEGORY REGION Liz Lerman Dance Dance Exchange, Inc. Exchange MD M C 1976 $1,105,516 $20,000 Education NE Pacific Northwest Ballet Association Pacific Northwest Ballet WA B C 1972 $11,487,450 $50,000 Education S Abhinaya Dance Company of San Jose, Inc. CA E C 1980 $129,567 $5,000 Education NC Ballet Florida, Inc. FL B C 1974 $3,278,712 $5,000 Education NC Ballet Tech Foundation, Inc. NY B C 1974 $3,914,158 $30,000 Education S Caribbean Dance Company of the Virgin Islands, Inc. VI E C 1977 $343,960 $20,000 Education NE Dance Theatre of Harlem, Inc. NY B C 1969 $5,066,252 $50,000 Education NC Florida Dance Association, Inc. FL X P 1972 $422,722 $20,000 Education W George Balanchine Foundation, Inc., The NY B O 1983 $153,229 $20,000 Education S Granite School District UT X E UNK $88,768 $10,000 Education NE Ifetayo Cultural Arts Facility NY M C 1989 $177,600 $10,000 Education T Ko-Thi, Inc. WI E C 1969 $646,000 $20,000 Education NE Los Lupenos de San Jose Inc. CA E C 1969 $298,261 $5,000 Education S Miami City Ballet, Inc. FL B C 1985 $10,932,174 $40,000 Education NE National Dance Education Organization MD X E 1997 $53,386 $30,000 Education W National Dance Institute of New Mexico NM M E 1994 $360,513 $10,000 Education NE National Dance Institute, Inc. NY M E 1976 $1,621,527 $30,000 Education NC Ririe-Woodbury Dance Foundation UT M C 1964 $602,432 $20,000 Education W Tahoe Arts Project CA X P 1989 $93,864 $5,000 Education S
University of Southern Mississippi MS X E 1947 $4,368,716 $10,000 Education S Washington Ballet DC B C 1966 $3,453,935 $10,000 Education W Floricanto Dance Theatre Danza Floricanto/USA CA E C 1975 $84,475 $10,000 Heritage & Preservation NE Kansas City Ballet Association, Inc. Kansas City Ballet MO B C 1957 $2,983,931 $20,000 Heritage & Preservation W José Limón Dance Foundation, Inc. Limón Dance Company NY M C 1946 $1,240,815 $30,000 Heritage & Preservation W Alliance for the Arts NY O S 1976 $1,760,430 $20,000 Heritage & Preservation S Ballet West UT B C 1963 $6,546,870 $30,000 Heritage & Preservation S Cortez & Company Dance Foundation, Inc. NY M C 1991 $55,535 $10,000 Heritage & Preservation NE Dance Heritage Coalition, Inc. DC X S 1992 $55,596 $20,000 Heritage & Preservation W
206 FY00 ORGANIZATION POPULARNAME ST GENRE TYPE FOUNDED TOTAL GRANT CATEGORY REGION Dance Notation Bureau, Inc. NY X S 1940 $262,015 $15,000 Heritage & Preservation NE Florene Litthcut's Inner City Children's Touring Dance Company, Inc. FL O O UNK $128,392 $5,000 Heritage & Preservation S George Balanchine Foundation, Inc., The NY B O 1983 $153,229 $40,000 Heritage & Preservation NE International Tap Association CO O S 1987 $34,720 $10,000 Heritage & Preservation S New York Baroque Dance Company, Inc. NY O C 1976 $86,993 $10,000 Heritage & Preservation NE New York City Ballet NY B C 1948 $38,898,705 $20,000 Heritage & Preservation W
Olatunji Center of African Culture NY E C 1964 $160,100 $10,000 Heritage & Preservation NE Repertory Dance Theatre UT M C 1966 $529,268 $20,000 Heritage & Preservation NE Trinity Irish Dance Company IL E C 1987 $656,569 $9,000 Heritage & Preservation NE Tulane University LA X E 1834 $723,401 $5,000 Heritage & Preservation W Dance/USA DC X S 1982 $639,547 $520,000 Leadership Initiative NC National Performance Network, Inc. LA X P 1985 $750,000 $125,000 Leadership Initiative S New England Foundation for the Arts MA X O 1976 $5,000,000 $500,000 Leadership Initiative S DanceWorks, Inc. Pentacle NY X S 1976 $816,697 $30,000 Planning & Stabilization S Performance Zone, Inc. The Field NY X S 1986 $186,190 $10,000 Planning & Stabilization NE Dance/USA DC X S 1982 $639,547 $50,000 Planning & Stabilization S International Association of Blacks in Dance PA X S 1988 $19,210 $20,000 Planning & Stabilization NE
207