Figuring the Plural: Needs and Supports of 

Canadian and US Ethnocultural Arts Organizations 

Mina Para Matlon, Ingrid Van Haastrecht, Kaitlyn Wittig Mengüç 

School of the Art Institute of Chicago/Art Institute of Chicago 

2014

This project was supported in part or in whole by an award from the Research: Art Works

program at the National Endowment for the Arts: Grant# 13-3800-7011. 

The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent 

the views of the Office of Research & Analysis or the National Endowment for the Arts. The 

NEA does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information included in this report 

and is not responsible for any consequence of its use. 
Written, edited, and compiled by

Mina Para Matlon

Ingrid Van Haastrecht

Kaitlyn Wittig Mengüç

Figuring 

the 

Plural
© 2014 by Plural

All rights reserved. Published 2014.

Printed in the United States of America

Plural (http://pluralculture.com) is a project based out of the School of the Art Institute of Chicago and dedicated to supporting Canadian and 

US ethnocultural arts organizations.

The Plural project co-leads gratefully acknowledge the generous support of this research project by the Joyce Foundation, National Endowment for 

the Arts, and the School of the Art Institute of Chicago.

Text material (excluding artwork that appears as text such as script excerpts and poems) may be reprinted without permission for any noncommercial use, provided Plural is properly credited and its copyright is acknowledged. Permission to reproduce photographs or other artwork, or 

the artistic discipline profiles separate from the work as a whole, must be obtained from the copyright owner listed in the relevant credit. 

Cover image: Chanel Kennebrew, OVERGIVE: 28”x28” Mixed Media Painting Collage. Part of the Smile Now Die Later series. Reproduced by 

permission from Chanel Kennebrew.
Written, edited, and compiled by

Mina Para Matlon

Ingrid Van Haastrecht

Kaitlyn Wittig Mengüç

Figuring the Plural

Needs and Supports of Canadian and US Ethnocultural Arts Organizations
Image 1. McIntosh County Shouters, 2011. Left: Carletha Sullivan, Carolyn Palmer, Venus McIver, and Rebecca Wahlin (Shouters); 

Right: Tre Stevens (Stickman), Alberta Sallins, L.C. Scott (Basers and Clappers) and Freddie Palmer (Lead Songster). Photograph by 

Troup Nightengale. Reproduced by permission from McIntosh County Shouters.

iii
Contents

Project Team vi

Advisory Committee viii

Interview Participants x

Acknowledgements xiv

List of Figures xvi

Executive Summary 2

English 2

French 7

Spanish 13

Methodology 20

Terminology 36

Introduction 40

Part I:

Historical Background 46

Canada 48

United States 82

Part II: Current Ethnocultural Arts Organizations (2013-

2014) 136

Indigenous Techne: Native New Media in North America 138

by Leena Minifie

Overview of Characteristics 148

Canada 148

United States 166

The Evolution of Arab-American Literary Arts 190

by Alex Aubry

Characteristics by Pan Racial Group 196

Canada 197

United States 208

Unpacking the Crisis Narrative of Black Theater 228

by Jordanna Matlon

Characteristics by Province/Region 232

Canada 233

United States 244

Latino Arts Organizations in Smaller and Younger Immigrant 

Neighborhoods 276

by Margaret Smith

Affirming and Innovating Tradition in North American 

Ukrainian Dance 280

by Yaryna Klimchak

Needs and Supports: A Life Cycle Approach 284

Performing in Liminal Spaces; the Future of North American 

Taiko 338

by Kaitlyn Wittig Mengüç

Suggested Areas for Future Research 346

Artwork in Context 348

Selected Bibliography 354

iv
Appendices (included separately)

Appendix A: Database of Canadian ethnocultural arts organizations

Appendix B: Database of US ethnocultural arts organizations

Appendix C: Database of Canadian support organizations

Appendix D: Database of US support organizations

Appendix E: Interview questions template

Appendix F: Canadian survey questions

Appendix G: US English/Spanish survey questions

Appendices H-J: Canadian survey results by Aboriginal, Culturally Diverse, and White pan group (open-ended responses omitted to maintain 

privacy of respondents)

Appendices K-R: US survey results by pan-racial group (open-ended responses omitted to maintain privacy of respondents)

Appendix S: Arts organization interview instructions

Appendix T: Consent and release form template: US arts organization, no transcript

Appendix U: Calculations for Survey Representativeness 

v
Project Team

Mina Para Matlon, Founder/Project Co-Lead

Ingrid Van Haastrecht, Founder/Project Co-Lead

Kaitlyn Wittig Mengüç, Project Co-Lead

Alex Aubry, Graphic Design & Contributing Writer

Jacqueline Chao, Media & Graphic Design

Patricia Morris Alava, Spanish Translation & Field Research

Jasmyn Grace Smith, Research

Madeline Smith, Research

Alda Akhsar Tchochiev, Artist Liaison & Field Research

Contributing Writers

Yaryna Klimchak

Jordanna Matlon

Leena Minifie

Margaret Smith

Rebecca Duclos, Dean of Graduate Studies at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, is an ad hoc member of the project team. 

Brant Gidwitz contributed geographic visualization services.

vi
Images 2 and 3. Julianne Beaudin-Herney. Inner Parts of Me (Part 1), 2013. Photos taken on iPhone by Maariu Costa, Edited by the Artist. Julianne 

is a member of Sâkêwêwak Artists Collective Inc. Reproduced by permission from Julianne Beaudin-Herney.

vii
Advisory Committee

Canada

Millie Knapp, Association for Native Development in the Performing and Visual Arts

Sandra Laronde, Indigenous Arts at The Banff Centre; Red Sky Performance

Shahin Sayadi, OneLight Theatre & Prismatic Festival

Sanjay Shahani, The Ontario Trillium Foundation

Charles C. Smith, Cultural Pluralism in the Arts Movement Ontario

Maggie Stewart, OneLight Theatre & Prismatic Festival

United States

Jennifer Armstrong, on behalf of the entire board of The Association of American Cultures

Roberto Bedoya, Tucson Pima Arts Council

Deepa Gupta, The Boeing Company

Angelique Power, The Joyce Foundation

Gina Rodriguez-Drix, Rhode Island Council for the Humanities

Rebeccah Sanders, formerly of the Chicago Cultural Alliance

Carlton Turner, Alternate Roots

Organizations are listed solely for identification purposes

Image 4. Paloma Nuñez and Juan Carlos Velis in The 

Intruder, Alameda Theatre Company, 2011. Written by 

Amaranta Leyva. Photograph by Steve Carty. Reproduced 

by permission from Alameda Theatre Company.

viii
ix

Image 5. Oinkari women perform Lapurdiko Makil Dantza during Trailing of the Sheep, an annual celebration of sheepherding cultures. Oinkari 

Basque Dancers, 2012. Photograph by Dev Khalsa. Reproduced by permission from Oinkari Basque Dancers.
Interview Participants

Canada

Aboriginal Arts, Alberta Foundation for the Arts

Aboriginal Arts, Canada Council for the Arts

Accès Asie 

Alianait Arts Festival (Alianait Entertainment Group)

Alameda Theatre Company

Ashkenaz Foundation

B Current Performing Arts

Canadian Public Arts Funders

Canadian Hungarian Cultural Society of Edmonton

Canadian Native Friendship Centre of Edmonton

Circle of Life Thunderbird House

Collective of Black Artists

Community Arts, BC Arts Council

Constantinople

Dancers of Damelahamid Society

Debajehmujig Theatre Group

Desna Ukrainian Dance Company of Toronto

Diversité Artistique Montréal (DAM)

Edmonton Raga-Mala Music Society

EmbraceBC

First Peoples Cultural Council

Grunt Gallery

Inhabit Media

Janak Khendry Dance Company

Kokoro Dance

Lorita Leung Dance Company

MT Space

MAI (Montréal, arts interculturels)

NAfro Dance Productions

Native Earth Performing Arts

Nikkei National Museum & Cultural Centre

Northern Arts & Cultural Centre

x

Obsidian Theatre Company

Onelight Theatre Society & Prismatic Festival

Ontario Arts Council

Pavlychenko Folklorique Ensemble

Powell Street Festival Society

Puente Theatre Society

Raven Spirit Dance Sâkêwêwak Artists’ Collective

Saskatchewan Native Theatre Company

Shevchenko Foundation

South Asian Visual Arts Centre

Tara Players Theatre of Ottawa

Teesri Duniya Theatre

Toronto Reel Asian International Film Festival

Ukrainian Cultural and Educational Centre

Ukrainian Shumka Dancers

Urban Ink Productions

Urban Shaman

Uzume Taiko Drum Group Society

Vancouver Latin American Film Festival

Vesnivka Women’s Choir

Winnipeg Jewish Theatre

Yukon Arts Centre

United States

Afriky Lolo

Aktina Productions

Akvavit Theatre

Akwesasne Library and Cultural Center

All My Relations Arts (an initiative of the Native 

American Community Development Institute)

American Swedish Institute

Ariztlan Studios
xi

Arlekin Players Theatre

ARTEEAST

Asian American Arts Alliance

Asian Pacific American Film

Aswan Dancers

Atlanta Chinese Dance Company

Ballet Hispanico of New York

Ballet Lisanga Congolese Performing Arts Company

Black Ensemble Theater (Chicago)

Black Storytellers Alliance (Minneapolis)

Borderlands Theater

Boston Jewish Music Festival

Breath of Fire Latina Theater Ensemble

California Arts Council

Carver Community Cultural Center

Center for Arabic Culture

Center for Asian American Media

Chai Latte Productions

CHAT (Center for Hmong Arts & Talent)

Cinema Tropical

Consortium of Black Organizations for the Arts

Côr Cymraeg Rehoboth

Country Dance Society Boston Centre

Creative Capital

Cypreco of America

East Bay Center for the Performing Arts

Edgeworks Dance Theater

Ensemble Theater (Texas)

Fire This Time Festival 

First People’s Fund

First Voice

Fractured Atlas

Golden Thread Productions

H T Dance Company - Chen Dance Center

Heritage Signature Chorale

Indian Performing Arts Samskriti

Indian Pueblo Cultural Center

Japanese Embroidery Center

Kankouran West African Dance Company

Karpatok Hungarian Folk Ensemble

Kearny Street Workshop

Kulintang Arts

Kumu Kahua Theatre

La Pena Cultural Center

Latino Arts Network

Latino International Theater Festival of New York, Inc. – TeatroStageFest

Lee Young Hee Museum of Korean Culture

Levantine Cultural Center

Los Cenzontles Mexican Arts Center

McIntosh County Shouters

MECA (Multicultural Education and Counseling through the Arts)

Mizna

MPAACT

Mu Performing Arts (Theatre Mu)

Mu’olaulani

Museum at Warm Springs

National Association of Latino Arts and Cultures

New York African Chorus Ensemble

North American Basque Organizations

Oinkari Basque Dancers

Palmetto & Luna

Pan Asian Repertory Theatre

Pepatian

Programs & Partnerships, National Endowment for the Arts

Scottish Partnership for Arts & Education

Self-Help Graphics and Arts

Silk Road Rising (Gilloury Institute)

South Asian Women’s Creative Collective

Stir-Friday Night

Taiko Center of the Pacific

Teatro Circulo

Teatro Luna

The Color of Film Collaborative

Ukrainian Institute of Modern Art

Wing Luke Museum of the Asian Pacific American Experience

Image 6. The Lake Effect, Silk Road Rising, 2013. Written by Rajiv Joseph. Left to right: Minita Gandhi, Adam Poss, and Mark Smith. Photograph by 

Michael Brosilow. Reproduced by permission from Alameda Theatre Company.

xiii
Acknowledgements

From inception to completion, Plural has been a collaborative endeavor. 

We would particularly like to thank the following individuals and 

organizations for their time, research, experiences, and hospitality:

The Art Institute of Chicago and the School of the Art Institute 

of Chicago, especially Professors Rachel Weiss and Adelheid Mers, 

Librarians Jenn Smith, Nathaniel Feis, and Holly Stec Dankert of the 

Flaxman Library, Dr. Pamela Jennings, former Director of the Earl 

and Brenda Shapiro Center for Research and Collaboration, Brian 

Esker, Devin Henderson, Helema Lewis, Shirley Rucker, and Danny 

Urbina-McCarthy of Accounting-Fiscal Office-SAIC, Patricia Mocco 

of Accounting, Ingrid Parker of Institutional Advancement, Michal 

Lynn Shumate of the Dean’s Office, Rashayla Marie Brown of Student 

Affairs for Diversity and Inclusion, and Maureen Ryan of the President 

& Director’s Office, Art Institute of Chicago; our Advisory Committee; 

the American Indian Center of Chicago, the Balzekas Museum of 

Lithuanian Culture, Luna Negra, and Natya Dance Theatre, who 

served as our survey pilot participants; our survey participants; our 

formal interview participants, who are listed on the preceding pages; 

the Joyce Foundation with particular gratitude to Angelique Power, who 

found wings for a vision; the National Endowment for the Arts, especially 

Patrice Walker Powell, Barry Bergey, and Sunil Iyengar; the Canada 

Council for the Arts, especially Jacinthe Soulliere, Sheila James, Vanessa 

Novack, Jeffrey Morrow, and Ellen Busby; the Department of Canadian 

Heritage, especially Martin Durand and Glenn Morrison; A.B. Spellman; 

the California Arts Council, especially Lucero Arellano (now retired) and 

Caitlin Fitzwater; Vanessa Whang of Cal Humanities; Geoffrey Gurd 

of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada’s Cultural 

Educational Centres Program; Sonya Thompson of the Research, 

Planning, and Policy division of the Alberta Foundation for the Arts; 

Amy Kitchener of the Alliance for California Traditional Arts; Flannery 

Patton; Carla Roberts, former Executive Director of Atlatl; Philip Katz; 

Timothy Lloyd of the American Folklore Society; Amanda Alef and Ben 

Davidson of Americans for the Arts; Nico Daswani, former Program 

Director for the Asian American Arts Alliance; Arts Alliance Illinois; 

Bonnie Devine of the Ontario College of Art and Design; James Britt; 

Jerry Yoshitomi; Alain Pineau of the now closed Canadian Conference 

of the Arts; the Canadian Ethnocultural Council; Dr. Marta Moreno 

Vega of the Caribbean Cultural Center; Cecilia Garibay; the Center for 

Arts and Cultural Policy Studies at Princeton University; Dr. Alaka Wali 

of the Center for Cultural Understanding at the Field Museum; Will 

Anderson of the University of Chicago’s Cultural Policy Center; Dr. 

Allan J. Ryan of Carleton University; Dr. Carole Rosenstein of George 

Mason University; Dr. Elizabeth Peterson of the American Folklife 

Center; Dr. Francie Ostrower of UT-Austin; Dr. Kristin Dowell of the 

University of Oklahoma; Eduardo Diaz of the Smithsonian Latino 

Center; Claudette Commanda of the First Nations Confederacy of 

Cultural Education Centres; the First Nations Development Institute; the 

Florida Division of Cultural Affairs; Tommer Peterson of Grantmakers 

in the Arts; Holly Sidford; Alex Winston Jeffers; Mario Nick Klimiades 

of Library and Archives at the Heard Museum; Michele Sereda of 

Curtain Razors; Yuriko Iga of Blim; William McCullough; Jason Tseng 

of Community Engagement at Fractured Atlas; the Mid Atlantic Arts 

Foundation; Belinda Rawlins of NAMAC; the National Arts Centre; the 

National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, especially Ryan Stubbs; the 

National Association of Latino Arts and Cultures; the National Center 

for Charitable Statistics; the National Council for the Traditional Arts; 

the National Endowment for the Humanities; the Neighborhood Arts 

Network, especially former Coordinator Skye Louis; Susan Peirez of the 

New York State Council on the Arts; Kimber Craine of the President’s 

Committee on the Arts and Humanities; Kathryn Townshend of 

Research, Policy and Evaluation at the Ontario Arts Council; the 

Reybet-Degat family; San San Wong of the Barr Foundation; Sarah Lee 

of Slover Linett; the South Carolina Arts Commission, especially Sara 

June Goldstein; Adam Tarnoff; Shannon Farley; Salvador Acevedo; 

Statistics Canada; James Early of the Smithsonian Center for Folklife 

and Cultural Heritage; Jim Bob McMillan of the Texas Commission on 

the Arts; Theaster Gates; The Association for Canadian Studies; Lucie 

D’Aoust of The Cultural Human Resources Council; Reina Mukai of 

xiv
the Foundation Center; the Toronto Arts Council; Eugene Boulanger 

of W2/Vancouver Indigenous Media Arts Festival; Dr. Ann Stone of 

the Wallace Foundation; Dr. Maria Rosario Jackson; Christon Nichole 

Herring; W. Cecyl Hobbs; Warren Garrett of CCI – Ontario Presenting 

Network; and the Western States Arts Federation. 

This project further owes debts of gratitude to Elinor Bowles, 

the author of Cultural Centers of Color, and Louise Poulin, the author of 

Stories from the Field: Perspectives on Innovative Management Practices for Aboriginal 

and Culturally Diverse Arts Organizations, each of whom ensured that the 

pioneering work of our cultural leaders would be remembered and 

celebrated. We are also tremendously grateful for our families, whose 

general observation throughout this process has been, “it may be a little 

too ambitious,” but who nonetheless worked in the trenches with us 

whenever we needed additional help.

In Letters to a Young Artist, actress and playwright Anna Deavere 

Smith recalls the words of intellectual and activist Cornel West in 

describing the role of the artist in society. “‘Hope,’” she says, quoting 

West, “‘calls for a leap of faith that goes beyond the evidence to create new 

possibilities based on visions that become contagious. These visions allow 

people to engage in heroic actions, always against the odds, no guarantee 

whatsoever.’” Artists provide us with these visions, but as Deavere Smith 

notes, those who work in the cultural sector are often undervalued in 

part because “there is no guarantee that [art] will help make test scores 

or anything else any better.” The value of art, however, lies less in its 

ability to create certainty, and more in its ability to expand possibility 

and help us navigate complexity. Nowhere is the potential impact of 

art greater than when wielded by our ethnocultural arts organizations, 

whose work connects us to who we were, promotes full participation in 

understanding and shaping who we are, and offers us visions and actions 

toward a more just and pluralistic society – who we may become. Visions 

and actions that are contagious. This book is dedicated to them. 

xv
xvi

List of Figures 

Set forth below is a list of all the graphs, maps, and tables in the order 

that these figures appear in Part II. 

Figure 1. Canadian organizations by artistic discipline 149

Figure 2. Canadian organizations by CRA effective year of status 149

Figure 3. Canadian survey respondents by number of paid employees 

150

Table 1. Average and median annual revenue for arts and culture 

organizations in Canada (2012-2013) 150

Figure 4. Canadian organizations by average annual gross income: 

frequency distribution (2010-2012) 151

Figure 5. Canadian organizations by median annual gross income per 

year (2010-2012) 151

Figure 6. Canadian survey respondents by income sources 152

Figure 7. Organizational challenges by Canadian survey respondent 

ranking (General) 152

Figure 8. Financial resource needs by Canadian survey respondent 

ranking 153

Figure 9. Capacity building needs by Canadian survey respondent 

ranking 153

Figure 10. Arts services accessed by Canadian survey respondents (2011-

2013) 154

Figure 11. Dedicated arts services accessed by Canadian survey 

respondents (2011-2013) 154

Figure 12. Constraints in accessing arts services by Canadian survey 

respondent ranking 154

Figure 13. Funding sources supporting Canadian survey respondents 

(2011-2013) 155

Figure 14. Dedicated funding programs accessed by Canadian survey 

respondents 155

Figure 15. Types of collaborating organizations of Canadian survey 

respondents 156

Figure 16. Constraints to collaboration by Canadian survey respondent 

ranking 157

Figure 17. Canadian arts service organizations by services provided 165

Figure 18. US organizations by artistic discipline 166

Figure 19. US organizations by decade founded 166

Figure 20. US survey respondents by number of paid employees 167

Figure 21. US survey respondents by number of paid employees and 

operating budget 168

Figure 22. US organizations by average annual gross income: frequency 

distribution (2009-2012) 169
Figure 23. US organizations by median annual gross income per year 

(2009-2012) 169

Figure 24. US survey respondents by income sources 170

Figure 25. Organizational challenges by US survey respondent ranking 

(General) 170

Figure 26. Financial resource needs by US survey respondent ranking 

171

Figure 27. Capacity building needs by US survey respondent ranking 

171

Figure 28. Arts services accessed by US survey respondents (2011-2013) 

172

Figure 29. Dedicated arts services accessed by US survey respondents 

(2011-2013) 173

Figure 30. Constraints in accessing arts services by US survey respondent 

ranking 173

Figure 31. Funding sources supporting US survey respondents (2011-

2013) 174

Figure 32. Dedicated funding programs accessed by US survey 

respondents 174

Figure 33. Types of collaborating organizations of US survey respondents 

175

Figure 34. Constraints to collaboration by US survey respondent ranking 

176

Figure 35. US arts service organizations by services provided 182

Figure 36. Canadian organizations by pan group 197

Figure 37. Comparison of Canadian organizations with Canadian 

population 197

Figure 38. Canadian organizations by pan group and artistic discipline 

198

Figure 39. Canadian organizations by pan group and CRA effective year 

of status 198

Table 2. Canadian organizations by average, median, and max annual 

gross income (2010-2012) 200

Figure 40. Canadian organizations by pan group and average annual 

gross income: frequency distribution (2010-2012) 200

Table 3. Canadian organizations by pan group and median annual gross 

income per year (2010-2012) 201

Figure 41. Funding sources supporting Canadian survey respondents by 

pan group (2011-2013) 202

Figure 42. Canadian survey respondents by pan group and arts services 

accessed (2011-2013) 204

Table 4. Dedicated arts services and funding sources accessed by pan 

group 205

Figure 43. Comparison of Canadian organizations and dedicated arts 

services by pan group 206

xvii
Table 5. Canadian arts service organizations by services provided and 

pan group 206

Figure 44. US organizations by pan racial group 208

Figure 45. US organizations by pan racial group and artistic discipline 

209

Figure 46. US organizations by pan racial group and decade founded 

210

Figure 47. US survey respondents by number of paid employees and pan 

racial group 210

Table 6. US organizations by average, median, and max annual gross 

income (2009-2012) 211

Figure 48. US organizations by pan racial group and average annual 

gross income: frequency distribution (2009-2012) 212

Figure 49. US organizations by pan racial group and median annual 

gross income per year (2009-2012) 212

Figure 50. US survey respondents by pan racial group and income 

sources 213

Figure 51. US survey respondents by pan racial group and arts services 

accessed (2011-2013) 219

Table 7. Dedicated arts services and funding sources accessed by pan 

racial group 221

Figure 52. Comparison of US organizations and dedicated arts services 

by pan racial group 224

Table 8. US arts service organizations by services provided and pan 

racial group 224

Figure 53. Canadian organizations by province 233

Figure 54. Geographic distribution of Canadian organizations (Map) 

234

Table 9. Canadian organizations by pan group and region 235

Figure 55. Geographic distribution of Aboriginal arts organizations 

(Map) 236

Figure 56. Geographic distribution of Culturally Diverse arts 

organizations (Map) 236

Figure 57. Geographic distribution of White arts organizations (Map) 

236

Figure 58. Canadian organizations by province and CRA effective year 

of status 237

Figure 59. Average annual gross income by province (2010-2012) 238

Figure 60. Average annual gross income by province: frequency 

distribution (2010-2012) 238

Figure 61. Comparison of Canadian organizations with dedicated arts 

services by province 243

Figure 62. Geographic distribution of US organizations (Map) 245

Figure 63. US organizations by region 246

xviii
Figure 64. Top 10 states with the greatest concentration of US 

organizations 246

Figure 65. Geographic distribution of American Indian/Alaska Native 

arts organizations (Map) 247

Figure 66. Geographic distribution of Asian arts organizations (Map) 

247

Figure 67. Geographic distribution of Black arts organizations (Map) 

247

Figure 68. Geographic distribution of Latino arts organizations (Map) 

247

Figure 69. Geographic distribution of Multiracial arts organizations 

(Map) 248

Figure 70. Geographic distribution of Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific 

Islander arts organizations (Map) 248

Figure 71. Geographic distribution of Some Other Race arts 

organizations (Map) 248

Figure 72. Geographic distribution of White arts organizations (Map) 

248

Table 10. US organizations by pan racial group and region 249

Figure 73. US organizations by region and decade founded 251

Figure 74. Average annual gross income by state (2009-2012) (Map) 252

Figure 75. Average annual operating budget by region: frequency 

distribution (2009-2012) 253

Figure 76. US survey respondents by number of paid employees and 

region 254

Figure 77. Comparison of US organizations with dedicated arts services 

by region 269

Figure 78. Diagram of life cycle stages 287

xix

Image 7. MU, First Voice, Brenda Wong Aoki and Mark Izu, 2013. Left to right: 

Dalmacio Payomo, Céline Alwyn-Parker, and Joseph Hernandez. Reproduced by 

permission from First Voice.
Executive Summary

Executive Summary

Figuring the Plural is an examination of ethnocultural, or ethnically/

culturally specific, arts organizations in Canada and the United States. 

As our societies rapidly diversify and we seek to negotiate our increasingly 

complex national identities, these organizations possess enormous 

potential to assist in this process for they serve as cultural advocates, 

cultural interpreters, facilitators of cross-cultural understanding and 

communication, keepers of ethnic tradition, and/or sites where prejudice 

is exposed and challenged.

Despite their invaluable services, ethnocultural arts organizations 

have received little attention within the arts community. Our literature 

review revealed relatively little data on these organizations, and much 

of this information was outdated and dispersed across a range of 

sources. In Canada, a review of existing literature and discussions with 

Canadian ethnocultural arts organizations, funders, and advocates in 

the field indicated that research began around 2003 when the Canada 

Council for the Arts (Canada Council) and Department of Canadian 

Heritage co-sponsored a survey on Aboriginal dance groups and artists. 

The following year, these federal agencies initiated the country’s only 

nationwide study on a broader array of ethnocultural arts organizations. 

Consisting of nine case studies of Aboriginal and culturally diverse 

arts organizations and interviews with 55 individuals, the objective of 

the second study was to highlight organizational best practices. Aside 

from these two reports, literature mostly regards general research on 

Aboriginal arts and culture practices rather than specific considerations 

of Aboriginal arts organizations, culturally diverse arts organizations, or 

White ethnocultural arts organizations. We found no large-scale study 

on Canadian ethnocultural arts organizations as a whole regarding 

their characteristics, needs, or support systems. The nascent stages of 

research on the field in Canada suggested that any work in the area had 

the potential to greatly influence the country’s future arts and culture 

policies and programming.

In the United States, we identified one nationwide survey and 

report commissioned by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) 

in 1990 that regards the history, characteristics, and critical issues 

facing African American, Asian American, Latino American, and 

Native American nonprofit arts organizations. Since publication of 

the NEA report, a number of smaller studies directed toward specific 

ethnocultural groups, arts disciplines, cities, and regions have also been 

conducted, as well as research directed at the related areas of small arts, 

immigrant arts, and folk and traditional arts. One of the largest and most 

comprehensive of these studies is research undertaken between 1992 and 

1995 by the National Association of Latino Arts and Culture (NALAC) 

on the history, development, current conditions, and future prospects of 

Latino arts organizations. Both the NEA and NALAC reports identified 

inadequate financial support and the need to increase and develop staff 

as the principal immediate challenges confronting arts organizations 

of color, both reports pointed to the need to find and implement 

innovative organizational management models and stressed the need for 

equitable funding policies that took into account the country’s changing 

demographics and the multiple roles undertaken by ethnocultural arts 

organizations, and both found that the organizations that were the focus 

of their respective studies were undergoing a crisis. Having entered the 

funding arena after funding patterns had already been established for 

major arts organizations, representing and/or targeting communities 

impacted by a host of societal and economic issues, and subject to the 

same concerns of the arts community as a whole, in the 1990s these 

organizations were struggling to achieve stability at a time when arts 

funding from federal sources, an historically important source of support, 

was being cut.

As part of our literature review process, we also conducted a 

number of informal informational interviews with academics, funders, 

arts service providers, and advocates of the ethnocultural arts field. 

During these conversations, the majority of individuals generally 

described the field as in a state of crisis and/or referenced its poor health. 

Their assessments found support in more recent non-academic literature 

discussing ethnocultural arts organizations: Michael Kaiser’s October 

2011 blog post in the Huffington Post, “The Dream: Diversity in the 

Arts,” and John R. Killacky’s October 2012 blog post in Blue Avocado, 

“Regrets of a Former Arts Funder,” are just two such articles discussing 

the field’s weak state.

2
Executive Summary

With respect to supports, we identified no existing comprehensive 

research mapping the support structures for ethnocultural arts 

organizations on either side of the border, and the minimal research 

we did identify was not encouraging. In Canada, most federal and 

provincial dedicated support programs are relatively new (under ten 

years old). A review of both publicly available and privately conducted 

reports on specific governmental arts funding programs indicates that 

general programs have not historically supported, and do not currently 

support, more than a small percentage of the country’s Aboriginal, 

culturally diverse, or White ethnocultural arts organizations. At the 

time our research was beginning, the Canada Council had suspended a 

number of its Equity Office programs, which were aimed at supporting 

culturally diverse arts organizations among other “equity seeking” 

groups.

In the United States, as anticipated in the NEA and NALAC 

reports, drastic cuts were made to the NEA’s budget in 1995, including 

the elimination of an important dedicated arts funding program, and in 

the early 2000s, state arts budgets sharply decreased, thereby impacting 

another previously identified historically important source of support 

for the field. Foundations have largely not taken the place of government 

funding programs. In 2011, the National Committee for Responsive 

Philanthropy released a report finding that private foundation arts 

giving is primarily directed to large, mainstream arts institutions and 

that the greater a funder’s commitment to the arts, the less likely it is to 

support ethnocultural arts organizations when compared to their nonethnocultural arts peers. This situation is reiterated in the Foundation 

Review’s 2014 report, The Urgency of Now, which found that foundation 

funding to communities of color has been falling and does not reflect 

the changing demographics of the country.

Underlying many of the barriers to equity in arts funding is 

a lack of familiarity with, and understanding of, these specialized arts 

organizations. Without a foundation of information on ethnocultural 

arts organizations and the contexts in which they operate, it is difficult 

for these organizations to articulate, and for arts service organizations to 

address, their particular needs, and for advocates and funders to identify 

appropriate avenues of support. 

Figuring the Plural fills this information void by assessing existing 

research and developing new research on the characteristics, needs, and 

support systems of ethnocultural arts organizations. We designed our 

research to address the following specific questions:

1. What are the current characteristics, needs, and 

challenges of Canadian and US ethnocultural arts 

organizations as a whole, and how do organizations 

targeting different racial groups compare regarding their 

characteristics, needs, challenges, and support systems?

2. How many support systems currently have programs 

that focus on ethnocultural arts organizations, what 

services do they provide, where are they located, and 

what are their target ethnic group(s)?

3. Do the services offered by support systems correlate with 

the needs of ethnocultural arts organizations?

It is the overall goal of this research project (the Plural project) to heighten 

awareness, provide new insights, and lead to the strengthening of existing 

support structures and/or the creation of innovative approaches to 

bolstering the work of this important segment of the arts and culture 

field. 

Methodology

We divided our research process into five components designed 

to address the three categories of our research questions (characteristics, 

needs, and supports). In the first component, we undertook an extensive 

literature review and engaged in informal informational interviews 

with over 80 individuals. The second component involved building 

databases of Canadian and US ethnocultural arts organizations based 

on data obtained from the literature review, a review and analysis of 

datasets from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and National Center 

for Charitable Statistics (NCCS), a review of Internal Revenue Service 

Form 990 filings on GuideStar, a review of organizational websites, and 

information gained during the course of our needs assessment. For the 

third component, we conducted a needs assessment, which consisted of 

(i) nationwide surveys administered electronically through the web-based 

survey tool Survey Monkey and distributed to all organizations contained 

in our ethnocultural arts organization databases and for which we were 

able to identify email contact information and (ii) in-person and phone 

interviews with a subset of these organizations, arts service organizations, 

and funders. The fourth component involved undertaking an assessment 

3
Executive Summary

of dedicated support programs for the field, which consisted of (i) 

the creation of Canadian and US databases listing dedicated support 

programs, which were based on data obtained from the literature review, 

a review and analysis of datasets from the CRA and NCCS, the National 

Assembly of State Arts Agencies, public reports from Canadian and 

US governmental arts agencies and foundations, and other sources, (ii) 

formal phone interviews with arts service organizations and arts-related 

funders, and (iii) the feedback of ethnocultural arts organizations as part 

of the needs assessment. 

Following data collection, we undertook a data analysis to 

identify and highlight significant challenges and needs of ethnocultural 

arts organizations and to provide a profile of these organizations as a 

whole, by pan racial group, and by province/region. We also compared 

findings from the needs and supports assessment components to perform 

a gap analysis on services provided. Our recommendations regarding 

means of better supporting the field, the fifth component, are based on 

survey and interview feedback, our own analysis of project findings, and 

comments from advisors and a self-selected group of project participants. 

Not limited to the last project component, throughout every phase of the 

research process, we actively sought the input and feedback of project 

stakeholders. We solicited such review by assembling a 13-member 

advisory committee to formally advise on the project and obtained 

support on an informal basis from additional project stakeholders and 

other individuals as appropriate.

Findings, Conclusions & Recommendations

As highlighting the work of the “plural” is our focus, project 

findings are necessarily reflective of this complexity. Through the 

construction of the four databases, 427 survey responses, and a total 

of 139 formally conducted organizational interviews, the Plural project 

collected a vast amount of primary data on the ethnocultural arts field. 

The sheer volume of this data renders it challenging to highlight key 

findings, particularly given the range of topics covered in the surveys 

and in formal and informal interviews. Set forth below we provide a 

brief overview of characteristics, needs, and targeted supports, and 

recommendations for supporting the field; however, we stress that the 

field’s great diversity resists such summary descriptions and thus we 

strongly encourage a review of the complete report. We note that the 

four databases created for the Plural project, all closed-ended survey 

results, and certain related documents detailing the research process and 

the representativeness of survey findings are available on the project’s 

website at http://pluralculture.com.

Characteristics. We identified 255 registered charity 

ethnocultural arts organizations in Canada and 2,013 incorporated taxexempt ethnocultural arts organizations in the United States, figures 

that in both countries represent around two percent of total registered 

charity (Canada) and active tax-exempt (United States) arts and culture 

organizations. In Canada, the biggest proportion of organizations is 

multidisciplinary in focus; dance is the most popular single arts discipline. 

White arts organizations make up a slightly greater proportion of the 

Canadian field than culturally diverse arts organizations, and Aboriginal 

arts organizations comprise the smallest proportion of the field. The 

Canadian field’s average annual gross income is $376,124, its median 

annual gross is $116,189, and its maximum annual gross is $7,254,047. 

Asian and White organizations possess the lowest median incomes, 

with Aboriginal organizations possessing the highest median incomes. 

More than half of the field is located in two provinces: Ontario or 

British Columbia. A review of the average annual gross incomes of 

organizations by province/territory indicates that ethnocultural arts 

organizations located in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island have the 

lowest average incomes, and organizations located in New Brunswick, 

the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Québec possess the highest 

average incomes. Between 2010 and 2012, the median reported annual 

gross income for the field as a whole increased annually.

Almost three-quarters of Canadian survey respondents report 

five or fewer paid employees (full-time and part-time) and more than 

half of respondents report that contribution-related income consists of 

50 percent or more of their total gross revenue; we note, however, that 

data derived from Canadian survey responses are not representative of 

the field.

In the United States, the biggest proportion of organizations 

is multidisciplinary in focus, and music and the visual arts are the most 

popular single arts disciplines. White arts organizations and Asian arts 

organizations collectively comprise half of the US field; Multiracial 

and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander comprise the smallest 

proportions. The US field’s average annual gross income is $701,358, 

4
Executive Summary

its median annual gross is $86,487, and its maximum annual gross is 

$157,116,526. Asian and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 

organizations possess the lowest median incomes, and American Indian/

Alaska Native organizations possess the highest median incomes. More 

than one-third of organizations are located in the West; however, the 

top three states housing the biggest proportions of the field – California, 

New York, and Texas – are located in different regions of the country. A 

review of the average annual gross incomes of organizations by region 

indicates that states based in the South have the lowest average annual 

gross incomes while states based in the Midwest have the highest average 

annual gross incomes. As in Canada, between 2009 and 2012, the 

median reported annual gross income for the field as a whole increased 

annually.

More than three-quarters of US survey respondents report five 

or fewer paid employees (full-time and part-time). Survey respondents 

report greater reliance on individual contributions and earned income 

than on federal, state, local, foundation, corporate, or other sources. 

We note that data derived from US survey responses may be treated as 

representative of the field. 

Although there is insufficiently comparable earlier data to permit 

an accurate measurement of field growth, based on an examination of 

all information collected for the Plural project, it appears that, in both 

countries, ethnocultural arts organizations are increasing in number. An 

examination of organizations’ effective year of status (registered charity 

date), which is at best a rough approximation of field age, reveals that 

the greatest proportion of Canadian ethnocultural arts organizations 

possess registered charity dates in the 2000s. Similarly, an examination 

of survey respondents’ reported decade of founding indicates that the 

greatest proportion of US ethnocultural arts organizations were founded 

in the 2000s. The fields in both countries also have a sizeable number 

of older organizations, however: more than half of US and Canadian 

ethnocultural arts organizations were founded in the previous century.

Needs. Canadian and US survey respondents report similar 

general organizational needs: respondents in both countries ranked 

financial needs as their top challenge, followed by organizational capacity 

building, audience development, and space. Both Canadian and US 

survey respondents identify maintaining and/or increasing the number 

of paid staff as their greatest capacity building need.

Interviews provided a great deal of insight into financial resource, 

capacity building, audience development, space, and other challenges, 

which differ depending on organizational context. As a means of 

addressing their challenges, however, there is greater similarity among 

organizations: overwhelmingly, interview participants prioritize the need 

for access to more and higher amounts of unrestricted, multi-year funding. 

Depending on a range of factors, particularly arts discipline, geographic 

location, organizational mission, and life cycle stage, a number of 

participants indicate that they would use such funds to address capacity 

building needs (often hiring and training staff, to support marketing 

efforts, and/or to support succession planning) or space needs (to build 

or secure a long-term rehearsal/performance/exhibition space or to 

renovate/increase existing space). With the exception of organizations 

in early life cycle stages, interview participants are mostly critical of 

existing capacity building programs, whether targeted or broadly 

offered. Although the majority of participants, including early life cycle 

stage participants, found limited value in generalized training programs 

and other related arts services aside from the networking environments 

some provide, the majority found high value in programs that take into 

account organizational missions, size, location, and origin ethnocultural 

group. There is a particular desire for more customized programs in 

the area of board development. Related to board development and a 

number of administrative and artistic concerns are challenges related to 

access. Access-related challenges are generally in two forms: (i) inability 

to identify and obtain support from high net worth individuals, both 

from within and outside of origin communities, who could serve as board 

members and advocates for organizations in leveraging higher levels and 

a more diverse range of funds and (ii) inability to obtain more than token 

or occasional recognition from influential individuals and organizations 

within the general presenting, arts criticism, and arts media community. 

Supports. We identified 95 Canadian-based and 248 US-based 

arts service organizations and funders that offer targeted funding and 

programs for the ethnocultural arts field. Overwhelming, dedicated 

funding programs are in the form of project grants and provide low 

to moderate financial support. In Canada, all of the 60 federal and 

provincial government arts agency targeted funding programs consist of 

project grants, which range from $500 to $500,000 in Canadian dollars. 

Of the 19 local arts agency (which variously operate as independent 

5
Executive Summary

nonprofits or as governmental agencies) and non-governmental arts 

service organizations that provide targeted financial support, it appears 

that only a few offer any kind of operating support. In the United 

States, 62 of the 66 federal and state government arts agency dedicated 

funding programs consist of project grants, which range from $250 

to $100,000 in US dollars. We identified 100 non-governmental arts 

service organizations that provide targeted financial support; however, 

for a greater number of these organizations it was difficult to determine 

the form and available grant amounts. 

More broadly, research based on our literature review and 

conversations with formal and informal interview participants indicates 

that in the United States, dedicated support programs have decreased 

over the past two decades. In Canada, dedicated support programs and 

service organizations are on the whole increasing.

Conclusions. Our findings indicate that the services offered by 

support organizations do not correlate with the needs of ethnocultural 

arts organizations. Ethnocultural arts organizations describe challenges 

that are systemic to the arts support system and thus require systemic 

and holistic approaches to addressing these challenges. These 

organizations also describe challenges that require knowledgeable 

and context-specific support. By contrast, and with the exception of 

certain ethnocultural arts service organizations, existing arts services 

and targeted forms of support are generally based on models of 

support for mainstream arts institutions, although in the case of grant 

programs, available amounts are often lower than amounts available 

to mainstream institutions. Rather than offering financial support in 

a flexible form that organizations may use to address their particular 

needs or addressing other systemic barriers faced by ethnocultural 

arts organizations in attaining long-term sustainability, most forms of 

support are short-term and project focused. 

In addition, a number of capacity building programs appear 

to operate under the assumption that the majority of organizations 

lack the training and/or knowledge necessary to achieve organizational 

health. Discussions with interview participants strongly suggest that 

these programs are most effective when directed at early life cycle stage 

organizations, a number of which, during interviews, were unfamiliar 

with existing arts services. Although, according to traditional life cycle 

models, the majority of the ethnocultural field bears the outward 

appearance of early stage organizations, a closer examination indicates 

that only a small portion of the field possesses the challenges more typically 

associated with early stage organizations. For later stage organizations, 

our findings indicate that many organizations are in possession of the 

knowledge needed to operate healthy organizations; the issue lies in 

the lack of staff to fully implement organizational plans and models. 

Thus, capacity building challenges are closely tied to the absence of 

access to greater and more stable levels of operating support. Finally, we 

identified only a few arts service organizations that are supporting and/

or advocating for the adoption of alternative organizational models – an 

area identified as a need by a significant number of project participants 

and highlighted in certain previously existing literature.

Based on an examination of prior literature on the ethnocultural 

arts field and current literature on the arts field as a whole, ethnocultural 

arts organizations’ reported gross incomes, survey responses, and 

conversations with interview participants, our findings indicate that the 

ethnocultural arts field is not in the state of crisis as the tone of current 

dialogue might suggest. Despite the lack of appropriate support and, in 

the United States, possibly declining support, we found no indication 

that the field in either country is in danger of disappearing, although 

it is far from functioning at its full potential. As with non-ethnocultural 

arts organizations, a proportion of the field is administratively in life 

cycle stages that may be described as fragile or in decline; however, 

it appears that the majority of ethnocultural arts organizations are 

growing, undergoing a period of renewal, existing at a desired although 

not necessarily long-term sustainable state, or in a state that is stable but 

is not the organization’s desired level (stagnant). Operating in a field that 

has long been inconsistently capitalized and undercapitalized, many 

organizations have adopted organizational models designed to support 

their survival in an unstable, and at times hostile, arts ecosystem.

Figuring the Plural concludes with 32 recommendations for better 

supporting ethnocultural arts organizations based on organizations’ life 

cycle stages and directed at shaping a more culturally equitable arts 

ecosystem. These recommendations may be found in the final chapter, 

Needs and Supports: A Life Cycle Approach.

6
7 Executive Summary

Résumé

Finding the Plural est une étude des organisations vouées aux arts 

ethnoculturels, d’un groupe ethnique particulier ou d’une culture 

particulière au Canada et aux États-Unis. Alors que nos sociétés se 

diversifient rapidement et que nous cherchons à négocier des identités 

nationales de plus en plus complexes, ces organisations pourraient nous 

aider dans ce processus en agissant en tant que défenseurs et interprètes 

de cultures, facilitatrices de compréhension et de communication 

interculturelles, gardiennes de traditions ethniques et/ou en servant de 

forums pour exposer et combattre tous préjugés.

Malgré leurs services inestimables, les organisations vouées aux 

arts ethnoculturels font l’objet de peu d’attention au sein de la communauté 

artistique. Il y a malheureusement peu de données disponibles sur 

ces organisations et une grande partie des informations est datée et 

dispersée auprès de plusieurs sources. Au Canada, notre examen de la 

littérature existante et nos conversations avec les organisations vouées 

aux arts ethnoculturels, leurs bailleurs de fonds et leurs défenseurs ont 

révélé que de la recherche a été entreprise aux alentours de 2003 quand 

le Conseil des arts du Canada (Conseil du Canada) et le ministère du 

Patrimoine canadien ont coparrainé une enquête sur les groupes de 

danse et artistes autochtones. L’année suivante, ces agences fédérales 

ont entrepris la seule étude nationale canadienne sur un plus large 

éventail d’organisations vouées aux arts ethnoculturels. Comprenant 

neuf études de cas d’organisations vouées aux arts autochtones et de 

diverses cultures et d’entretiens avec 55 individus, la seconde étude avait 

pour objectif de souligner les meilleures pratiques. Mise à part ces deux 

études, la littérature comprend surtout des études d’ordre général sur les 

arts et pratiques culturelles autochtones plutôt que des études portant 

spécifiquement sur les organisations vouées aux arts autochtones, de 

diverses cultures ou ethnoculturels européens. Nous n’avons pas trouvé 

d’études de grande envergure traitant des caractéristiques, besoins ou 

systèmes de soutien des organisations canadiennes vouées aux arts 

ethnoculturels. Les premiers stades de recherche au Canada suggèrent 

que tout travail dans ce secteur pourrait grandement influencer les 

politiques et la programmation future du Canada dans le domaine des 

arts et la culture. 

Aux États-Unis, nous avons trouvé une étude nationale et un 

rapport commissionnés par le National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) en 

1990 qui couvrent l’histoire, les caractéristiques et les questions critiques 

auxquelles font face les organisations à but non lucratif vouées aux 

arts afro-américains, américains d’origine asiatique, latino-américains 

et autochtones américains. Depuis la publication du rapport du NEA, 

plusieurs études plus petites ont été entreprises portant sur des groupes 

ethnoculturels précis, des disciplines artistiques spécifiques, sur certaines 

villes et régions. Il y a aussi eu des études sur les domaines connexes 

des petites structures artistiques, des arts immigrants, des arts populaires 

et traditionnels. Parmi ces études, une des plus larges et détaillées fut 

entreprise entre 1992 et 1995 par le National Association of Latino Arts and 

Culture (NALAC) sur l’histoire, le développement, les conditions et les 

perspectives futures des organisations vouées aux arts latino. Les rapports 

du NEA et de NALAC identifient un soutien financier inadéquat et un 

besoin d’accroitre et former du personnel comme les défis immédiats 

principaux confrontant les organisations vouées aux arts des personnes 

de couleur. Les deux rapports citent le besoin d’identifier et de mettre en 

place des modèles innovateurs de gestion organisationnelle et ont souligné 

un besoin pour des politiques de financement équitables qui prendraient 

en compte les changements démographiques du pays et les rôles 

multiples entrepris par les organisations vouées aux arts ethnoculturels. 

Les deux rapports ont constaté que les organisations ayant fait l’objet 

de leurs études étaient en crise. Ayant fait leur apparition sur la scène 

du financement après l’établissement des modalités de financement pour 

les principales organisations artistiques, représentant et/ou visant des 

communautés touchées par de nombreuses questions économiques et 

sociétaires et partageant les mêmes préoccupations que la communauté 

artistique dans son ensemble, ces organisations peinent dans les années 

1990 à être financièrement stables à un moment où le financement des 

arts par des sources fédérales, une source historiquement importante de 

soutien, est en train d’être coupé. 

Dans le cadre de notre étude de la littérature, nous avons 
Executive Summary 8

aussi entrepris plusieurs entretiens informationnels informels avec des 

universitaires, des bailleurs de fonds, des fournisseurs de services dans 

le domaine des arts et des défenseurs du secteur des arts ethnoculturels. 

Au cours de ces conversations, la majorité des individus ont décrit un 

secteur en crise et/ou ont fait référence à son état fragile. Leur évaluation 

est appuyée par la littérature non-académique plus récente relative aux 

organisations vouées aux arts ethnoculturels: l’article de blog de Michael 

Kaiseren en octobre 2011 dans le Huffington Post, The Dream: Diversity in 

the Arts, ainsi que celui de John R. Killacky en octobre 2012 dans Blue 

Avocado, Regrets of a Former Arts Funder, sont deux exemples d’articles 

discutant de la faiblesse de ce secteur. 

En ce qui concerne les soutiens, nous n’avons recensé 

aucune étude exhaustive identifiant les structures de support pour 

les organisations vouées aux arts ethnoculturels de part et d’autre de 

la frontière, et le peu de recherches que nous avons identifié n’est pas 

encourageant. Au Canada, la plupart des programmes fédéraux et 

provinciaux de supports spécialisés sont relativement nouveaux (moins de 

dix ans). Un examen des rapports disponibles publiquement et effectués 

par le secteur privé sur des programmes gouvernementaux précis de 

financement des arts révèle que les programmes généraux n’ont pas 

historiquement appuyé les organisations vouées aux arts autochtones, 

de diverses cultures ou ethnoculturels européens dans ce pays et n’en 

appuient actuellement qu’un petit pourcentage. Au moment où nous 

entreprenions notre recherche, le Conseil du Canada avait suspendu 

plusieurs des programmes du Bureau de l’équité, qui visaient à soutenir 

les organisations vouées aux arts de diverses cultures parmi les autres 

groupes « en quête d’équité ». 

Aux États-Unis, tel qu’anticipé dans les rapports du NEA et 

NALAC, d’énormes coupures furent faites dans le budget du NEA en 

1995, y compris l’élimination d’un programme important dédié au 

financement des arts. Au début des années 2000, les budgets des États 

pour les arts ont beaucoup diminué, impactant ainsi une autre source 

d’appui historiquement importante pour ce secteur. Les fondations 

n’ont généralement pas pris la place des programmes gouvernementaux 

de financement. En 2011, le National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy

a rendu public un rapport révélant que les dons de fondations privées 

dans le domaine des arts sont principalement destinés aux grandes 

institutions traditionnelles et, plus un bailleur de fonds est engagé dans 

les arts, moins il est susceptible de soutenir les organisations vouées aux 

arts ethnoculturels par rapport aux organisations vouées aux arts nonethnoculturels. Cette situation est réitérée dans le rapport de 2014 du 

Foundation Review, The Urgency of Now, qui constate que le financement 

des communautés de couleur par les fondations est en déclin et ne reflète 

pas les changements démographiques du pays.

Un manque de compréhension et de familiarité avec ces 

organisations spécialisées dans le domaine des arts sous-tend plusieurs des 

obstacles au financement équitable des arts. Sans de solides informations 

sur les organisations vouées aux arts ethnoculturels et les contextes dans 

lesquels elles opèrent, il est difficile pour ces organisations d’articuler 

leurs besoins particuliers, pour les organismes de service dans le domaine 

des arts de répondre à leurs besoins et pour leurs défenseurs et bailleurs 

de fonds d’identifier les formes de soutien appropriées.

Figuring the Plural comble ce manque d’information en évaluant 

la recherche existante et en entreprenant de nouvelles recherches sur les 

caractéristiques, les besoins et les systèmes de soutien des organisations 

vouées aux arts ethnoculturels. Nous avons conçu notre recherche pour 

répondre aux questions suivantes: 

1. Quels sont actuellement les caractéristiques, besoins et défis 

des organisations vouées aux arts ethnoculturels au Canada et 

aux États-Unis? Comment les organisations visant différents 

groupes raciaux se comparent-elles entre elles en termes de 

caractéristiques, besoins, défis et systèmes de soutien?

2. Combien de systèmes de soutien ont actuellement des 

programmes axés sur les organisations vouées aux arts 

ethnoculturels? Quels services fournissent-ils? Ou sont-ils 

situés? Quels sont le(s) groupe(s) ethnique(s) visé(s)?

3. Les services offerts par les systèmes de soutien 

correspondent-ils aux besoins des organisations vouées aux 

arts ethnoculturels? 

L’objectif global de ce projet de recherche (le projet Plural) est une 

sensibilisation accrue, de fournir de nouvelles perspectives, et de mener 

au renforcement des systèmes de soutien existants et/ou la création 

d’approches innovatrices pour soutenir le travail de ce secteur important 

du domaine des arts et de la culture.
9 Executive Summary

Méthodologie

Nous avons divisé notre processus de recherche en cinq 

volets dans le but de répondre aux trois catégories de questions 

(caractéristiques, besoins et soutien). Dans le premier volet, nous 

avons entrepris un examen approfondi de la littérature et effectué des 

entretiens informationnels informels avec plus de 80 individus. Le second 

volet fut la création de bases de données relatives aux organisations 

vouées aux arts ethnoculturels au Canada et aux États-Unis à partir 

d’ informations obtenues lors de notre examen de la littérature, un 

examen et une analyse de données de l’Agence du revenu du Canada 

(ARC) et du National Centre for Charitable Statistics (NCCS), un examen des 

déclarations sur formulaire 990 du Internal Revenue Service sur GuideStar, 

un examen de sites web d’organisations, et une analyse des informations 

obtenues au cours de notre évaluation des besoins. Pour le troisième 

volet, nous avons effectué une évaluation de besoins à travers (i) des 

questionnaires administrés électroniquement avec l’outil de sondage 

électronique Survey Monkey et distribués à l’échelle nationale à toutes 

les organisations dans nos bases de données pour lesquelles nous avons 

pu identifier un contact avec une adresse de courrier électronique, et (ii) 

des entretiens en personne et par téléphone avec un sous-groupe de ces 

organisations, des organismes de service dans le domaine des arts et des 

bailleurs de fonds. Le quatrième volet fut l’entreprise d’une évaluation 

des programmes de soutien spécifiques à ce secteur à travers (i) la 

création de bases de données américaines et canadiennes incluant les 

programmes de soutien spécifiques à partir des informations obtenues 

lors de l’examen de la littérature, des données de l’ARC et NCCS, du 

National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, de rapports publiques des agences 

et fondations gouvernementales canadiennes et américaines vouées aux 

arts et d’autres sources, (ii) des entretiens téléphoniques formels avec 

des organismes de service dans le domaine des arts et de bailleurs de 

fonds liés aux arts, et (iii) les réactions des organisations vouées aux arts 

ethnoculturels dans le cadre de notre évaluation des besoins.

Suite à la collecte des informations, nous avons entrepris une 

analyse des données pour identifier et souligner les défis importants 

et les besoins des organisations vouées aux arts ethnoculturels et pour 

établir un profil d’ensemble de ces organisations, un profil par groupe 

pan-racial et un profil par province/région. Nous avons aussi comparé 

nos constatations des volets évaluant les besoins et le soutien pour 

entreprendre une analyse des lacunes relative aux services fournis. Nos 

recommandations relatives aux moyens pour mieux soutenir ce domaine, 

le cinquième volet, sont basées sur les réactions aux questionnaires et aux 

entretiens, notre propre analyse de nos constatations et les commentaires 

de conseillers et d’un petit groupe auto-désigné de personnes participant 

au projet. Nous avons activement sollicité les contributions et les réactions 

des intéressés non seulement lors du dernier volet du projet mais 

pendant chaque phase du processus de recherche. Nous avons sollicité 

des commentaires en mettant en place un comité de conseillers composé 

de 13 membres pour formellement nous conseiller sur le projet et nous 

avons obtenu sur une base informelle le soutien d’autres intéressés et 

individus selon le besoin.

Constatations, Conclusions et Recommandations

Comme la mise en évidence du travail du « pluriel » (plural) 

est notre objectif principal, les constatations du projet reflètent 

nécessairement cette complexité. A travers la création des quatre bases 

de données, 427 réponses aux questionnaires et un total de 139 entretiens 

formels d’organisations, le projet Plural a amassé une grande quantité 

de données primaires sur le secteur des arts ethnoculturels. La quantité 

des données rend difficile la mise en exergue de constatations clés, 

surtout considérant l’étendue des sujets abordés par les questionnaires 

et dans les entretiens formels et informels. Ci-dessous nous fournissons 

un bref aperçu des caractéristiques, des besoins, des soutiens et des 

recommandations pour soutenir ce secteur. Nous tenons néanmoins à 

souligner que la grande diversité qui existe dans ce secteur va à l’encontre 

de telles descriptions sommaires et nous encourageons vivement un 

examen du rapport complet. Nous notons que les bases de données 

créées pour le projet Plural, les résultats des questionnaires et certain 

documents décrivant le processus de recherche et la représentativité des 

constatations des questionnaires sont disponibles sur le site web du projet 

au http://pluralculture.com.

Caractéristiques. Nous avons identifié 255 organisations vouées 

aux arts ethnoculturels enregistrées comme organismes de bienfaisance 

au Canada et 2013 organisations vouées aux arts ethnoculturels 

constituées en sociétés et exonérées d’impôts aux États-Unis. Ces chiffres 
Executive Summary 10

représentent dans chacun de ces pays à peu près deux pour cent du 

nombre total d’organisations vouées aux arts et à la culture enregistrées 

en tant qu’organismes de bienfaisance (Canada) et incorporées en 

sociétés exonérées d’impôts (États-Unis). Au Canada, la plupart des 

organisations ont une orientation pluridisciplinaire et la danse est la 

discipline artistique individuelle la plus populaire. Les organisations 

vouées aux arts européens représentent une proportion légèrement 

plus grande de ce secteur au Canada que les organisations vouées aux 

arts de diverses cultures. Les organisations vouées aux arts autochtones 

constituent la plus petite partie de ce secteur. Le revenu annuel brut 

moyen de ce secteur au Canada est $376 124. Le revenu annuel brut 

médian est $116 189 et le revenu annuel brut maximal est $7 254 047. 

Les organisations européennes et asiatiques ont les revenus médians les 

plus faibles et les organisations vouées aux arts autochtones possèdent 

les revenus médians les plus élevés. Plus de la moitié de ce secteur est 

situé dans deux provinces: l’Ontario et la Colombie-Britannique. Un 

examen des revenus bruts annuels moyens par province/territoire révèle 

que les organisations vouées aux arts ethnoculturels en Nouvelle-Ecosse 

et à l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard ont les revenus moyens les plus faibles. 

Celles situées au Nouveau-Brunswick, dans les Territoires du NordOuest, au Nunavut et au Québec possèdent les revenus moyens les plus 

élevés. Entre 2010 et 2012, le revenu annuel brut médian déclaré dans 

l’ensemble de ce secteur a augmenté annuellement. 

Près des trois quarts des organisations canadiennes ayant 

répondu au questionnaire déclarent avoir cinq salariés ou moins (à temps 

plein et à temps partiel) et plus de la moitié déclare que les revenus liés 

aux contributions constituent 50 pour cent ou plus de leur revenus bruts. 

Nous notons cependant que les informations dérivées des réponses au 

questionnaire canadien ne sont pas représentatives du secteur.

Aux États-Unis, la plus grande proportion des organisations 

ont une orientation pluridisciplinaire. La musique et les arts visuels 

sont les disciplines individuelles les plus populaires. Les organisations 

européennes et asiatiques vouées aux arts représentent collectivement 

la moitié du secteur aux États-Unis. Les organisations multiraciales et 

autochtones d’Hawaii/autres Iles du Pacifique représentent la plus petite 

proportion. Le revenu annuel brut moyen de ce secteur aux États-Unis 

est $701 358. Le revenu annuel brut médian est $86 487 et le revenu 

annuel brut maximal est $157 116 526. Les organisations autochtones 

d’Hawaii/autres Iles du Pacifique possèdent les revenus médians les 

plus faibles et les organisations indiennes d’Amérique/autochtones de 

l’Alaska possèdent les revenus médians les plus élevés. Plus d’un tiers 

des organisations sont situées dans l’Ouest. Cependant, les trois États où 

se situent les plus grandes proportions du secteur – la Californie, New 

York et le Texas – sont dans différentes régions du pays. Un examen des 

revenus bruts moyens des organisations par région révèle que les États 

dans le Sud ont les revenus bruts moyens les plus faibles, alors que les 

États du Midwest ont les revenus bruts moyens les plus élevés. Comme au 

Canada, entre 2009 et 2012, le revenu annuel brut médian déclaré dans 

l’ensemble de ce secteur a augmenté annuellement.

Plus des trois quarts des organisations américaines ayant 

répondu au questionnaire déclarent avoir cinq salariés ou moins (à temps 

plein et à temps partiel) et déclarent une plus grande dépendance sur 

les contributions individuelles et le revenu gagné que le financement de 

sources fédérales, étatiques ou locales, des fondations, des entreprises ou 

d’autres sources. Nous notons cependant que les informations dérivées 

des réponses au questionnaire américain ne sont pas représentatives du 

secteur.

Bien qu’il y ait trop peu de données antérieures comparables 

pour correctement évaluer la croissance du secteur, un examen de 

toutes les informations recueillies par le projet Plural semble indiquer 

que, dans les deux pays, les organisations vouées aux arts ethnoculturels 

augmentent en nombre. Un examen des années d’entrée en vigueur de 

leurs statuts (date d’enregistrement de l’organisme de bienveillance), date 

qui représente la meilleure approximation d’âge, révèle que la plus grande 

proportion des organisations canadiennes vouées aux arts ethnoculturels 

a été d’enregistrée en tant qu’organisme de bienveillance dans les 

années 2000. De manière similaire, un examen des réponses fournies 

au questionnaire américain indique que la plus grande proportion des 

organisations américaines vouées aux arts ethnoculturels ont été fondées 

dans les années 2000. Les secteurs des deux pays ont également un 

nombre non-négligeable d’organisations plus vieilles. Cependant, plus 

de la moitié des organisations canadiennes et américaines vouées aux 

arts ethnoculturels ont été fondées le siècle dernier.

Besoins. Les organisations ayant répondu aux questionnaires 
11 Executive Summary

canadiens et américains déclarent des besoins organisationnels 

similaires. Elles classent les ressources financières comme leur besoin/

défi principal, suivi par le renforcement des capacités organisationnelles, 

l’accroissement du public et les locaux. Ces organisations identifient le 

maintien et/ou l’augmentation du nombre de salariés comme leur plus 

grand défi en termes de renforcement des capacités organisationnelles. 

Les entretiens ont fourni de nombreuses indications sur les 

ressources financières, le renforcement des capacités organisationnelles, 

l’accroissement du public, les locaux et autres défis, qui changent en 

fonction du contexte de l’organisation. Cependant, en ce qui concernent 

les moyens de répondre à leurs défis, il y a une plus grande cohésion parmi 

les organisations – la grande majorité des participants aux entretiens 

mettent l’accent sur l’accès à plus de financement pluriannuel sans 

restriction et des montants plus importants. En fonction d’un nombre 

de facteurs, particulièrement la discipline artistique, l’emplacement 

géographique, la vocation de l’organisation et le stade de cycle de 

vie, plusieurs participants au projet indiquent qu’ils utiliseraient ces 

fonds pour répondre à leurs besoins liés au renforcement des capacités 

organisationnelles (souvent embaucher et former du personnel, soutenir 

les efforts de marketing et/ou appuyer la planification de la relève) ou 

de locaux (construire ou obtenir pour le long-terme un espace pour 

les répétitions/spectacles/expositions ou rénover/agrandir des locaux 

existants). A l’exception des organisations dans les premiers stades de 

leurs cycles de vie, les participants aux entretiens se sont généralement 

montrés critiques envers les programmes de renforcement des capacités, 

qu’ils soient ciblés ou offerts plus largement. Bien que la majorité des 

participants, y compris ceux dans les premiers stades de leurs cycles de 

vie, trouvent les programmes de formation plus généralisée et d’autres 

services connexes d’intérêt limité (mis à part les environnements de 

réseautage fournis par certains), la majorité trouve les programmes 

qui prennent en compte la vocation de l’organisation, la taille, 

l’emplacement et l’origine ethnoculturelle du groupe d’un grand 

intérêt. Il existe un désir prononcé pour des programmes sur mesure 

dans le domaine du développement d’un conseil d’administration. Liés 

au développement d’un conseil d’administration et à un certain nombre 

de préoccupations administratives et artistiques, on retrouve des défis 

relatifs à l’accès. Ces défis se manifestement souvent sous deux formes 

(i) l’incapacité d’identifier et d’obtenir le soutien d’individus fortunés, 

aussi bien à l’intérieur qu’à l’extérieur des communautés d’origine, qui 

pourraient siéger sur les conseils d’administration et agir en tant que 

porte-parole pour accéder à des montants de financement plus élevés 

et de sources plus diversifiées et (ii) l’incapacité d’obtenir plus qu’une 

reconnaissance symbolique ou occasionnelle de personnes influentes en 

ce qui concerne la présentation générale, la critique artistique et le milieu 

des arts médiatiques.

Soutien. Au Canada, nous avons identifié 95 organismes de service 

dans le domaine des arts et bailleurs de fonds qui offrent du financement 

et des programmes ciblés vers le secteur des arts ethnoculturels. Aux 

États-Unis, nous en avons identifié 248. La majorité des programmes 

de financement dédiés sont sous la forme de subventions de projets et 

fournissent un soutien financier faible ou modéré. Au Canada, les 60 

programmes de financement ciblés des agences des gouvernements 

fédéraux et provinciaux sont tous des subventions de projets qui varient de 

$500 à $500 000 dollars canadiens. Parmi les 19 agences locales artistiques 

(qui opèrent en tant qu’organismes à but non lucratif indépendants ou 

agences gouvernementales) et les organisations non-gouvernementales 

de service dans le domaine des arts, il semblerait que seul quelque unes 

offrent une forme de soutien opérationnel. Aux États-Unis, 62 des 66 

programmes de financement dédiés des agences gouvernementales 

fédérales et étatiques sont des subventions de projets qui varient de $250 

à $100 000 dollars américains. Nous avons identifié 100 organismes de 

service dans le domaine des arts à caractère non-gouvernemental qui 

fournissent un soutien financier dédié. Cependant, pour plusieurs de ces 

organismes, il a été impossible de déterminer la forme et les montants des 

subventions. 

Plus généralement, la recherche basée sur notre examen de la 

littérature et nos conversations avec les participants formels et informels 

aux entretiens révèlent que les programmes de soutien cibles ont diminué 

aux États-Unis pendant les deux dernières décennies. Au Canada, les 

programmes de soutien dédiés et les organismes de service augmentent 

de manière générale. 

Conclusions. Nos constatations indiquent que les services offerts 

par les organismes de soutien ne correspondent pas aux besoins des 

organisations vouées aux arts ethnoculturels. Les organisations vouées aux 
Executive Summary 12

arts ethnoculturels décrivent des défis qui sont systémiques au système 

de support des arts et qui requièrent des approches d’ensemble pour y 

répondre. Ces organisations décrivent aussi des défis qui requirent un 

soutien informé et spécifique selon le contexte. Par contraste, à l’exception 

de certains organismes de service dans le secteur des arts ethnoculturels, 

les services et les structures de soutien dédié sont généralement basés 

sur les modèles de soutien pour les institutions artistiques traditionnelles, 

bien que les montants des subventions soient souvent plus faibles que 

celles disponibles pour les institutions traditionnelles. Plutôt que d’offrir 

un soutien financier sous une forme flexible que les organisations 

pourraient utiliser pour répondre à leurs besoins particuliers ou pour 

surmonter d’autres obstacles systémiques à la viabilité à long terme des 

organisations vouées aux arts ethnoculturels, la plupart des formes de 

soutien sont à court terme et axées sur des projets.

De plus, plusieurs programmes de renforcement des capacités 

semblent opérer sur la supposition erronée que la majorité des 

organisations manquent de formation et/ou de connaissances nécessaires 

pour atteindre la santé organisationnelle. Les conversations avec les 

participants aux entretiens suggèrent fortement que les programmes de 

renforcement des capacités sont les plus efficaces pour les organisations 

aux premiers stades de leur cycle de vie. Beaucoup d’entre elles, au 

cours des entretiens, ont indiqué ne pas connaître les services existants 

dans le domaine des arts. Selon les modèles traditionnels de cycle de 

vie, la majorité du secteur ethnoculturel ressemble aux organisations aux 

premiers stades. Cependant, un examen plus approfondi révèle que seule 

une petite proportion du secteur connait les défis typiquement rencontrés 

par les organisations dans les premiers stades. Pour les organisations 

dans les stades ultérieurs, nos constatations indiquent que beaucoup 

d’organisations possèdent les connaissances nécessaires pour gérer des 

organisations en santé. Le problème se situe dans le manque de personnel 

pour pleinement mettre en place les plans et modèles organisationnels. 

Ainsi, les défis relatifs au renforcement des capacités sont intimement 

liés à l’absence de support opérationnel plus important et plus stable. 

Finalement, nous n’avons identifié que quelques organismes de service 

dans le domaine des arts qui soutiennent et/ou promeuvent l’adoption de 

modèles organisationnels alternatifs – un sujet identifié comme un besoin 

par de nombreux participants au projet et souligné dans la littérature 

préexistante.

Basées sur un examen de la littérature antérieure sur le secteur des 

arts ethnoculturels et la littérature actuelle sur le domaine des arts dans 

son ensemble, les revenus nets déclarés par les organisations vouées aux 

arts ethnoculturels, les réponses aux questionnaires et nos conversations 

avec les participants aux entretiens, nos constatations montrent que le 

secteur des arts ethnoculturels n’est pas en état de crise, contrairement 

à ce que le ton du dialogue actuel laisserait entendre. Malgré le manque 

de soutien approprié et, aux États-Unis, un soutien potentiellement 

en baisse, nous n’avons trouvé aucune indication que le secteur soit en 

voie de disparition dans l’un ou l’autre pays, bien qu’il soit loin d’avoir 

développé son plein potentiel. Comme pour les organisations vouées 

aux arts non-ethnoculturels, une partie du secteur est d’un point de vue 

administratif dans un stade de cycle de vie qui pourrait être qualifié 

de fragile ou en déclin. Cependant, il semblerait que la majorité des 

organisations vouées aux arts ethnoculturels connaissent une croissance, 

traversent une période de renouveau, existent dans un état désiré même 

si non soutenable à long terme ou dans un état stable qui n’est pas l’état 

désiré (stagnant). Œuvrant dans un secteur qui a été longtemps financé 

de manière inégale ou sous financé, de nombreuses organisations ont 

adopté des modèles organisationnels destinés à assurer leur survie dans 

un écosystème artistique instable et parfois hostile.

Figuring the Plural met en avant 32 recommandations pour mieux 

soutenir les organisations vouées aux arts ethnoculturels en fonction des 

stades des cycles de vie des organisations et pour façonner un écosystème 

artistique plus équitable d’un point de vue culturel. Ces recommandations 

se trouvent dans le chapitre final: Needs and Supports: A Life Cycle Approach.
13 Executive Summary

Resumen Ejecutivo

Figuring the Plural (Entendiendo el plural) es un proyecto que examina las 

organizaciones étnicas o culturalmente específicas en Estados Unidos 

y Canadá. En una sociedad que está cambiando constantemente y en 

donde se vuelve más complejo encontrar una identidad nacional, estas 

organizaciones poseen enorme potencial ya que sirven como defensores 

culturales, intérpretes, facilitadores de intercambio cultural y protectores 

de tradiciones étnicas y/o lugares, donde los prejuicios son expuestos o 

desafiados. 

A pesar del impacto generado por estas organizaciones, 

actualmente reciben poca atención dentro de la comunidad artística o 

cultural del país. Nuestra revisión de literatura reveló relativamente poca 

información sobre estas organizaciones y la mayoría de la información 

era obsoleta y estaba contendida en un rango de fuentes extremadamente 

diverso. En Canadá, la revisión de literatura y las discusiones con 

organizaciones culturalmente específicas, fundadores y partidarios en el 

campo, indicaron que las investigaciones iniciaron en el 2003 cuando el 

Canada Council for the Arts y el Department of Canadian Heritage, 

crearon una encuesta en grupos de danza y artistas aborígenes. El 

siguiente año, estas agencias federales iniciaron el único estudio a nivel 

nacional acerca de las organizaciones étnicas en Canadá. El estudio 

consistió en nueve casos sobre organizaciones culturalmente específicas y 

organizaciones aborígenes , y contó con más de 55 entrevistas. El objetivo 

principal de este segundo estudio fue resaltar las mejores prácticas. 

Además de estos dos reportes, en nuestra investigación encontramos 

que la literatura principalmente se concentraba en arte aborigen y 

prácticas culturales, más que en consideraciones específicas acerca de 

organizaciones aborígenes o culturalmente diversas. No encontramos 

ningún estudio de gran escala en el que englobara todas las necesidades, 

características y sistemas de soporte de este tipo de organizaciones. Las 

recientes investigaciones en este ramo en Canadá, sugieren que cualquier 

trabajo que se haga en relación a estos temas en el país, tendrá gran 

influencia en el desarrollo de políticas y programación en arte y cultura. 

En Estados Unidos, identificamos una encuesta/reporte a nivel 

nacional en 1990, comisionada por el National Endowment for the Arts 

(NEA), el cual cubría la historia, características y situaciones críticas a 

las que se enfrentaban organizaciones sin fines de lucro que atendían 

comunidades afroamericanas, asiáticas americanas, latinas y nativos 

americanos. Desde la publicación de este último reporte, se han hecho 

varios estudios pequeños relacionados más que nada en arte inmigrante, 

arte folk y arte tradicional. Uno de los más grandes y más comprensivos 

estudios fue hecho entre 1992 y 1995 por la National Association 

of Latino Arts and Culture (NALAC), el cual hablaba acerca de la 

historia, desarrollo, situación actual y prospectos de las organizaciones 

latinas. Tanto la NEA como NALAC, reportaron un apoyo financiero 

inadecuado y la necesidad de aumentar el número de personal como las 

principales necesidades de las organizaciones de color. Ambos reportes 

también señalaron la necesidad de encontrar e implementar modelos 

de dirección organizacional, así como también la extrema necesidad de 

hacer más equitativa la distribución de fondos, la cual debe de tomar en 

cuenta el cambio demográfico que está sucediendo en el país y el impacto 

que tienen las organizaciones de diferentes identidades étnicas.

Después de haber entrado en la arena de financiamiento y haber 

establecido los patrones para las organizaciones culturales más grandes, 

representar e identificar comunidades impactadas por problemas 

sociales y económicos, y viendo que éstas estaban siendo afectados por 

las mismas preocupaciones de las organizaciones artísticas como un todo, 

en los noventas este tipo de organizaciones se encontraban luchando para 

alcanzar sustentabilidad en un tiempo en donde el financiamiento por 

parte del gobierno hacia las artes, un apoyo históricamente importante 

para su desarrollo, estaba siendo disminuido. 

Como parte de nuestra revisión literaria, también hicimos 

diversas entrevistas formales e informales con académicos, fundadores, 

patrocinadores, organizaciones de servicios, y defensores del campo 

culturalmente diverso. Durante estas conversaciones, la mayoría de los 

individuos describen esta área de estudio, como un campo en crisis o en 

pésima salud. Sus evaluaciones encontraron apoyo en investigaciones no 

académicas más recientes como Michael Kaiser’s blog post en Octubre 

2011 en el Huffington Post llamado “The Dream: Diversity in the 
Executive Summary 14

Arts,” (El Sueño: Diversidad en las Artes) y en el blog post por John 

R. Killacky’s en Octubre del 2012 llamado “Regrets of a Former Arts 

Funder,” (Arrepentimientos de un Patrocinador de arte). 

En ambos lados de la frontera, no encontramos ningún tipo de 

información o reporte que proporcionara un mapa con las estructuras 

de soporte para organizaciones culturalmente diversas y la poca 

información que encontramos no fue alentadora. 

En Canadá, casi todo el apoyo federal y provincial es 

relativamente nuevo (menos de 10 años). Revisando diferentes reportes 

que muestran el apoyo de fundaciones tanto públicas o privadas, nos 

dimos cuenta que sólo un pequeño porcentaje de apoyo va dirigido 

a organizaciones aborígenes y/o diversamente culturales. Cuando 

iniciamos este proyecto, el Canada Council había suspendido un gran 

número de programas dentro de la oficina de Equity, la cual se dedica 

a apoyar a organizaciones de arte culturalmente específicas, así como 

otros grupos de “igualdad”.

En los reportes generados por la NEA y NALAC en los Estados 

Unidos, se hicieron drásticas reducciones en presupuestos en 1995, 

incluyendo la eliminación de un programa que históricamente apoyaba 

a este campo en particular. Las fundaciones no han tomado el lugar 

de organizaciones de gobierno. En 2011, el National Commitee for 

Responsable Philantropy (Comité de Responsabilidad en Filantropía) 

publicó un reporte en donde dio a conocer que la mayoría de las 

fundaciones del país apoyan a organizaciones culturales de gran tamaño, 

además de recalcar que entre más comprometida esté esta fundación 

al arte, es menos probable que apoye a organizaciones culturalmente 

específicas. Esta afirmación es apoyada también por el reporte The 

Urgency of Now (La Urgencia del Ahora), publicado en el 2014 por 

el Foundation Review. Este reporte declaró que el apoyo económico a 

organizaciones afroamericanas ha ido decayendo, de manera que no 

refleja el cambio poblacional que está afectando al país. 

Figuring the Plural (Entendiendo el plural) llena este vacío al 

tomar en cuenta la información previamente recolectada en proyectos 

anteriores, así como también investiga más de cerca las características, 

necesidades y sistemas de soporte para organizaciones culturalmente 

específicas. 

Diseñamos nuestra investigación basándonos en las siguientes 

preguntas:

1. ¿Cuáles son las características, necesidades y retos para las 

organizaciones culturalmente específicas en Estados Unidos 

y Canadá? ¿Cómo seleccionan su audiencia, tomando en 

cuanta sus necesidades, características, retos y sistemas de 

soporte?

2. ¿Cuántos sistemas de soporte existen actualmente para 

organizaciones culturalmente específicas?, ¿Qué servicios 

proveen?,¿Dónde están localizadas?, ¿Cuál es su audiencia?

3. ¿Los servicios que ofrecen estos sistemas de soporte, satisfacen 

las necesidades de las organizaciones culturalmente 

específicas?

La meta general de este proyecto de investigación (Proyecto 

Plural) es generar conciencia, proporcionar información y fortalecer las 

actuales estructuras de soporte, así como también la creación de nuevas 

ideas que refuercen el trabajo de este tipo de organizaciones en el arte. 

Metodología

Dividimos nuestro sistema de investigación en 5 componentes; 

cada uno de ellos designados para atacar las tres preguntas (características, 

necesidades y sistemas de soporte). En el primer componente, tomamos 

en cuenta toda la investigación previamente hecha, además hicimos 

entrevistas formales e informales con más de 80 individuos. El 

segundo componente fue crear una base de datos de las organizaciones 

culturalmente específicas localizadas en Canadá y Estados Unidos. Esta 

base de datos fue creada en base a nuestra investigación literaria, además 

de una revisión y análisis de las bases de datos de Canada Revenue 

Agency (CRA), y el National Center for Charitable Stadistics (NCCS), 

Revenue Service Form 990 en GuideStar, y páginas de internet de 

diversas organizaciones. El tercer componente fue nuestra investigación 

de primera mano, donde lanzamos una encuesta administrada 

electrónicamente a través de Survey Monkey, la cual fue distribuida 

a todas las organizaciones en nuestra base de datos; de igual manera 

pudimos encontrar correos electrónicos y datos personales para entonces 

hacer las entrevistas cara a cara o por teléfono con el personal de dichas 

organizaciones, patrocinadores y organizaciones de servicio. El cuarto 
15 Executive Summary

componente fue realizar una evaluación de los programas de soporte 

que consistió en la creación de una base de datos en Estados Unidos 

y Canadá, específicamente para los programas o sistemas de soporte 

en ambos países, las cuales fueron creadas basadas en la revisión de 

literatura, la revisión y análisis de bases de datos de la CRA y el NCCS, 

la National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, reportes agencias públicas 

y fundaciones de Canadá y Estados Unidos además de otras fuentes 

como entrevistas personales con diferentes organizaciones, fundadores y 

retroalimentación de las organizaciones culturalmente específicas. 

Después de la recolección de datos, hicimos un análisis de 

datos para identificar y resaltar los retos y las necesidades de las 

organizaciones culturalmente especificas y así proveer un perfil de estas 

organizaciones como un todo, y además crear diferentes filtros por 

raza y por provincia. Con la información que encontramos, hicimos 

un análisis de necesidades de las organizaciones de servicio. Nuestras 

recomendaciones buscan apoyar a este campo, el quinto componente, 

está basado en los descubrimientos de nuestras entrevistas y encuestas, 

el análisis de los hechos, y comentarios de nuestro comité y el grupo que 

seleccionamos como participantes del proyecto. En esta última etapa 

buscamos apoyo de nuestro consejo, el cual que está formado por 13 

miembros, que estuvieron con nosotros durante todo el proceso. 

Hechos, conclusiones y recomendaciones

Ya que recalcar la importancia de la  ̈diversidad ̈ es parte 

elemental de nuestro enfoque, los descubrimientos de esta investigación 

reflejan ésta particular complejidad. A través de la construcción de las 

cuatro bases de datos, 427 encuestas, y un total de 139 entrevistas, el 

proyecto Plural recolectó una extensa cantidad de información sobre 

el trabajo de organizaciones culturalmente especificas en el campo del 

arte. Debido a la cantidad de datos extraídos y al rango de estos, fue todo 

un reto delimitar la información. A continuación proporcionamos un 

recuento de las características, apoyos específicos, necesidades, agencias 

de soporte y recomendaciones para el campo de las artes culturalmente 

específicas. Aunque sabemos que el campo en sí podría resistir ser 

etiquetado, recomendamos leer el reporte completo. Las cuatro bases de 

datos creadas para este proyecto, todas resultado de nuestras encuestas, 

pueden ser consultadas en la página del proyecto http://pluralculture.

com.

Características. Identificamos 255 organizaciones sin fines de 

lucro en el área culturalmente específica en Canadá y 2,013 en Estados 

Unidos. Números que representan aproximadamente el 2% del total de 

organizaciones sin fin de lucro en ambos países. En Canadá la mayoría de 

dichas organizaciones son multidisciplinarias, siendo danza la disciplina 

más popular. Las organizaciones para los anglosajones tienen un 

porcentaje más alto en proporción que las organizaciones culturalmente 

diversas, y las organizaciones dedicadas a la comunidad aborigen, son el 

menor porcentaje de organizaciones culturales o artísticas en Canadá. 

La ganancia anual de este tipo de organizaciones en promedio es de 

$376,124 dólares, el medio es de $116,189 dólares y ingreso máximo 

data de $7,254,047 dólares al año. Organizaciones anglosajonas y 

asiáticas poseen el menor ingreso anual promedio y las organizaciones 

que sirven a comunidades aborígenes tienen el mayor ingreso promedio. 

Más de la mitad de las organizaciones culturalmente específicas se 

encuentran en dos provincias: Ontario y British Columbia. Una revisión 

del ingreso anual de este tipo de organizaciones por provincia reveló que 

las organizaciones localizadas en Nova Escocia y Prince Edward Island 

tienen el menor ingreso promedio y las organizaciones localizadas en 

New Brunswick, el territorio del Norte, Nunavut y Québec poseen el 

mayor ingreso promedio. Entre 2010 y 2012, el ingreso medio reportado 

para organizaciones culturalmente específicas ha ido en aumento. 

Casi tres cuartos de los entrevistados en la encuesta en Canadá 

reportaron que solamente contaban con cinco o menos personas en su 

personal (ya sea tiempo completo o medio tiempo) y más de la mitad 

de los encuestados reportaron que las contribuciones relacionadas con 

el ingreso es la mitad del total de ingreso. Es importante notar, que la 

información derivada de la encuesta de organizaciones canadienses no es 

representativa del campo. 

En Estados Unidos, la proporción más grande de organizaciones 

es multidisciplinaria, siendo la música y las artes visuales son las más 

populares. Las organizaciones anglosajonas y asiáticas juntas representan 

la mitad del campo en Estados Unidos. Las organizaciones multirraciales 

y hawaianas son la mas pequeñas en proporción. Los ingresos brutos en el 

campo de las organizaciones culturalmente específicas en Estados Unidos 

es de $701,358 dólares, su ingreso mediano es de $86,487 dólares, y el 

máximo ingreso anual es de $157,116,526. Organizaciones de cultura 

asiáticas y nativas/hawaianas e indio americanas son las que tienen 
Executive Summary 16

menor ingreso medio. Más de un tercio de las organizaciones están 

localizadas en el oeste del país; sin embargo los tres estados que albergan 

la proporción más grande de este tipo de organizaciones – California, 

Nueva York, y Texas – están localizados en diferentes regiones. Una 

revisión del ingreso bruto anual de este tipo de organizaciones por 

región, reveló que los estados localizados en el sur tiene el menor 

ingreso promedio, y los estados en el medio-oeste del país tiene el mayor 

ingreso anual en el campo. Más de tres cuartos de los encuestados 

reportaron tienen cinco o menos empleados (tiempo completo o medio 

tiempo). Encuestados también revelaron que dependen mayormente 

de contribuyentes individuales, más que en apoyo federal, estatal, local, 

fundaciones o donaciones de corporativos. 

Aunque no existe información suficiente para hacer un 

comparativo en cuanto al crecimiento de dichas organizaciones; 

basada solamente en la examinación hecha por Plural, parece que en 

ambos países las organizaciones culturalmente específicas han ido en 

crecimiento. Una evaluación de las organizaciones basadas en el año que 

fueron fundadas, reveló que gran parte de este tipo de organizaciones en 

Canadá fueron registradas a partir del año 2000. De manera similar, al 

hacer una evaluación de las organizaciones en Estados Unidos nos dimos 

cuenta que gran parte de ellas son organizaciones más antiguas, pero 

la mitad de las organizaciones tanto en Estados Unidos como Canadá 

fueron fundados el siglo pasado. 

Necesidades. Los encuestados tanto de Estados Unidos como 

de Canadá reportaron necesidades parecidas: la primera necesidad 

fue financiera, seguida por la necesidad de espacio o renovación en sus 

edificios y desarrollo de audiencias. Organizaciones en ambos países 

identificaron la carencia de ingresos para el mantenimiento y el aumento 

de personal como uno de los grandes retos. Las entrevistas fueron 

extremadamente importantes para detectar necesidades financieras, 

organizacionales, de desarrollo de audiencias, espacio y otros retos que 

dependerían más del contexto en el que se encuentra cada organización. 

Los entrevistados en ambos países recalcaron la necesidad de tener 

mayor acceso a los fondos sin restricciones y de manera consecutiva (año 

con año). Debido a un rango de factores que particularmente afectan las 

artes como la ubicación geográfica, la misión y el ciclo de vida, muchos 

de los entrevistados expresaron que este tipo de fondos sin restricciones 

ayudarían a contratar más personal (generalmente para apoyar 

las áreas de marketing o planeación) o a invertir en el propio espacio 

(construir o agrandar las áreas de ensayo/exhibición o renovar espacios 

ya existentes). De acuerdo con nuestras entrevistas la mayoría de las 

organizaciones, incluyendo las más jóvenes, encuentran poco valor en 

un entrenamiento general para el personal. Recalcaron que consideran 

de gran valor tener capacitación con programas que tomen en cuenta la 

misión de la organización, el tamaño, la localización y el origen cultural 

de la organización en cuestión. Hay un particular deseo por capacitación 

especializada en desarrollo de patronatos. El acceso es uno de los 

principales problemas detectados para la capacitación en el desarrollo de 

patronatos, así como también en capacitación administrativa y artística. 

Los retos acerca del acceso a estas capacitaciones están normalmente 

catalogados de dos formas: (i) inhabilidad para identificar y obtener 

apoyo de individuos con gran capacidad económica, tanto dentro y fuera 

de la comunidad, los cuales puedes servir como parte del patronato o 

defensor de la organización, para así buscar generar más ingreso. (ii) La 

segunda es la inhabilidad de obtener más reconocimiento de personas e 

organizaciones con influencia en el campo. 

Apoyo. Identificamos 95 organizaciones de servicios basadas en 

Canadá y 248 en Estados Unidos las cuales pueden proporcionar fondos 

para programación de organizaciones culturalmente especificas. Este 

apoyo está generalmente representado en donaciones por proyecto y 

proveen desde bajo hasta mediano apoyo. En Canadá, las 60 agencias 

artísticas tanto federales y estatales proporcionan apoyo exclusivamente 

en donaciones por proyecto, las cuales van de $500 a $500,000 en 

dólares canadienses. Las 19 agencias locales (las cuales operan como 

fundaciones independientes o agencias gubernamentales sin fin de lucro) 

y las agencias artísticas gubernamentales que apoyan financieramente, 

proporcionan poco o nulo apoyo para las operaciones de desarrollo 

económico dentro de la organización. En los Estados Unidos, 62 de las 

66 de las organizaciones artísticas tanto federales o estatales se dedican 

a hacer donaciones a proyectos específicos, las cuales van de $250 a 

$100,000 dólares. Identificamos 100 organizaciones no gubernamentales 

que proveen apoyo a este tipo de instituciones, sin embargo, para la 

mayoría de este tipo de organizaciones es difícil especificar la cantidad y 

el número de donaciones que están disponibles. 

Basándonos en nuestra revisión de literatura y en conversaciones 

formales e informales con diversos participantes, todo parece indicar 
17 Executive Summary

que en Estados Unidos los programas dedicados a proporcionar apoyo 

financiero han ido en descenso en las últimas dos décadas. En Canadá 

los programas dedicados a proporcionar apoyo financiero, tanto como 

las organizaciones de servicios, han ido en aumento. 

Conclusiones. Basándonos en nuestros hallazgos, las 

organizaciones de servicios o apoyo no satisfacen las necesidades de las 

organizaciones culturalmente específicas. Este tipo de organizaciones 

describe necesidades que son típicas del sistema no lucrativo en el área 

de las artes, y por lo tanto requiere un enfoque sistémico y holístico. 

Estas organizaciones también describen retos que requieren apoyo 

específicos de acuerdo a su contexto, así como también expertos en el 

área. En cambio, y con excepción de algunas organizaciones de servicio, 

las organizaciones existentes generalmente tienen formas de apoyo 

especificas, inspiradas en los métodos de organizaciones grandes y con 

una visión más general. En lugar de ofrecer un apoyo más flexible; con 

el cual las organizaciones podrían satisfacer sus necesidades particulares 

o incluso atacar las barreras que enfrentan por la diferencia cultural y así 

ser sustentables a largo plazo, la mayoría de los apoyos financiero son a 

corto plazo y para proyectos específicos. 

Además, la mayoría de los programas de creación de capacidades 

en la industria opera bajo la suposición equivocada de que las 

organizaciones carecen de entrenamiento o conocimiento para alcanzar 

la estabilidad económica; sin embargo, discusiones con los participantes 

en esta investigación, dieron a conocer que el entrenamiento ofrecido 

es favorecedor para las organizaciones jóvenes. Un gran número de 

estas organizaciones (relativamente nuevas), demostraron no tener 

conocimiento si quiera de que este tipo de entrenamiento existía. De 

acuerdo con el ciclo de vida tradicional, la mayoría de las organizaciones 

deberían de entrar en la etapa joven de la organización, sin embargo 

cuando vimos más de cerca de estas organizaciones nos dimos cuenta 

que solo un pequeño porcentaje cuenta con las características de una 

organización  ̈nueva ̈. Basados en nuestros hallazgos, muchas de las 

organizaciones poseen el conocimiento para operar, el problema 

es la falta de personal para poder implementar los planes y modelos 

organizacionales. Los retos de crear capacidad institucional están 

atados a la ausencia de mayores y más estables niveles de apoyo para 

el área de operaciones. Finalmente, identificamos sólo algunas de las 

organizaciones de arte que apoyan o defienden la adopción de modelos 

organizacionales alternativos- un área identificada como una necesidad 

por un número significativo de participantes en el proyecto, así como 

también en literatura previamente revisada. 

Basada en la investigación de previa y actual información 

sobre organizaciones culturalmente específicas en el arte como un todo, 

nos dimos cuenta de que este tipo de organizaciones no se encuentra 

oficialmente en crisis como lo que actualmente se supone en el campo. A 

pesar de la falta de apoyo en los Estados Unidos, y posiblemente cada vez 

más en declive, nos dimos cuenta que este tipo de organizaciones no están 

en peligro de extinción en ninguno de estos países, pero es importante decir 

que están lejos de alcanzar su potencial. En el caso de las organizaciones 

que no son culturalmente específicas, pero son consideradas sin fin de 

lucro, se puede considerar que una proporción del campo está en un ciclo 

de cambio que se puede describir como frágil o en declive. Sin embargo, 

las organizaciones culturalmente específicas están crecimiento, pasando 

por un período de renovación. Actualmente se encuentran en un estado 

saludable, pero no necesariamente cuentan con sustentabilidad a largo 

plazo. Operar en un campo que ha contado con financiamiento variable 

durante años, ha hecho que organizaciones adapten un modelo diseñado 

para la sobrevivencia en un mundo inestable y a veces hostil. 

Figuring the Plural concluye con una lista de 32 recomendaciones 

para mejorar los ciclos de vida de las organizaciones, así como también 

dirigir y configurar un ecosistema cultural más equitativo. Estás 

recomendaciones se encuentran en el capítulo Necesidades y Apoyos: 

Estrategia de Ciclos de Vida. 
18

Image 8. Gravity, Urban Ink Productions, 2008. Written and Performed by Tricia Collins (pictured.) Directed by Maiko Bae Yamamoto and presented 

by Urban Ink Productions. Reproduced by permission from Urban Ink Productions. 
From From the Belly of My Beauty by Esther G. Belin. ©1999 The Arizona Board of Regents. Reprinted by permission of the University of Arizona 

Press.

Check One:

o	Diné

o	Other

19
Methodology

Methodology

Plural is a collaborative research project dedicated to supporting 

ethnocultural arts organizations located in Canada and the United 

States. Our literature review, the results of which we have incorporated 

into Part I (Historical Background) of this book, revealed relatively 

little information on these organizations, much of which was outdated 

and dispersed across a range of sources. We located one nationwide 

needs assessment for US organizations conducted 24 years ago by the 

National Endowment for the Arts (NEA),1 no comparable Canadian 

data, no publicly available research mapping support structures for these 

organizations, and no research comparing these organizations across the 

Canadian/US border. It is our goal to fill this void by answering the 

following three critical questions related to the situation of ethnocultural 

arts organizations in our two countries: 

1. What are the current characteristics, needs, and 

challenges of Canadian and US ethnocultural arts 

organizations as a whole, and how do organizations 

targeting different racial groups compare regarding 

their characteristics, needs, challenges, and support 

systems?

2. How many support systems currently have programs 

that focus on ethnocultural arts organizations, what 

services do they provide, where are they located, and 

what are their target ethnic group(s)?

3. Do the services offered by support systems correlate 

with the needs of ethnocultural arts organizations?

We divided our research process into five components designed 

to address the three categories of our research questions (characteristics, 

needs, and support systems): (i) undertaking a literature review; (ii) 

building a database of ethnocultural arts organizations; (iii) conducting a 

needs assessment; (iv) undertaking an assessment of the supports systems; 

and (v) preparing recommendations. Our methodology has been both 

quantitative and qualitative in nature to obtain a macro-level view of the 

field and to delve deeper into understanding needs and possible means 

of addressing those needs. Throughout every phase of our research, 

we have actively sought the input and feedback of project stakeholders. 

We have solicited such review by assembling a 13-member advisory 

committee (comprised of Canadian and US artists, staff at ethnocultural 

arts organizations, staff at ethnocultural arts service organizations, arts 

consultants/researchers, and funders) to formally advise on the project 

and have obtained support on an informal basis from additional project 

stakeholders and other individuals as appropriate.

The research design set forth below provides a more detailed 

discussion of project activities and methodology. The project began in 

January 2012. 

1. Literature Review

From February until November 2012, we reviewed literature 

and other materials directly examining or related to the ethnocultural 

arts sector (e.g., literature concerning ethnic arts, folk arts, small arts 

organizations, and the informal arts). The purpose of this review was 

to identify existing research to assist with determining project scope, to 

reduce duplication of existing research, to identify experts in the field 

who could provide input to ensure our project’s relevancy, to better 

understand the history of the field and current issues, and to consolidate 

existing information. Through our literature review, we developed the 

research questions set forth above.

In addition to running standard database searches, our literature 

review included a concerted effort to identify “grey literature” (key reports 

and needs assessments informally published and not widely accessible) 

through conversations with over 80 individuals, including cultural policy 

scholars and other academics, funders, staff of arts service organizations 

and arts organizations, and advocates in the field. While this component 

of the project was formally completed at the end of 2012, we continued 

to identify and review relevant literature, and to conduct informational 

20
Methodology

Image 9. Los Cenzontles Mexican Arts Center. An artesania 

(Mexican arts and crafts) class taught by Marie-Astrid Do-Rodriguez 

in preparation for Dia de los Muertos. Reproduced by permission 

from Los Cenzontles Mexican Arts Center.

interviews, through the drafting period for this book. The Selected 

Bibliography contains a listing of non-confidential materials that we 

found to be of particular use in informing this project. 

2. Ethnocultural Arts Organization Databases

Through review and analysis of datasets from the Canada 

Revenue Agency (CRA), the National Center for Charitable Statistics 

(NCCS), Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 990 filings on GuideStar, 

organizational websites, organizational names and directories gleaned 

from our literature review, and information gained during the course 

of our needs assessment, we created separate databases of Canadian 

and US ethnocultural arts organizations that appear to be currently 

active and registered as charities (Canada) or incorporated as nonprofits 

(United States). 

a. Coding

We created an initial list of organizations in both Canada and 

the United States based on personal knowledge and information from 

our literature review. For Canadian organizations we then downloaded 

the daily updated CRA list of active registered charities as of September 

19, 2012, and narrowed the list of over 75,000 charities to a list of 10,177 

charities by filtering for the following arts and culture related category 

codes provided in the CRA file:

• Cultural Activities and Promotion of the Arts (22) 

• Libraries, Museums and Other Repositories (50) 

• (Community) Charitable Corporations (53) 

• (Community) Charitable Trusts (Other than Service Clubs 

and Fraternal Society Projects) (55)

• Community Organizations, (not else classified) (59) 

• Registered National Arts Services Organizations (RNASO) 

(81) 

• Miscellaneous Charitable Organizations, (not else classified) 

(99) 

We reviewed each of the remaining organizations on the list to determine 

whether an organization appeared to fit our definition of ethnocultural 

arts organization (see Terminology, infra). This process involved a 

21
Methodology

combination of common knowledge (e.g., removal of organizations 

like the National Ballet of Canada), review of information provided on 

an organization’s tax forms, if available, and an Internet search for the 

organization. 

For US organizations, we also ran an initial search for culture/

ethnic awareness organizations on the online site of GuideStar, a 

nonprofit that provides information on IRS-registered charitable 

organizations, before expanding our search by licensing the NCCS 

2012 Business Master File and 2010 Core-PC for arts organizations 

databases in October 2012.2 The information contained in the NCCS 

files is based primarily on data filed with the IRS.3 Updated by the IRS 

on a monthly basis, the Business Master File is a cumulative file on all 

“active” organizations that have registered for tax-exempt status with 

the IRS and contains limited financial information. Of the almost 1.5 

million organizations in this database at the time of license, 97,826 

organizations had been classified by the NCCS, primarily using the 

National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities Core Codes (NTEE-CC) coding 

system,4 as art, culture, and humanities organizations (hereinafter, the 

BMF). Our review of the BMF focused on the following codes, which 

resulted in a total review of approximately 50,000 organizations or 21 

of the 43 category “A” codes: 

• Arts & Culture (A20)

• Cultural & Ethnic Awareness (A23) 

• Folk Arts (A24)

• Community Celebrations/Festivals (A27)

• Film & Video (A31) 

• Visual Arts (A40)

• Museums (A50)

• Art Museums (A51)

• Folk Arts Museums (A53 – draft code) 

• History Museums (A54)

• Performing Arts (A60) 

• Dance (A62)

• Ballet (A63)

• Theater (A65)

• Music (A68)

• Symphony Orchestras (A69) 

• Opera (A6A)

• Singing and Choral Groups (A6B) 

• Bands and Ensembles (A6C) 

• Humanities (A70)

• Arts, Culture & Humanities NEC (A99) 

Similar to our process with the Canadian database, we considered each 

organization that appeared in the filtered BMF categories alongside our 

definition of ethnocultural arts organization. This process included a 

search on GuideStar to review an organization’s tax forms and a general 

Internet search for the organization. 

If an organization appeared to meet our definition and to be 

active, we then added the organization to our database(s) and coded 

it. When available and/or applicable, fields included in the databases 

are organizational name, Business Number/Employer Identification 

Number, implicated census racial group(s), specific ethnic group(s), 

practiced artistic discipline(s), address, geographic region, website, date 

of tax exempt status, annual reported gross income for the years 2009-

2012, mission/mandate, and special considerations such as whether 

an organization’s primary or only arts activity involved producing a 

festival and/or if an organization appeared to function as both an arts 

organization and arts service organization. 

As our coding process for both countries was dependent on 

information available through tax forms, a search of an organization’s 

website, and other research as appropriate, our entries in certain fields 

were necessarily subjective. We particularly emphasize the subjective 

nature of our coding in the areas regarding whether an organization is 

multiracial or multidisciplinary as our determination was dependent on 

what we were able to surmise from, and/or was emphasized in, these 

materials. In some cases, our initial assessment proved incorrect based on 

later research. For example, we coded the California-based organization 

Los Cenzontles Mexican Arts Center as a single discipline organization 

in the area of music. Upon meeting with organizational staff in their 

San Pablo space, however, it became clear that while the organization’s 

roots are in music, programming includes dance and the visual arts. 

b. Limitations, Omissions & Challenges

While we have attempted to build a comprehensive listing 

22
Methodology

of organizations falling under our definition of ethnocultural arts 

organization, our selected methodology contains a number of additional 

limitations and omissions, both intended and unintended. 

In building the Canadian database, we relied heavily on the 

CRA’s Charities Listing, which does not include nonprofit organizations. 

While the entities known as “registered charities” are often termed 

“nonprofit organizations,” these are two distinct types of organizations 

under the Canadian Income Tax Act.5 There are similarities between 

these organizational forms: for example, neither registered charities 

nor nonprofit organizations may operate for the purpose of making a 

profit, and both are eligible to receive funding from Canadian federal, 

provincial, and local arts funding programs. Unlike registered charities, 

however, nonprofit organizations are not required to register with the 

CRA; as a result, and to the best of our knowledge, there is no publicly 

available national list of these organizations. Our database thus omits 

these nonprofit ethnocultural arts organizations. According to a 2003 

survey undertaken by Statistics Canada, registered charities represent 54 

percent of arts and culture organizations operating on a nonprofit basis 

in Canada.6 As we have identified 255 registered charity ethnocultural 

arts organizations (see infra), and loosely relying on this breakdown 

between charitable types, we estimate that we may have excluded less 

than 250 nonprofit organizations; that is, the field may be roughly 

double the size presented herein.

In serving as a general listing of US arts organizations from 

which to identify those that are ethnocultural in focus, the BMF is 

also not truly comprehensive. Public charities and other exempt 

organizations, other than private foundations, reporting less than 

$5,000 in gross receipts are not required to register with the IRS and 

thus are not included in the BMF or any other IRS database unless they 

voluntarily choose to register. Neither does the BMF include Section 

7871 nonprofit organizations, which are also not required to register 

with the IRS and are discussed elsewhere. As such, our US database 

unintentionally omits these organizations unless an organization was 

identified through personal knowledge, our literature review, or the 

needs or supports assessments components of the project. 

Further, while the BMF contains basic information for all active 

and IRS registered tax-exempt organizations, “active” is used loosely to 

designate any organization that responds to a postcard mailed by the IRS 

every three years to verify that the organization exists. One estimate by the 

IRS indicated that more than one-fifth of the organizations listed in the 

BMF and not required to file a Form 990 “had either ceased operations 

or could not be found.”7

 For our purposes, if an organization’s web page 

did not appear to have been updated and there were no other references 

to organizational activity within the past five years, and the organization 

had not filed a tax form since 2008, we considered the organization 

no longer active even if it otherwise fell within our definition. While 

this bright line approach provided us with some measure of confidence 

that the organizations listed in our databases were in actuality active, it 

also likely undercounted organizations that had minimal to no Internet 

presence and that did not regularly file tax forms but were otherwise 

active. We note that this approach may have eliminated a greater 

number of Canadian organizations, a lower proportion of which possess 

an organizational website or other Internet presence in comparison to 

their US counterparts.

We make one final observation with respect to the BMF, or 

more specifically the NTEE-CC, classification system when applied to 

ethnocultural arts organizations. It was our experience that this system 

appeared flawed in its handling of these organizations. When we began 

review of the BMF, it was our intention to limit review to the code 

for cultural/ethnic awareness (A23) and the “other” arts organization 

catchall (A99). However, when comparing the BMF against our already 

vetted initial list of ethnocultural arts organizations, we found that 

these organizations were variously classified under their arts specific 

disciplines, as cultural/ethnic awareness, under the catchall category, 

and more unexpectedly, under codes for alliances and advocacy, 

professional societies, or did not appear in the BMF at all. We were 

subsequently able to find these organizations listed on GuideStar and 

assigned to such core codes as Education, Human Services, and Public, 

Societal Benefit categories. For example, the American Indian Center 

in Chicago, which currently runs an active Native art gallery and for 

which arts and culture is an important part of its programming, was 

listed under Human Services along with the Townsend-based song and 

movement group the McIntosh County Shouters (both Plural project 

participants). Conversely, organizations coded using the cultural/ethnic 

23
Methodology

tag included the Long Island Native American Task Force and the North 

American Chinese Medical Physicists Association. 

We found that basically identical organizations were coded 

differently. There are over 100 Country Dance and Song Societies listed 

in the BMF, each of which is separately incorporated but affiliated with 

the national Country Dance and Song Society umbrella organization 

whose mandate is to promote English and Anglo-American folk 

dance and music. Although these organizations have the same basic 

programming, they were coded as Dance (A62), Single Organization 

Support (A11), Folk Arts (A24), Professional Societies and Associations 

(A03), Alliances & Advocacy (A01), and Performing Arts Centers (A61). 

Interestingly, none of these organizations was coded under any of the 

music categories or the cultural/ethnic category. 

We make this observation not to criticize the NTEE-CC 

classification system – we have already admitted to our own coding 

issues, and will shortly address several more – but to draw attention to 

limitations in relying on these coding categories as a means for identifying, 

reaching, and counting all members of the arts community. For this 

project, our response was to expand our search to the 21 previously 

referenced categories. We also reached the certain conclusion that we 

have missed an unknown number of organizations that were classified 

under non-arts NTEE-CC categories and that were not brought to our 

attention through other avenues.

Lastly, and separate from the limitations and omissions built 

into our sources, despite having pre-established criteria for identifying 

the subject of our project, we encountered a number of challenges 

with respect to its application during the review and coding process. We 

highlight the challenges below that we believe had the greatest impact 

on whether an organization was included or omitted from the database. 

Possibly our biggest challenge in identifying and coding the 

ethnocultural arts organization regarded how to define and identify 

“art.” First, we were unsure of how to handle history museums and 

historical societies. This project’s focus is on the arts community; 

however, ethnocultural artistic expression often incorporates and 

references a given ethnic group’s past. Our approach ultimately rested 

on the manner in which history-focused organizations incorporated art 

into their spaces, and how that art appeared to be regarded. We excluded 

organizations that used photographs, films, or paintings solely to depict 

an historic event. In the United States, a number of organizations that 

were excluded in this manner were African American history museums. 

However, if the purpose of incorporating art into the history museum 

appeared to be to teach about the art of an ethnic group over time, and/

or if that art was treated as part of the history of a living culture, then 

we included the organization in our databases. Many of the museums 

included in this manner were tribal museums. 

Second, we omitted art schools, academies, and other 

organizations whose sole arts component involved offering arts-related 

classes but included organizations that offered arts education so long as 

they were involved in some form of arts presentation or performance 

activity. We are conscious of the critical importance of arts education 

to a community’s cultural vitality: the passing on of artistic traditions 

through arts education is crucial to internal cultural development, and 

for many organizations it is a source of earned income. However, this 

project grew out of questions concerning the operations and specific 

challenges of organizations engaged in the practice and not solely 

the teaching of art. We were also considering arts services related to 

education (e.g., professional development available to administrative and 

artistic staff) as part of the supports component of this project. Within 

this framework, arts education organizations may instead be seen as a 

foundational support for arts organizations for they create the artists that 

then form and work within arts organizations. 

Festivals were another type of organization that created 

definitional difficulty as art. There are numerous organizations devoted 

solely to the presentation and organization of ethnically specific festivals 

or cultural centers and ethnic associations/societies whose sole artistic 

involvement appear to be the organization and hosting of these festivals. 

These organizations raised a number of issues: could they be considered 

arts organizations? Should they be coded as arts organizations or art 

service organizations (supports)? In less urban areas, these festivals 

were often the only ethnocultural arts offering and were presented as 

an important means of celebrating and forming community amongst 

ethnic groups, especially immigrant groups. We decided to treat these 

organizations as arts organizations if one of the art forms we had 

identified (visual, dance, music, theater, film, or the humanities – see 

24
Methodology

Terminology infra) were a key or prominently featured component 

of these festivals. As a result, we included many Irish/Scottish/Celtic 

festivals and Highland games but few German or Italian festivals. We 

note that most festivals for non-White racial groups incorporated key 

arts components and thus are in our databases. 

A final arts-related challenge, and one that presented a particular 

problem within the US context, regarded art forms and spaces that 

we were unable to recognize. In Cultural Democracy, James Bau Graves 

observes, “It is not usually the successes that hold the most valuable 

lessons. Those we must extract from our frequent failures. These are almost 

always attributable to our own cultural blind spots; somewhere, we have made an 

assumption that doesn’t hold up in relation to this specific community.”8 

Generally, when confronted with an unfamiliar or less familiar cultural 

practice, if an organization treated the practice as art (that is, by calling 

it “art”), we deferred to this treatment and then the issue arose as to what 

arts discipline category to assign to it (e.g., chado or chanoyu, the Japanese 

tea ceremony). In limited instances we overrode an organization’s 

description of its practice for purposes of field consistency, and always 

in favor of including (rather than excluding) the organization – this 

happened in the case of capoeira, where many performance groups 

referred to their practice as art, but a few did not (equating it instead 

with the martial arts, a category otherwise not included). 

It was through team discussion in the case of certain repeatedly 

occurring cultural forms that we discovered a cultural blind spot in our 

definition of arts organization. We believe we made an error with respect 

to Feis, Irish dance competitions, and similar events as we were unable 

to recognize them as arts performance venues until later in the process. 

Early on we had made the decision not to include arts competitions, and 

thus we omitted groups, mostly Irish or Scottish, that existed solely to 

perform at these competitions (see Terminology infra, but this omission 

related in part to our previously discussed exclusion of art schools and of 

private social clubs for purposes of the project). Upon reflection, there 

were many areas where we went wrong in excluding these competition 

groups. We realized our mistake upon reading the history of the feis

that was placed on an organization’s website and understanding that 

competitions are the natural form of performance for Celtic dance 

groups. To assume that these groups should be “performing” in another 

way only revealed our own biased cultural lens. We estimate that we 

wrongly excluded at least 100 organizations before discovering our error. 

Many of these and other arts-related considerations we encountered 

arose more often in the context of building the US database; there was 

less variety, or we were more familiar, with the arts disciplines practiced 

by registered charity Canadian arts organizations, and therefore with 

few exceptions, the identification of an organization’s cultural practice 

as “art” presented less of a challenge. 

For both countries, our other great challenge revolved around 

matters core to this project: race and ethnicity. We will identify three 

issues within this area that presented themselves within the context of the 

database development process, and our handling of each. First, shortly 

after agreeing on a mission-focused definition for ethnocultural arts 

organization, we found our objectivity as researchers in opposition to our 

subjectivity as advocates. We speak here to the issue of representation as 

art museums were among the first NTEE-CC coding categories that we 

reviewed, and so we confronted a number of museums, most of them 

focused on Native or Asian art, that had been established by wealthy 

European or European American art collectors. Technically speaking, 

these museums generally met our definition of an ethnocultural arts 

organization as they showcased the art of an explicitly defined culture 

and often with the mission of promoting that culture, and yet they were 

not what we meant by ethnocultural arts organization. Related to this 

issue was how to deal with organizations that celebrated ethnic art forms 

that were arguably no longer directly part of living artistic traditions (e.g., 

ancient Greek and Egyptian art museums). We reached the following 

solution: for these organizations we looked for signs that they were actively 

incorporating the voices and perspectives of the culture being presented 

as evinced through programming, marketing of programming, and 

the backgrounds of staff and leadership. This was clearly an imperfect 

solution as we had to rely heavily on information that could be found 

on museum websites and third-party reviews of programming. Through 

this process we included museums like the Heard in Arizona. 

Second, we must acknowledge the difficulty inherent in 

categorizing organizations by our countries’ respective census categories. 

We chose to work with the Canadian and US census breakdowns 

because we wanted to work with vetted systems with which we were 

25
Methodology

familiar, with which our organizations would be familiar, and that would 

be recognizable and easily searchable by future researchers and the 

general public. We were also (initially) utilizing the same approach and 

terminology used by the Canada Council for the Arts (Canada Council) 

and the NEA in their respective previous research on the ethnocultural 

arts field. 

Once we began coding, however, we encountered challenges 

in applying the US census categories. In the US context, the 2010 

census had a preliminary question (“Is the person of Hispanic, Latino, 

or Spanish origin”) followed by a race question (“What is the person’s 

race”), and subdivided “Asian” into each of its national/ethnic groups 

(e.g., Chinese, Filipino, Japanese) while treating all other groups as pan 

categories. Among other issues, we wanted a more consistent and userfriendly system that would permit us to present information across pan 

racial categories as previous research had done and as is more commonly 

done today. In addition, while we recognize that “Latino” is not a racial 

category, as reflected in the self-described target audiences served by 

such arts service organizations as the National Association of Latino 

Arts and Cultures, the term is commonly employed to describe, and 

treat as distinct, individuals of Latin American descent. We therefore 

ended up using a modified form of the 2000 US census for our project’s 

classification of an arts organization’s racial specificity. Modifications 

included the following: removing “Latino” from the 2000 census’s 

“Some Other Race” category and, perhaps less obviously, placing 

Middle Eastern, Arab American, and Jewish groups, among others, 

in this category, and creating a new combined category of “Latino & 

Caribbean” and one for “Multiracial.” 

There is much that might be said with respect to the 

considerations involved in assigning and applying these revised 

categories, but we will focus on one category that we hope will prove 

helpful in reviewing this book and illustrative of our process. In a number 

of situations, we came across groups that could fit into two or more 

categories (usually “Black” or “Latino” but also occasionally “Asian” or 

“Latino” or, as a third possibility, “Some Other Race”) but where coding 

as “Multiracial” seemed inappropriate as these groups did not appear 

to identify in this manner (e.g., possessing a mission to promote Asian 

and Latino cultures). These organizations included a Garifuna dance 

troupe, a Guyanese music ensemble, and a number of Afro-Brazilian 

multidisciplinary organizations. Language in part became a determining 

factor: for groups that placed their origin in non-Spanish/Portuguese 

speaking South American countries that were heavily mixed (the 

Garifuna) or that had two prominent racial groups (Guyana), we placed 

them in the “Some Other Race” category. For groups that identified with 

a Spanish or Portuguese speaking country/region but also a specific pan 

racial or ethnic group within that country (e.g., Indigenous or African), it 

came down to how much that group emphasized the former or the latter. 

We did not want to effectively “white wash” the “Latino” classification, 

and so in many instances we coded a group as “Latino” that could have 

been listed as “Black.” The collective result of these coding decisions 

was that we renamed this category to read “Latino & Caribbean,” 

and our “Some Other Race” category is an extremely diverse mix of 

organizations with the only apparent commonality being that they do 

not readily fit under other more recognizable racial categories.

We made no modifications to the 2006 Canadian census 

categories for database coding purposes, and applying these categories 

was generally more straightforward given the mandates of most of 

the organizations we reviewed.9 We note that there is one category 

of organization that we largely omitted from our database, however: 

Canada’s many francophone arts organizations. This project’s focus is 

on race and ethnicity, and not language. Although language may be an 

identifier of membership in an ethnic group, its reach in many cases 

today, and in light of the history of colonialism, is across racial and ethnic 

groups. Thus we excluded arts organizations with a mandate to promote 

“francophone” or “French-speaking” culture, or French language, but 

we included organizations with mandates to promote French or Acadian 

culture. Similarly, we excluded “anglophone” arts organizations, the 

other official language minority group recognized and considered an 

equity-seeking group by such bodies as the Canada Council.

The third major race-related issue was determining whether an 

organization considered itself to be racially/ethnically specific. This was 

also an area where we noted clear differences between Canadian and US 

organizations. As a guiding principle for identifying the field, we searched 

for organizations that explicitly self-identified as arts organizations and 

as racially/ethnically specific. In contrast to the United States, where a 

26
Methodology

proportionately smaller group of organizations used more generalized 

descriptors such as “people of color” or “multicultural” that hinted 

at a more ethnic specific perspective, a sizable number of Canadian 

organizations did not list any specific racial or ethnic affiliation anywhere 

in their mandate, history, or description of programming, instead 

identifying as, or sometimes simply referencing, “multicultural” or 

“culturally diverse.” At times, these broader categories made it difficult 

to determine if an arts organization would consider itself to be racially/

ethnically specific or if it was a general arts organization with some 

multicultural programming. There are many factors that may provide 

insight into this practice, including a smaller non-White population, 

different terminology between Canada and the United States to describe 

non-White populations, and the history and impact of multiculturalism 

in Canada. For this project, we ultimately included organizations in 

our Canadian database that might not have been included in the US 

database. 

Conscious of their limitations and omissions, these databases 

formed the working population for the needs assessment component 

of the project and provided us with information regarding the current 

characteristics of ethnocultural arts organizations as a whole and by 

ethnocultural community. There are 255 organizations listed in our 

Canadian database and 2,013 organizations listed in our US database. 

The databases are available as Appendices A (Canada) and B (US) as 

Excel documents and are included separately, as are all of this book’s 

appendices. 

We began working on the databases during the summer of 2012 

and completed the Canadian database (for needs assessment purposes) 

in January 2013 and the US database (for needs assessment purposes) 

in July 2013. While we were unable to continue to add organizations 

to the databases for purposes of participation in the needs assessment, 

we did continue to add to and revise the databases up until January 

2014 for purposes of increasing their accuracy and comprehensiveness. 

This included the addition of organizations identified through the needs 

assessment, and the removal of a few organizations that we became aware 

had ceased operations either shortly before or during the course of the 

project.10 In the latter group are JDub Music (a New York-based Jewish 

nonprofit), the Estonian Arts Centre (a Toronto-based multidisciplinary 

space), the Latino International Theater Festival of New York (also 

known as TeatroStageFest and a Plural project participant), Kuntu 

Repertory Theatre (a Pittsburgh-based Black company), and Luna 

Negra Dance Theater (a Chicago-based Latino dance company and 

Plural project participant). 

3. Needs Assessment

Our needs assessment consisted of both (i) nationwide 

surveys administered electronically through the web-based survey tool 

Survey Monkey and distributed to all organizations contained in our 

ethnocultural arts organization database and for which we were able 

to obtain email contact information and (ii) interviews with a subset of 

these organizations, arts service organizations, and arts funders. 

a. Survey Development & Distribution

Our interview and initial survey questions were developed 

following fieldwork at the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center in New Mexico 

during the summer of 2012, review of previous Canadian and US needs 

assessments identified through our literature review, and discussions with 

an arts marketing firm, our advisory committee, and the department 

chair of the Arts Administration and Policy program at the School of 

the Art Institute of Chicago. From December 17, 2012, to January 25, 

2013, the survey was pretested with four Chicago-based ethnocultural 

arts organizations: the American Indian Center of Chicago, the Balzekas 

Museum of Lithuanian Culture, Luna Negra, and Natya Dance Theatre. 

Review of their survey responses and comments resulted in additional 

revisions. 

The final survey contained 43 questions, with a mix of fixedanswer and open-ended questions that covered basic organizational 

characteristics (e.g., years in operation, staff and volunteer size, operating 

budgets), self-assessment of organizational strengths and weaknesses, 

short-term and long-term needs, and use of support systems. Both 

Canadian and US surveys were available via Survey Monkey and 

distributed via email to all organizations for which we could locate a 

general organizational email address, specific staff/volunteer email 

address, or that possessed a website contact form. 

27
Methodology

All organizations received the same survey, with a few 

distinctions. The Canadian survey was prepared in English and French 

while one of the US survey links was prepared in English and Spanish, 

and survey text and answer choices reflected country specific differences 

in terminology, geography, political structures, and funding systems. 

Organizations also received one of eleven survey links based on country 

of operation and the pan racial category/ies indicated by organizational 

mission statement (in Canada: Aboriginal, culturally diverse, or White; 

in the US: American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Black, Latino & 

Caribbean, Multiracial, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, Some 

Other Race or White). In the United States, surveys were released to 

organizations in six waves (Canadian organizations were sent the survey 

in one wave). 

The Canadian survey opened on February 4, 2013, and the 

first US survey wave on March 19, 2013. All organizations received 

a minimum of one follow-up email reminder, and most Canadian 

organizations also received a phone call to encourage participation. Due 

to the greater size of the US database and resource constraints, only a 

small random sample of US organizations received phone calls, which 

may have been a factor in the lower observed response rates. In Canada, 

a total of 237 organizations appeared to have been successfully sent the 

survey (i.e., no indication that the email was not delivered) and served 

as the effective working population for this component of the project. 

In the United States, a total of 1601 organizations appeared to have 

been successfully sent the survey and thus served as the effective US 

working population for this component of the project. All surveys closed 

on October 18, 2013, for analysis of survey results. 

Seventy-two Canadian organizations and 355 US organizations 

responded to the survey for an overall Canadian response rate of 30.4 

percent and overall US response rate of 22.2 percent.11 Given the low 

absolute number of Canadian respondents within the context of the 

relatively small number of organizations in the Canadian database, 

our Canadian survey findings cannot be considered representative 

of the greater field of Canadian ethnocultural arts organizations and 

should only be interpreted as reflecting the views and situation of survey 

participants. For a population of 255 (the size of the Canadian database), 

the necessary sample size to make a claim of general representativeness 

with a 95 percent level of confidence and 5 percent confidence interval 

is 154 survey participants, a number which is more than double our 

number of Canadian participants. Moreover, in comparing the racial 

and provincial/territorial profiles of the Canadian database with the 

same profile of survey respondents (the only two areas of direct overlap 

between the two data sources), we know that survey findings are biased 

with respect to at least these two characteristics that are of key concern 

to this project (a third important characteristic is income; however, due 

to the manner in which the survey was drafted and implemented, we 

were unable to compare findings in this area). For example, Native arts 

organizations are overrepresented among survey respondents and White 

groups underrepresented; similarly, Québec-based organizations are 

overrepresented and Ontario-based organizations underrepresented. Set 

forth in Appendix U is a more detailed breakdown of response rates by 

pan racial grouping and the measurements referenced herein regarding 

the presence of bias in our Canadian and US surveys. 

Many factors may account for the low number of Canadian 

survey respondents. Based on Canadian survey respondent feedback 

and findings from the other components of the project, we can identify 

at least four possible factors: (1) heightened research interest in Canada 

regarding Native and culturally diverse arts, which may have resulted 

in some measure of survey fatigue among the more prominent of these 

organizations; (2) the small, decentralized, and/or volunteer heavy 

administrative operations of many organizations, resulting in limited 

resources to participate in a survey, especially one requiring information 

that is not easily discoverable; (3) the infrequency with which White 

arts organizations are involved in such projects, which contributed to 

challenges regarding initial terminology chosen by our team to identify 

this group in Canada (“other Immigrant”) that may have confused or 

offended potential participants and a general suspicion of the project’s 

goals; and (4) this project’s base in the United States, which may have 

raised concerns regarding a US bias and the utility of project findings to 

a Canadian context. 

In the United States, and taking into account the qualifications 

herein, survey findings may be treated as both generally representative 

of US ethnocultural arts organizations and more specifically 

representative as to race and geography. For a population of 2013 (the 

28
Methodology

size of the US database), the necessary sample size to make a claim of 

general representativeness with a 95 percent level of confidence and 

5 percent confidence interval is 323 survey participants. With 355 US 

survey participants, we exceeded this minimum requirement for general 

representativeness. We then compared our survey population with our 

working population (the US database) to ascertain the presence and 

extent of survey non-response bias (i.e., responding organizations are 

different from organizations that chose not to respond) in the survey 

findings. As with our Canadian survey findings, we searched for bias in 

the areas of pan racial representation and regional representation, two 

characteristics of particular interest to this project and where there was a 

direct overlap between database and survey findings. With the exception 

of Black respondents (underrepresented by 4 percent), Southern 

respondents (underrepresented by 6 percent), and Northeastern 

respondents (underrepresented by 4 percent), we found no statistically 

significant difference between survey respondents and organizations 

listed in the US database in the areas of race or geographic base. 

We possessed insufficient information with which to compare 

database and survey respondent populations for other possible areas 

of difference, and thus we do not know and cannot discuss the extent 

of bias with respect to such characteristics as income. As we were 

unable to electronically contact 412 organizations, or 20 percent of the 

US database, we do know that survey findings are 100 percent biased 

toward organizations that have a functional electronic communication 

infrastructure. For both Canada and the United States, our webbased approach to survey distribution directly resulted in a narrowed 

respondent base of organizations having access to e-mail and a computer 

and of English-literate organizations (although our survey was available 

in three languages, our cover email to organizations was in English, and 

an unknown number of organizations operating in other languages may 

have been precluded from participation). Acknowledging the presence 

of non-response bias in our survey respondent population, given the size 

of the sample and working on the assumption that it is random with 

respect to other traits, findings from this population may be generalized 

to the ethnocultural arts field. 

Clean copies of our survey questions are available as Appendices 

F (Canada) and G (US – English/Spanish version). Our raw Canadian 

survey results, with open-ended responses omitted to maintain the privacy 

of respondents, are available in pdf form as Appendices H–J. Our raw 

US survey results, with open-ended responses omitted to maintain the 

privacy of respondents, are available in pdf form as Appendices K–R. 

b. Interviews

To supplement survey responses and to obtain a deeper 

understanding of current and emerging needs and challenges, innovative 

means of addressing these challenges, feedback regarding existing 

support systems, and tools/services/resources that could better support 

the field, we also conducted in-person and phone meetings and site visits 

with a smaller group of ethnocultural arts organizations. 

Through the database creation process, we compiled an 

initial prospective interviewee list. Organizations were purposively 

selected based on such factors as possessing shared characteristics with 

other organizations within their pan racial grouping, characteristics 

that appeared to diverge widely from other organizations within 

their pan racial grouping (and/or the field as a whole), and unique 

or interesting programming or organizational history. While we 

prioritized organizations that had not been recently interviewed or 

featured in previous studies, we also specifically sought to include a 

few organizations that had been included in the Canada Council/

Department of Canadian Heritage’s 2004 report Stories from the Field: 

Perspectives on Innovative Management Practices for Aboriginal and Culturally 

Diverse Arts Organizations, and the NEA’s 1992 report Cultural Centers of 

Color, as a means of comparing reported organizational experiences over 

time. 

We then expanded this initial prospective list through the 

addition of organizations that self-identified in the survey (i.e., expressed 

an interest in participating in an interview) and were suggested by 

our advisory committee and other project stakeholders. Our list of 

interviewees further evolved as part of the interview process following 

the recommendations of other interview participants regarding other 

individuals and organizations to contact, and as our team continued 

to add or place less of a priority on organizations when certain artistic 

disciplines, regions, or pan racial groupings were becoming over or 

under represented. We note that not every organization that was on 

29
Methodology

our prospective list agreed to be interviewed, and due to time and 

resource constraints, we were unable to accommodate all organizations 

that expressed an interest in participating in this component of the 

project. Our final group of organizational interview participants came 

from a range of ethnic communities and arts disciplines and differed in 

organizational age and size. 

Our Canadian in-person organizational interviews took place 

during the months of April and May 2013 and with organizations 

located in the following cities and provinces: Vancouver, Burnaby, and 

Richmond (British Columbia); Edmonton (Alberta); Saskatoon and 

Regina (Saskatchewan); Winnipeg (Manitoba); Toronto, Ottawa, and 

Manitoulin Island (Ontario); Iqaluit (Nunavut); and Halifax (Nova 

Scotia). Phone interviews continued up through October 2013 and 

included additional organizations located in these cities, other cities in 

these provinces, and in Montréal (Québec).

Our US in-person organizational interviews took place from June 

to October 2013 and with organizations based in the following cities and 

states: Los Angeles, Santa Ana, Beverly Hills, San Francisco, Berkeley, 

Redwood City, and San Pablo (California); Phoenix (Arizona); Houston 

and San Antonio (Texas); Needham and Somerville (Massachusetts); 

Washington, D.C.; New York (New York); St. Paul and Minneapolis 

(Minnesota); Norcross, Atlanta/Dunwoody, and Townsend (Georgia); 

Chesterfield and St. Louis (Missouri); and Chicago (Illinois). Phone 

interviews continued into November 2013 and included additional 

organizations located in these cities, other cities in these states, and in 

Warm Springs (Oregon); Seattle (Washington State), Delta (Pennsylvania), 

Columbia (South Carolina), Boise (Idaho), and Honolulu (Hawaii).

We interviewed 40 Canadian and 68 US organizations for a total 

of 108 ethnocultural organizations. Our interview question template 

and instructions are provided as Appendices E and S, respectively, and a 

sample of one of our consent and release forms is provided as Appendix 

T. The organizational names of interview participants are listed in the 

beginning of this book. 

Information from the survey and organizational interviews was 

also informed by our interviews with arts service organizations and arts 

funders as part of the supports assessment process. 

4. Support Systems Assessment

Our support systems assessment consisted of the following: (i) 

the creation of a support systems database; (ii) formal phone interviews 

with arts service organizations and arts-related funders; and (iii) the 

feedback of art organizations as part of our needs assessment. 

Our approach to the support systems component of the project 

was based on the framework of arts support structures outlined in the 

2005 Boston Foundation report on arts service organizations.12 This 

study identified the following seven categories of services provided by 

arts service organizations/support systems: (i) advocacy/policy-related 

action; (ii) contracted/group services; (iii) convening and networking; 

(iv) education and training; (v) financial support; (vi) information 

and research; and (vii) promotion and audience development. As 

our literature review indicated that ethnocultural arts organizations 

consistently identified six of these support systems (i-v, and vii) as key,13

our analysis focused on these six services and considered services related 

to arts spaces. We emphasize that our focus was on arts-related support 

systems with missions and/or programs specific to ethnocultural arts 

communities. At least in theory, and depending on such factors as 

location, organizational structure, and budget size that would similarly 

affect non-ethnocultural arts organizations that are small, rural, and/

or community based, general arts support systems are also available 

to ethnocultural arts organizations. So are non-arts specific or related 

services, which our literature review and needs assessment research 

indicate may serve as important supporters of ethnocultural arts, at least 

within certain ethnic communities. Our decision to focus on the more 

specific area of ethnocultural arts support systems was due entirely to 

time and resource constraints and was not intended to minimize the role 

of other support systems. 

a. Supports Databases 

To identify and map support systems with missions and/

or programs specific to ethnocultural arts communities, we analyzed 

information on these systems contained in existing data sources provided 

by the CRA, NCCS, the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, 

public reports from Canadian and US governmental arts agencies and 

30
Methodology

foundations, and other sources. We reviewed these sources to create our 

own databases of support systems offering any of our targeted services 

that have programs focused on ethnocultural arts organizations. Where 

applicable, and in addition to information regarding these services, our 

database fields contain information on geographic location, targeted 

racial/ethnic group(s), targeted artistic discipline(s), and funding 

amounts. 

For both the Canadian and US supports databases, we began 

by extracting organizations from our ethnocultural arts organization 

databases that had been flagged through that coding process as either (i) 

functioning as both an ethnocultural arts organization and an arts service 

organization or (ii) being an arts service organization or arts funder 

for ethnocultural arts organizations. We then included ethnocultural 

arts service organizations identified through the literature review and 

needs assessment components of the project. In the United States, we 

further reviewed the following additional codes from the BMF to identify 

additional arts service organizations: 

• Alliances Advocacy (A01)

• Management and Technical Assistance (A02) 

• Research and Public Policy (A05)

• Arts Services (A90)

Finally, we expanded the scope of our search by reviewing national, 

provincial, and regional arts agency lists, arts discipline member 

directories from national, provincial, and regional arts service 

organizations (e.g., Canadian Dance Assembly), and other arts service 

organization member directories. 

While we have attempted to build a comprehensive listing 

of arts service organizations, including funders, that provide targeted 

support to ethnocultural arts organizations in Canada and the United 

States, we are aware that there were limitations to, and omissions in, 

our process. First, as we utilized overlapping sources in creating the 

ethnocultural arts organization databases and the supports databases, 

the latter are subject to many of the same limitations previously 

identified in the former. Second, resource constraints prevented us from 

reviewing the arts services offered by the United States’ approximately 

5,000 local arts agencies,14 and the lack of a comprehensive listing of 

Canada’s local arts agencies prevented us from identifying all of these 

arts agencies to review their arts services. As research indicates that local 

arts agencies have been a particular source of support for at least certain 

segments of the ethnocultural arts field, particularly within the United 

States, the absence of any local arts agency in the US supports database 

is a significant omission. Third, we note that many arts agencies and 

foundations provide directories regarding other available arts resources 

and that these lists are a potentially valuable source of information on 

arts service organizations with targeted services for the ethnocultural arts 

field. Due to resource constraints, we did not review the directories listed 

by each country’s arts agencies and community trusts. Fourth, and as 

has been the case with the ethnocultural arts organization databases, 

subsequent to finalizing the supports databases for data analysis, we 

identified organizations that for various reasons had inadvertently been 

omitted. An example of such an organization not included in the US 

supports database is the Association of African American Museums.

Acknowledging their limitations, the supports databases 

provided us with information on currently active arts-related service 

organizations with programs focused on ethnocultural communities. We 

began working on these databases in September 2012 and completed the 

Canadian database in October 2013 and the US database in February 

2014. There are 95 organizations listed in our Canadian supports 

database and 248 organizations listed in our US supports database. The 

databases are available as Appendices C (Canada) and D (US) in Excel 

format. 

b. Supports Interviews

To obtain another perspective on the expressed needs and 

support systems of ethnocultural arts organizations and to learn more 

about past and current programs, we interviewed a limited number of 

arts service organizations and funders. Taking a purposive sampling 

approach, we identified these prospective interview participants 

through the literature review process, needs assessment interviews and 

survey responses, and recommendations from ongoing support systems 

interviews identifying individuals possessing experience working with 

programs focused on ethnocultural arts organizations (as with our needs 

assessment interviews, we note that for various reasons we were unable 

to interview everyone on our prospective list). Our interview questions 

31
Methodology

were tailored to each interviewee based on the specific professional 

experiences of these individuals and their prior and/or current 

programs. Formal funder interviews began in December 2012 and arts 

service organization interviews began in June 2013; all interviews were 

completed by February 2014. 

Our Canadian interviews took place with organizations located 

in the following cities and provinces: Brentwood Bay, Vancouver, and 

Victoria (British Columbia); Edmonton (Alberta); Winnipeg (Manitoba); 

Toronto, Ottawa, and Kitchener (Ontario); Montréal (Québec); 

Whitehorse (Yukon); and Yellowknife (Northwest Territories). In Canada, 

we spoke with one national arts funding agency, four provincial arts and 

non-arts agencies, one foundation, and seven arts service organizations.

Our US interviews took place with organizations located in 

the following cities and states: Boston (Massachusetts); Sacramento 

and San Francisco (California); Brooklyn and New York (New York); 

Rapid City (South Dakota); Washington (DC); and Providence (Rhode 

Island). In the United States, we spoke with one national arts funding 

agency, two state arts agencies, one ethnocultural funder, and 11 arts 

service organizations. These interview participants are listed with our 

ethnocultural arts organization interview participants in the beginning 

of this book. 

Our final supports interviews consisted of 16 individuals from 

13 Canadian organizations and 15 individuals from 15 US organizations 

for a total of 31 supports interview participants. 

5. Recommendations

Following data collection and interview transcription, we 

undertook a data analysis to identify and highlight significant challenges 

and needs of ethnocultural arts organizations and to provide a profile of 

these organizations as a whole, by pan racial group, and by province/

region. We also compared findings from the needs and supports 

assessment components to perform a gap analysis on services provided. 

Our recommendations regarding means of better supporting 

and strengthening the field are based on survey and interview feedback, 

our own analysis of project findings, and the direct participation and 

feedback of project participants and advisors. Between July and October 

2014, we submitted drafts of this book to our advisory committee and 

project stakeholders identified through the research process who expressed 

an interest in participating in this final project component. During this 

time we reviewed and revised the draft, including recommendations, in 

light of stakeholder comments before finalizing this report and artist 

book, Figuring the Plural, for public dissemination. 

32
Methodology

Notes

1. Elinor Bowles, Cultural Centers of Color: Report on a National Survey

(Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts, 1993).

2. Although the Core-PC file contained more robust financial data, 

it was limited to organizations required to file the IRS Form 990. According 

to a change in IRS requirements in 2011, tax-exempt organizations posting 

annual gross receipts in the amount of $50,000 or less are not required to file 

a Form 990 or Form 990-EZ. As we suspected that a significant number of 

ethnocultural arts organizations would fall under this $50,000 threshold, we felt 

that we would overlook an unacceptable number of organizations by working 

in the Core-PC file and therefore decided to focus on the Business Master File. 

At the time of license, there were 40,739 organizations listed in the Core-PC 

arts file compared to more than double that number listed in the arts Business 

Master File. 

3. National Center for Charitable Statistics, Guide to Using NCCS 

Data (August 2006). http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/NCCS/extracts/

NCCSDataGuide2013.pdf. Unless otherwise stated, all information regarding 

the Business Master File and Core-PC file is based on the August 2006 version 

of the NCCS guidebook (we note that the NCCS has subsequently updated the 

guide, and the electronic link is to the June 2013 version). 

4. Originally developed by the NCCS and used by the IRS and the 

Foundation Center, the NTEE-CC is a classification system employed by a 

team of “IRS determination specialists” who classify organizations based on the 

descriptive data used by these organizations in their applications for recognition 

of tax-exempt status. National Center for Charitable Statistics, NTEE Core Codes 

(NTEE-CC) Overview. http://nccs.urban.org/classification/NTEE.cfm. This 

system “divides the universe of nonprofit into 26 major groups under 10 broad 

categories,” the first of which is “A” for Arts, Culture, and Humanities. (Ibid.) 

Other broad coding categories include Education, Human Services, and Public, 

Societal Benefit. Each of these groups is further subdivided into “common 

codes,” which indicate the primary activities of the organizations (e.g., Arts 

Research (A05)). (Ibid.) NCCS has added its own sub, or draft, codes to these 

codes to capture organizations such as Folk Arts Museums.

5. For guidance on the difference between these two types of charitable 

organizations, see “Registered charity vs. non-profit organization,” Canada 

Revenue Agency, last modified August 3, 2012, http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/

chrts-gvng/chrts/pplyng/rgstrtn/rght-eng.html.

6. Statistics Canada, Cornerstones of Community: Highlights of the National 

Survey of Nonprofit and Voluntary Organizations; 2003 revised (Ottawa: Statistics 

Canada, 2005), 15, http://sectorsource.ca/sites/default/files/nsnvo_report_

english.pdf.

7. National Center for Charitable Statistics, Guide to Using NCCS Data, 

5. 

8. James Bau Graves, Cultural Democracy: The Arts, Community, and the 

Public Purpose (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2005), 173 (italics added).

9. Data from the 2011 census was not publicly released until May 8, 

2013.

10. A very small number of organizations were also removed after 

they informed us during the needs assessment component that they either 

did not identify as an arts organization, or did not identify, as applicable, as 

an Aboriginal/culturally diverse/other immigrant (Canada) or ethnically/

culturally specific (US) organization (during the early stages of the needs 

assessment process we were using these terms). 

11. Response counts are based on Survey Monkey’s tabulation of 

responses. We note that during the data transfer and analysis process, 1 response 

from each of the Canadian culturally diverse and White surveys, and 1 response 

from the US Latino & Caribbean survey, appears to have been dropped in the 

transfer process. Although we double-checked our data download from Survey 

Monkey, we were unable to locate these three missing surveys. Thus there is 

a discrepancy in the total survey responses for these three pan groupings and 

overall country total reported here, and the totals reported elsewhere in the 

body of this book. 

12. The Boston Foundation, Arts Service Organizations: A Study of Impact 

and Capacity (Boston: Boston Foundation, 2005). 

13. See, e.g., Bowles, Cultural Centers of Color: Report on a National Survey, 

61: “[M]ost pressing organizational needs: funding, space, staff, memberships 

and volunteers, leadership training, marketing and public relations, community 

support and audience development, technical assistance, increased tour 

bookings, continued growth, and program development”; Louise Poulin, Stories 

from the Field: Perspectives on Innovative Management Practices for Aboriginal and Culturally 

Diverse Arts Organizations (Canada Council for the Arts and Canadian Heritage, 

November 2004), 37-41; Poirier Communications, Findings from the Survey with 

Aboriginal Dance Groups and Artists in Canada (Canada Council for the Arts, May 

2003), 4: “Needs over the short and long term for groups include the following: 

Web site design and upkeep; design, repair and creation of regalia/costumes; 

infrastructures; office support; dedicated artistic directors and dance teachers. 

There is also the need for funding, in particular for publicity and promotion.”

14. “Local Arts Agency Census,” Americans for the Arts, last accessed 

August 21, 2014, http://www.americansforthearts.org/by-program/networksand-councils/local-arts-network/facts-and-figures/local-arts-agency-census.

33

Image 10. Ashes on the Water, 2011 by Quelemia Sparrow and Noah Drew. Dancers: Daina Ashbee, Tasha Faye Evans, Julia Carr, Kathleen McDonagh, and 

Jeanette Kotowich. Choreographers: Michelle Olson and Kimberly Tuson. Co-produced by Raven Spirit Dance and Neworld Theatre and Commissioned 

by Neworld Theatre. Photograph by Chris Randle. Reproduced by permission from Raven Spirit Dance.

35
Terminology

Terminology

For purposes of this project, we define “ethnocultural arts organization” 

to mean a nonprofit organization that preserves, promotes, and/or 

develops, as evidenced from mission statement, programming, or both, 

the cultures of one or more explicitly identified ethnic group through the 

arts. We have interpreted arts to mean the practice of one or more of 

the following: visual arts; dance; music; theater; film; and the humanities. 

We have treated photography, fashion, and performance art as part of 

the visual arts, opera as part of theater, and storytelling as part of the 

humanities. Given the great diversity of artistic expressions included 

in this project, certain art forms did not clearly fit into any of the six 

categories, and for these forms we considered them alongside the category 

to which they appeared most comparable. We have included cultural 

centers where one or more of the art forms listed above were part of 

the center’s mission or a key aspect of programming and festivals where 

one or more of the art forms listed above were an intrinsic part of the 

festival. We have also included groups focused on diasporic communities 

alongside those focused on art directly from source communities (e.g., 

Latin American film festivals).1

As discussed in the Methodology, unless arts education was part 

of the programming or services provided by a cultural center or another 

organization that would independently qualify, we did not include arts 

education organizations/schools. We did not include history museums/

historical societies unless one of the six forms of artistic expression were 

part of organizational mission or a key part of programming, and we did 

not include social clubs. 

This project focuses on race, ethnicity, art, and culture, and 

thus is strewn with definitional landmines. While the project is not an 

investigation of terminology, we must acknowledge that the choice of 

the term “ethnocultural” is unconventional. We are also aware that 

terminology is an issue in the ethnocultural arts field, with much of it 

contested and subject to confusion.2 From a research perspective, the 

wide range of terminology used to describe ethnically specific arts 

made it difficult to search for literature on the field, and at times led 

to misunderstanding among project participants and other stakeholders 

regarding project scope. 

We sought to identify the simplest and least contested term to 

describe a complex subject, and as with everything else in this project, 

this process took us on a journey. Materials from our US literature 

review most frequently use the following terms to refer to our specific 

subject: ethnic arts, ethnically specific organization (variously with or 

without the addition of “arts”), culturally specific, multicultural, multiethnic, ethnically/culturally specific institution, ethnically/culturally 

diverse institution, and culturally diverse. Many of these terms are used 

interchangeably. By at least one account, the arguably most commonly 

used phrase “ethnically specific” emerged in the 1980s through the need 

of the “museum world to describe the wide range of museums, historical 

societies, survivor groups, and cultural centers across the nation devoted 

to the recovery and celebration of different American ethnic groups.”3

One of the most inclusive understandings of this phrase that we found 

was employed in the study Mapping Cultural Participation in Chicago, which 

defines “ethnically/culturally specific institutions” as “organizations 

whose mission statements explicitly identify their primary purpose as 

representing and/or targeting a particular ethnic or cultural group,” and 

defines “ethnically/culturally diverse institutions,” as “organizations 

whose mission statements explicitly identify their primary purpose as 

representing and/or targeting multiple ethnic or cultural groups.”4 We 

largely adopted these definitions, which most closely approximate our 

approach to this project.

Although ethnically specific literally relates to a focus on any 

ethnic group, as employed within the field of ethnocultural arts, it has 

generally been used to refer to a focus on any non-White ethnic group. 

For example, in the seminal work Cultural Centers of Color, which we have 

indicated earlier as commissioned by the NEA and authored by Elinor 

Bowles, Bowles employs the term “ethnically specific organizations” 

as shorthand for the more cumbersome “ethnically specific arts 

organizations of color.”5 This practice parallels more colloquial 

definitions of the phrase and some more formal definitions that treat 

“ethnic” as designating an “ethnic minority” and “characteristic of 

36
Terminology

or belonging to a non-Western cultural tradition. ‘ethnic dishes’| ‘folk 

and ethnic music.’”6 Moreover, and related to historical usage, the term 

“ethnic” carries lingering derogatory associations.7

Whereas “ethnically specific” possesses limited and negative 

interpretations, the popular alternative phrase “culturally specific,” 

when applied to racially/ethnically specific activity, is overly broad. As 

Bowles notes in her rejection of the latter term, “[m]ost people...felt 

that ‘cultural’ had too many superfluous meanings and, further, that the 

groups being discussed were not culturally homogenous but embraced 

a number of cultures.”8 This project focuses on arts activity that is 

rooted in specific ethnic heritages and is not intended to address other 

culturally specific arts activity, such as those organized around LGBTQ 

culture. However, having not identified an alternative term and finding 

“ethnically specific” to be more problematic, throughout the research 

process we opted to use the term “culturally specific” when working with 

US organizations.

In the Canadian context, we were presented with a completely 

different set of terminology-related challenges. Early in the Canadian 

literature review process, the head of the research division for a major 

Canadian funder informed us that the most commonly used terms in the 

field were “Aboriginal” and “Culturally Diverse.”9 “Aboriginal” has been 

defined by such entities as the Canada Council to mean the First Nations, 

Métis, and Inuit peoples of Canada, and “Culturally Diverse,” the latter 

term an alternative to the arguably more widespread expression “visible 

minority,” as meaning peoples of African, Asian, Latin American, 

Middle Eastern, and mixed racial descent. As our project includes all 

ethnocultural groups, including White groups, we then asked for the 

appropriate term to identify this third pan specific group, but no one 

we questioned during the literature review phase was able to provide 

us with a commonly used term. In addition, there did not appear to be 

one concise term to describe the field in its entirety. This situation is at 

least partly due to cultural policy developments in the 1980s and 1990s 

in Canada that led to a distinction between Native and other non-White 

groups in arts funding programs compared to the consolidation of all 

non-White groups in the United States into targeted arts funding for 

“minority” or “underrepresented” groups and such terms as “people of 

color” (see Part I). As a result, when we entered the needs assessment 

phase of the project, we used the following string of terms to describe 

the focus of our project: “Aboriginal, culturally diverse/ethno-racial, and 

other immigrant arts organizations” (the latter term our best attempt at 

describing White-specific organizations). 

During the interview process, several participants objected to this 

terminology. For example, when we met with members of a Native artist 

collective, they rejected the identifier “Aboriginal,” emphasizing that it 

was a term created and imposed by outsiders.10 When meeting with the 

Artistic Director of a Ukrainian dance company, we were reprimanded 

for our use of the term “immigrant,” which it was clear was a source of 

confusion. After comprehending that we were including all registered 

charity groups possessing an expressed ethnic mandate, the Director 

commented, “you mean ethnocultural arts organization.” It is thus that 

we arrived at the term “ethnocultural,” which is concise, largely free of 

the shortcomings associated with “ethnically specific arts organization,” 

more specific than “culturally specific,” and neither specific to Canada 

nor the United States but generally understood by individuals in both 

countries. We note that while we have elected to primarily use the term 

“ethnocultural” herein, we do employ other more common and country 

specific terminology when used in cited literature, when quoting project 

participants, and when context necessitates emphasis of a group’s racial 

or ethnic specificity.

We add a final note on the term “organization.” To facilitate 

our research, we focused on Canadian registered charities and US 

incorporated nonprofit organizations.11 In largely omitting unregistered 

and unincorporated group arts activity, we are conscious of the depth 

of perspectives and information that have not been included in this 

project. Scholars such as Dr. Maria Rosario Jackson and Dr. Alaka Wali 

have written of the richness of community cultural activity, including 

ethnocultural activity, occurring within the sector of the unincorporated 

arts.12 It is our hope that our book will contribute to additional interest 

in, and better support for, all ethnocultural artistic activity. 

37
Terminology

Notes

1. As our definition indicates, we included art forms like ballet, opera, 

and flamenco if the organization was explicit about its ethnic specificity.

2. For a thoughtful and condensed discussion of nomenclature in the 

field, see Vanessa Whang, “Arts Funding and Cultural Diversity in the United 

States” (unpublished report, Ford Foundation, April 2004), 3-5.

3. Fath David Ruffins, “Culture Wars Won and Lost: Ethnic Museums 

on the Mall, Part I: The National Holocaust Museum and the National Museum 

of the American Indian,” Radical History Review 68 (Spring 1997): 81.

4. Robert LaLonde, Colm O’Muircheartaigh, Julia Perkins, Diane 

Grams, Ned English, and D. Carroll Joynes, Mapping Cultural Participation in 

Chicago (Chicago: University of Chicago Cultural Policy Center, 2006), 45.

5. Bowles, Cultural Centers of Color: Report on a National Survey, 15.

6. “Ethnic,” Oxforddictionaries.com, accessed March 25, 2014, 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/

ethnic?q=ethnic.

7. Bowles, Cultural Centers of Color: Report on a National Survey, 15 

(remarking that “[s]everal persons consulted felt that ‘ethnic’ had residual 

pejorative connotations”).

8. Ibid.

9. Another term somewhat less commonly used is “racialized.”

10. This extremely important observation raises the greater issues of 

language employed to designate various racial and ethnic groups. The power 

and impact of naming, and its associations with colonialism that underlie many 

of the issues discussed in this work and form the historical background for the 

emergence of many ethnocultural arts organizations, is too great a subject to 

be treated cursorily. It is also outside the scope of this project. When referring 

specifically to Native groups based in Canada we have continued to use the term 

“Aboriginal” as, despite its clear foreignness, it is still the term overwhelmingly 

used by Canadian Native groups themselves when presenting their work to nonNative audiences. We also use the words “Indigenous” and “Native,” terms used 

more frequently within these communities. 

11. We have also attempted to include Section 7871 organizations and 

note that, as the project’s research progressed and based on the recommendations 

of registered/incorporated nonprofit project participants, we did conduct 

formal interviews with two unincorporated and one for profit ethnocultural 

arts organizations. Falling into these categories are, respectively, Chicago-based 

Teatro Luna, New York-based Fire this Time Festival, and Iqaluit–based Inhabit 

Media. We also met with one incorporated Canadian organization that, at the 

time of the interview, had not yet obtained registered charity status: Vancouverbased Raven Spirit Dance. 

12. See, e.g., Maria Rosario Jackson, Joaquín Herranz, and Florence 

Kabwasa-Green, Art and Culture in Communities: Unpacking Participation; Policy Brief 

No. 2 of the Culture, Creativity, and Communities Program (Washington, DC: The Urban 

Institute, 2003), http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/311006_unpacking_

participation.pdf; Alaka Wali, Rebecca Severson, and Mario Longoni, Informal 

Arts: Finding Cohesion, Capacity and Other Cultural Benefits in Unexpected Places

(Chicago: Columbia College Chicago/Chicago Center for Arts Policy, June 

2002), http://www.cpanda.org/data/a00121/Informal_Arts_Full_Report.pdf.

38
Image 11. Promotional postcard for Stir-Friday Night’s This Asian American Life sketch comedy revue, 2012. Back row, left to right: Gilbert Galon, Irene Tu, 

Sonia Khaleel, James Kannookadan, Dacey Arashiba, Avery Lee, Kannan Arumugam (seated), and Samantha Garcia (not pictured). Directed by Anthony 

LeBlanc. Photograph by Glen Abog. Reproduced by permission from Stir-Friday Night.

39
Introduction

Introduction

I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my 

windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all the lands to 

be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to 

be blown off my feet by any. I refuse to live in other people’s 

houses as an interloper, a beggar or a slave. – Mahatma 

Gandhi

Until the Lion has its own storyteller, the Hunter will always 

be the hero. – Ewe-Mina proverb

In the year leading up to the 2012 US presidential election, terms such 

as “real American,” “illegal immigrant,” “undocumented immigrant,” 

and “changing demographics” were prominent in political and cultural 

discourse. Reflecting diverging conceptions of what it means to be 

an American, the sentiments behind these expressions have existed 

in various iterations for over a century in both the United States 

and Canada. Frequently, the lexicon used to describe our national 

identities demonstrates a discomfort with, and an inability to directly 

discuss, issues relating to race and ethnicity in two countries with a 

deeply troubled past in these areas. In their own forms, these issues are 

reflected in developments within the art world as dialogue increasingly 

centers on the unrepresentative nature of art audiences and working 

artists when compared to the ethnic and socioeconomic profiles of 

our countries’ general populations. Coupled with a growing body of 

literature on the art field’s “diversity problem” are indicators that the 

field is failing to support artists and arts organizations from a range of 

ethnic communities.1 These failings are documented in the National 

Committee for Responsive Philanthropy’s release of Fusing Arts, Culture and 

Social Change (2011), a report by Holly Sidford regarding the continuing 

and pervasive underfunding of US social justice oriented and arts and 

cultural organizations working in traditions outside of the Western 

mainstream, and are suggested by information that, while Canada’s 

Aboriginal and culturally diverse population comprises 23 percent of the 

country’s general population,2 the Canada Council provided a mere four 

percent of its total operating funds to Aboriginal and culturally diverse 

arts organizations in the 2011-2012 fiscal year.3

 Beginning in 2011, the 

Canada Council began to phase out a number of capacity building 

programs run by its Equity Office, which addresses access to Canada 

Council arts discipline funding programs by culturally diverse and other 

“equity-seeking” arts groups, with the anticipated restructuring of such 

programs.

In that same year, the three of us – Ingrid, Kait, and Mina – 

entered our first year as master’s candidates in the arts administration 

and policy program of the School of the Art Institute of Chicago (SAIC). 

The three of us came from prior professional careers and extremely 

diverse backgrounds, and all of us sought to redirect those careers and 

build on particular interests: Ingrid, a former Toronto banker and once 

visual artist, was looking to further develop her own arts organization, 

which is focused on the work of Buddhist master and artist Master 

Shen-Long; Kait, a Pittsburgh performance artist and childhood cancer 

survivor, was interested in merging the fields of arts and healthcare in 

new ways; Mina, a New York-based but expat-raised intellectual property 

lawyer and former dancer/theater actress, was looking to transition into 

philanthropy to support the intersecting areas between arts and culture 

and community development.

While we remained, and remain, committed to the original 

reasons that brought us to SAIC, our experiences over the first few 

months in art school directed our attentions to (the lack of) ethnic and 

socioeconomic diversity within the school and the problematic relations 

between the school/affiliated museum and (certain of) Chicago’s 

community-based cultural institutions, and more generally resulted in 

a hyper-awareness of race relations within the visibly segregated city. 

Related, we found ourselves repeatedly pointing to assumptions behind 

organizational models presented in our courses, highlighting different 

interpretations of information regarding trends and cultural policies 

embedded in the US arts field, and frustrated with the limited art 

histories we were being taught. 

One particularly impactful experience took place over a 

weekend following a colloquia panel on the theme of “conferences and 

convenings.” During the panel discussion, guest speakers from small 

40
Introduction

artist-run and community spaces spoke of the importance of networking 

opportunities for these smaller kinds of organizations around the country 

as well as the need for appropriate professional development activities, 

opportunities to share resources, and shared learning on pragmatic 

strategies for supporting different types of arts spaces. Several of the 

panelists were in town to attend a conference that had been arranged by 

one of the panelists with the aim of achieving many of these objectives: 

to start a national conversation on creative activities occurring outside 

of traditional institutions and to spread knowledge on innovative 

organizing models and under-the-radar opportunities for affiliated artists 

and administrators. When asked how smaller arts spaces learned about 

the upcoming conference and similar opportunities, panelists referenced 

their own networks and word of mouth approaches to marketing. 

Several days later, Ingrid and Mina separately volunteered at 

the two major arts conferences taking place in the city that weekend: 

Ingrid at a conference geared toward larger arts institutions and held 

in Chicago’s centrally located East Loop, and Mina at the smaller 

conference highlighted in our colloquia and held in Chicago’s Bridgeport 

neighbourhood on the South Side. Travelling through areas that serve as 

home to a number of the city’s Black, Mexican, and Chinese American 

and immigrant residents to reach the conference space, Mina entered 

the space itself and a room that was almost entirely occupied by White 

Americans in their twenties and thirties. Further north and east, Ingrid 

walked into a similar room, except organizers and attendees were 

generally older. Seated near the entrances of both conference spaces 

and assigned to register and check in attendees, over the next two days 

we observed the stark difference between the ethnic demographic of 

those outside the conference walls and those within them. We also noted 

the absence of representatives from ethnocultural arts spaces. In a text 

exchange, Ingrid sent Mina the following comment: “You would think 

Chicago has no diverse cultural presence.” 

Slowly, these and similar incidents transformed into the Plural 

project. We had deliberately selected an arts management program 

based out of an art school because we wanted to consider management 

from art’s non-standardized, multi-perspective lens, and yet our 

instruction indicated that little of this multidimensionality exists in the 

art field’s governance models. A number of our lectures and assigned 

readings regarded the lack of diversity in the field and its need to 

attract younger, non-White audiences, but it had become apparent to 

us that all of this literature and the surrounding discussions focused on 

the perspectives of, and data about, large, mainstream arts institutions. 

We had numerous questions about what was occurring outside of these 

institutions, especially with respect to spaces reflecting our own cultural 

backgrounds. How were these issues of audiences and our countries’ 

changing demographics impacting and being addressed by spaces that 

were, by definition, dedicated to ensuring the existence of multiple 

perspectives within the art world? If these other cultural organizations 

weren’t attending the types of conferences SAIC was directing us to, why 

weren’t they, and how were they supporting themselves/being supported? 

What were their organizational models and needs?

From these initial questions, we developed a deeper interest in 

understanding what we saw as a key missing party in our studies and in 

conversations on the future (relevancy) of the arts field: ethnocultural 

arts organizations. Ethnocultural arts organizations tell the distinct 

histories and present-day experiences and traditions of “others”; 

existing in all racial groups, they render us all “other.” Compared 

to mainstream organizations, which often draw our attentions away 

from the dominant culture perspective behind their presentations of 

history and artistic tradition and affirm melting pot conceptions of 

multiculturalism, ethnocultural spaces point our attentions to, and 

illuminate the importance of, the multiple interpretations of History 

and Tradition. These organizations fulfill many of the same functions 

as non-ethnocultural arts organizations in collecting, conserving, 

creating, exhibiting, performing, and/or presenting art works. Inherently 

community-minded, they also assume one or more of the following roles: 

cultural advocates (promoting, celebrating, and recognizing a particular 

ethnic/cultural heritage, instilling pride in members of the group, and 

fostering self-determination), cultural interpreters (educating the larger 

public about the ethnic group), zones of contact that facilitate crosscultural understanding and communication, keepers of ethnic tradition, 

and sites of contest where prejudice and bigotry are exposed and 

challenged.4 By providing support for emerging artists and establishing 

venues for ignored art forms, they further serve as spaces for cultural 

growth and innovation. 

Beyond their various roles, ethnocultural arts organizations 

vary greatly in size, geographic location, level of resources, artistic 

41
Introduction

discipline and other programming, and in how “they perceive their role 

in the community, the city, or even the nation.”5 As scholars Anastasia 

Loukaitou-Sideris and Carl Grodach observe in an article regarding 

ethnic museums and even more applicable in the case of ethnocultural 

arts organizations more generally, “a careful examination of the mission, 

scope, and facilities of [these spaces] reveals that the perception of the 

ethnic museum as a homogenous construct is a myth.”6 Framing their 

differences in structure and objective are their emphases on community 

and artistry. Author Elinor Bowles writes that this “distinction represents 

a continuum rather than a dichotomy, since the missions of most 

ethnically specific arts organizations embody both artistic excellence and 

community involvement”; moreover, “[f]ew organizations are fixed at 

either end of the spectrum.”7 Adds Bowles,

A great many embody both emphases in equal 

measure, and some, over time, move from one point 

on the continuum to another. For example, once an 

organization feels firmly established as a community 

institution, it may begin to concentrate more on artistic 

quality. On the other hand, an art-focused organization, 

after establishing a reputation for producing and/or 

presenting excellent art, may more vigorously attempt 

to address the cultural needs of its primary ethnic 

constituency.8

Loukaitou-Sideris, Grodach, and Bowles illustrate only a few of the 

complexities within the ethnocultural arts field that complicate both its 

description and a presentation of its challenges.

Due to the field’s great heterogeneity, ethnocultural arts 

organizations defy simple categorization through the makeup of their 

artists, volunteers, or staff, which may possess a specific ethnic or racial 

background or may originate from several ethnic or racial backgrounds. 

These organizations cannot be defined by their audiences, which in part 

due to the nature of their community and/or art focus may also derive 

from a specific ethnic background or a range of ethnic backgrounds. 

Possibly one of the few features common to all organizations is their 

shared possession of an ethnocultural focus. 

Many ethnocultural arts organizations also explore the 

influences and intersections among cultures, which lead to a cultural 

“give and take” that blurs and problematizes boundaries among ethnic 

groups and shifting concepts of identity and community. Subsequently 

serving to “disrupt narrow, essentialized constructions of community,” 

these organizations offer “more complicated understandings of the 

group and their relationship to society at large.”9 At the same time, they 

provide a dedicated environment in which to address sensitive issues 

of race and ethnicity that is deliberately conscious of the full range of 

human experiences. Referencing our rapidly diversifying societies and 

increasingly complex national identities, a 1984 report by the thennamed American Association of Museums predicted that “[i]nstitutions 

dedicated to fostering and preserving particular ethnic heritages will be 

increasingly important in helping Americans understand their historical 

experience from different perspectives.”10

Despite their invaluable services, ethnocultural arts organizations 

have received little attention within the arts community, and there is a 

significant amount of unknown information about these organizations 

as a whole. In January 2012, searching for answers to our questions, 

Mina, Ingrid, and two other classmates,11 including Plural team member 

Patricia Morris Alava, decided to collaborate on a master’s thesis project 

directed toward identifying and documenting the characteristics, needs, 

and support structures of these organizations, which we eventually 

entitled the Plural project, or more simply, “Plural.” Over time, as we 

grasped the magnitude of the task we had undertaken and through the 

encouragement of our initial thesis advisors and SAIC academic and 

administrative staff, the Plural project grew from a more internal study 

of the ethnocultural arts field to an informal organization consisting of a 

16-member project team advised by a 13-member advisory committee. 

The Plural project’s objectives were, and are, as follows: (i) to 

collate existing research and develop new research on the characteristics, 

needs, and support systems of ethnocultural arts organizations; (ii) 

by collating and conducting such research, to expand knowledge of 

these organizations and thereby increase their visibility among the 

general public and deepen understanding among policymakers, service 

organizations, and funders; (iii) to identify existing supports available to 

these organizations and thereby increase use of existing supports; and 

(iv) to reveal gaps and inefficiencies in the existing support infrastructure, 

thereby assisting service organizations and funders in better designing 

and prioritizing their programs. It was, and is, the overall goal of the 

42
Introduction

project to heighten awareness, provide new insights, and lead to the 

strengthening of existing support structures and/or the creation of 

innovative approaches to bolstering the work of this important segment 

of the arts and culture field. 

On a more personal level, we were searching to learn from 

and connect with a community that better reflects the cultural plurality 

that exists and that we value in our own lives. We also sought to better 

understand, explore, and apply the concepts of cultural democracy and 

cultural equity to a project that has practical relevance. 

American musician and arts activist James Bau Graves describes 

cultural democracy as a “system of support for the cultures of our 

diverse communities that is respectful and celebratory, that gives voice to 

the many who have been historically excluded from the public domain, 

and that makes no claims of superiority or special status. It assumes 

a fundamental acceptance of difference.”12 Based on the idea that 

diverse cultures should be treated as equal, the application of cultural 

democracy “becomes a process of assisting communities and individuals 

to learn, express and communicate in multiple directions, not merely 

from the top – the elite institutions of the dominant culture – down.”13

We have attempted to remain faithful to this multidirectional, many 

culture concept in our approach to identifying the ethnocultural arts 

organization and more broadly in the structure of the project. Rather 

than follow certain common dichotomies separating racial groups (i.e., 

“ethnic” translating as non-White) and artistic forms (traditional versus 

contemporary), we included all ethnocultural groups and both forms. 

Seeing many similarities between Canada and the United States and 

differences that could lead to potential learning opportunities on both 

sides of the border, we included the two countries within the geographic 

scope of the project. While the two-country scope necessarily complicated 

the project and extended its timeframe, the decision was practical and 

personal: Canada and the United States are the countries where the 

majority of our team holds citizenship.14 On a structural level, we aimed 

at a flexible research design that invited project participants to guide the 

course of our research and to review, add to, and edit the final research 

product.

Whereas cultural democracy involves an embrace and 

acceptance of all cultures, we have found that cultural equity, similar 

to john powell’s “targeted universalism,”15 is generally understood and 

applied more narrowly as a framework and tool for addressing certain 

groups’ historical and continuing unequal access to funding and other 

resources necessary to support full cultural expression. Through this 

project, we have spoken with artists, arts administrators, and funders to 

identify these targeted/dedicated funding programs and arts services, to 

consider their strengths and weaknesses, and, hopefully, ultimately assist 

in the process of supporting the artistic richness of the cultural many. 

This book, Figuring the Plural, serves as written documentation 

of our past three years of research on the Plural project. Reflected 

in its pages is our evolving learning process, which took the form of 

a continual deconstruction and reconsideration of originally designed 

research and research presentation plans as, for example, we asked about 

organizations’ origin stories and a number described the full history of 

immigration of their ethnic group in the area. Or when we asked about 

needed arts services and some organizations replied by detailing concerns 

about the Keystone Pipeline and speaking of the Indigenous movement 

Idle No More. As our picture of the field increasingly appeared as a 

rhizome of characteristics, needs, and support systems, one of the few 

clear elements that emerged is that many ethnocultural arts organizations 

see themselves as inextricably linked to the concerns of both their origin 

and broader communities (however they are defined). In Figuring the Plural, 

we have followed this lead; where it seemed particularly appropriate, 

we broadened our frame to situate organizations within their political, 

economic, and/or social landscape. 

We began the Plural project conscious of larger assumptions in 

the United States concerning ethnocultural arts organizations’ current 

situation (in crisis), health (poor), and relevancy (questionable), and little 

information to work with in Canada; we absorbed these assumptions into 

the project itself and directly addressed them to interview participants. 

The interview component of the project was intentionally wide-ranging 

as, in addition to covering organizational needs and supports, in Canada 

Canada we identified an academic need for a more comprehensive, 

robust history of the field, in the United States we identified a need 

for an updated history, and in both countries we sought participants’ 

opinions on the initial questions that drew us to the project: the impact 

a more diverse demographic landscape was having on their work. 

To this latter subject, we found that the volunteers and staff at many 

ethnocultural arts organizations are dedicating much time to thinking 

43
Introduction

about their country’s changing audiences. Then again, such concerns 

have long been integrated into the missions and programming objectives 

of ethnocultural arts organizations. Rahul Varma, artistic director of 

Montréal’s Teesri Duniya Theatre, observes, 

I admit that there are a lot of plays where people 

insert one Black person, or one South Asian person, 

or one Chinese person and say, ‘Okay, we’ve become 

intercultural.’ I find that very insulting and very 

demeaning and not true. So we like to give equal weight 

to every character from different cultures and put them 

into the same stories. Why? Because that’s what the 

streets are. See? Most of my interaction with the outside 

world is happening on the street. So I cannot tell my 

story if I did not write the content of my interaction 

with the other people with whom I share the world. 

I think if you make your play in a manner where the 

cultures are part of the fabric of the play, it just invites 

people without any problem.16

This work of the plural is directed to the plural. We have 

purposefully constructed our tone and included information that is 

meant to be digestible by academic and non-academic audiences alike, 

and by members of the ethnocultural arts field, the arts community as 

a whole, funders and other service organizations, arts researchers, and 

the general public. Keeping these audiences in mind, we have organized 

the written elements of the book to combine our literature review, 

quantitative research findings (the databases and survey results), and 

the first voice perspectives gathered through our research’s qualitative 

component to present a picture of the field as it exists today. Part I: 

Historical Background provides a detailed overview of the history and 

development of the field and serves as the foundation for interpreting 

the information presented in Part II: Current Ethnocultural Arts 

Organizations (2013-2014). The second half of the book considers 

the current characteristics, needs, and support structures of the field as 

viewed more generally, by pan racial group, by province/region, and 

by life cycle stage, contains six essays written by contributing writers 

that more closely examine the particular challenges of certain types of 

ethnocultural arts groups and artists, suggested areas for future research, 

additional information regarding the artwork presented throughout the 

book, and a selected bibliography that highlights particularly relevant 

and influential readings we identified during the literature review phase. 

Attached separately as appendices are the four databases created for 

the Plural project, all closed-ended survey results, and certain related 

documents that detail the research process and the representativeness of 

survey findings. 

We note that we have taken a few unorthodox approaches in 

the presentation of information herein. We have, for example, made 

several unorthodox grammatical choices: (i) we intentionally use the 

first person plural to draw attention to our own authorial voice (and 

thus own specific perspectives) and (ii) we have deliberately placed our 

participants’ first voice perspectives in the present tense. In the book’s 

form, we have created a hybridized work that joins academia with 

advocacy and is meant to communicate on a textual and visual level. 

These different components are also meant to serve the many intended 

audiences for Figuring the Plural: in certain areas we provide information 

that will be more of interest and in the language of researchers, while in 

other areas we provide information that will be of greater interest to arts 

administrators. The combination of our own voices with the voices of 

scholars in the field and project participants is done with the intention of 

providing readers with a richer understanding of the field. 

Adding to his discussion on cultural democracy, Graves warns 

of the difficulty in its realization for “those who practice it must often 

work on unfamiliar terrain.”17 Throughout the Plural project, we were 

conscious of the unfamiliarity of the many cultural (and geographic) 

environments we were exposed to, and the histories, traditions, and 

art forms we were learning about, too often for the first time. Within 

this book, we have attempted to present an enormously complex 

field in a manner that is accessible, informs, entertains, and provokes 

discussion and action. Ethnocultural arts organizations are not, however, 

a monolith. While in certain sections we have grouped organizations 

into categories to organize our findings, we emphasize that there are 

many different experiences and perspectives within ethnocultural arts 

spaces, and nothing herein is intended to essentialize or negate the field’s 

complicated past and present, and its many challenges, needs, and, 

especially, strengths. Following Roberto Bedoya’s charge, we therefore 

proceed with caution, committed to figuring “the plural, with all its 

complexities and contradictions.”18

44
Introduction

Notes

1. See, e.g., Ben David, “Diversify or Die: Why the Art World Needs 

to Keep Up With Our Changing Society,” Blouin ArtInfo (blog), November, 

16, 2012, http://www.blouinartinfo.com/news/story/840695/diversify-ordie-why-the-art-world-needs-to-keep-up-with-our; Betty Farrell and Maria 

Medvedeva, Demographic Transformation and the Future of Museums (Washington, 

DC: AAM Press, 2010); Jillian Steinhauer, “Report Finds NYC’s Art World 

200% Whiter Than Its Population,” Hyperallergic, June 30, 2014, http://

hyperallergic.com/135474/report-finds-nycs-art-world-200-whiter-than-itspopulation/; Hill Strategies, Diversity in Canada’s Arts Labour Force: An Analysis 

of 2001 Census Data (Hill Strategies Research Inc., February 2005), http://

canadacouncil.ca/~/media/files/research%20-%20en/diversity%20in%20

canadas%20arts%20labour%20force/diversity_arts.pdf; Kelly Hill, “Diversity 

and Arts Attendance by Canadians in 2010,” Statistical Insights on the Arts 12, no. 

1 (March 2014), http://www.hillstrategies.com/sites/default/files/Diversity_

arts_attendance2010.pdf.

2. Percentage calculated from “2011 National Household Survey: 

Data tables,” Statistics Canada, last modified March 4, 2014, http://www12.

statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/dp-pd/dt-td/Rp-eng.cfm?lang=e&apath=3&de

tail=0&dim=0&fl=a&free=0&gc=0&gid=0&gk=0&grp=1&pid=107647&pri

d=0&ptype=105277&s=0&showall=0&sub=0&temporal=2013&theme=95&

vid=0&vnamee=&vnamef. 

3. Calculated from Canada Council for the Arts, Annual Report 2011-

12 (Ottawa: Canada Council for the Arts, 2012), 15-16. 

4. The roles listed herein have been identified in existing literature on 

the field and comport with our own research for the Plural project. See, e.g., 

Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris and Carl Grodach, “Displaying and Celebrating 

the ‘Other’: A Study of the Mission, Scope, and Roles of Ethnic Museums in 

Los Angeles,” Public Historian 26, no. 4 (Fall 2004): 59; Bowles, Cultural Centers 

of Color, 23. 

5. Loukaitou-Sideris and Grodach, “Displaying and Celebrating the 

‘Other’: A Study of the Mission, Scope, and Roles of Ethnic Museums in Los 

Angeles,” 56.

6. Ibid.

7. Bowles, Cultural Centers of Color, 23-24.

8. Ibid., 24. 

9. Virginia Diaz, “On Modeling Civic Engagement: Case Studies of 

Culturally Specific Museums and Latino Constituencies” (master’s thesis, John 

F. Kennedy University, 2005), 13, 39. 

10. Commission on Museums for a New Century/American 

Association of Museums, Museums for a New Century (Washington, DC: American 

Association of Museums, 1984), 24.

11. The fourth classmate was Jeanelle Chang (SAIC ’13), who left 

our team in the Fall of 2012. Plural co-lead Kait was present at the project’s 

inception, but largely served in a volunteer capacity until the Fall of 2013 when 

she formally joined the Plural team.

12. Graves, Cultural Democracy: The Arts, Community, and the Public Purpose, 

17. 

13. Ibid.

14. Members of the Plural project are also citizens of Mexico (Patricia), 

Haiti (Nathalie Pierre-Louis), France (Alex Aubry), and Ukraine (Alda Akhsar 

Tchochiev); however, we found less applicability of the Plural project to these 

other countries, in addition to needing to set some boundaries on the size of the 

project. Rebecca Duclos is a dual Canadian/US citizen.

15. See, e.g., Gary L. Cunningham, Marcia L. Avner, Romilda 

Justilien, “The Urgency of Now: Foundations’ Role in Ending Racial Inequity,” 

The Foundation Review 6, issue 1 (2014), 55, http://www.nwaf.org/content/

uploads/2014/04/FdnRUrgencyofNowPublished-3.pdf.

16. Rahul Varma (Artistic Director, Teesri Duniya Theatre), phone 

interview conducted by Mina Matlon, October 17, 2013, audio recording on 

file with Plural project co-leads.

17. Graves, Cultural Democracy: The Arts, Community, and the Public Purpose, 

18.

18. Roberto Bedoya, “...It is more about the courage of imagination 

and the plural,” ArtsJournal (blog), January 24, 2012, http://www.artsjournal.

com/leadorfollow/2012/01/it-is-more-about-the-courage-of-imagination-andthe-plural-2/.

45
Part I: Historical Background
Image 12. Nigel Grenier performs a beaver dance at The Museum of Anthropology at the University of British Columbia, 2011. Photograph by Ana 

Pedrero. Reproduced by permission from Dancers of Damelahamid.

47
Historical Background

The history of the field of ethnocultural arts organizations is 

neither generally known nor taught, including in art history and arts 

management programs, and we seek to change this situation. In 

addition, and specifically within the context of this book, we provide this 

historical overview for three principal reasons. First, this book is directed 

at many audiences, and while some will be aware of events and/or 

programs related herein, for others it will serve as an introduction to the 

ethnocultural subset of the arts community. Second, when compared to 

the arts field as a whole, the history of ethnocultural arts organizations is 

relatively short; we hope to offer a sense of the tremendous activity and 

enormous accomplishments of the field during this time. Third, mindful 

of discussions concerning the field’s organizational health, we present 

a different perspective. Through a consideration of the environments 

into which these organizations have emerged and operated, we provide 

another basis from which to consider persistent and emerging needs and 

other issues currently impacting the field. 

The information presented below is based on our literature 

review and our own research for the Plural project, including oral 

histories relayed to us through conversations with the volunteers and 

staff of ethnocultural arts organizations and service organizations, and 

other arts leaders, funders, and academics. The focus and structure of 

each section is intentionally country specific, and generally follows and 

reflects the manner in which individuals within each country discussed 

this history. It also reflects the information available to us given time and 

resource constraints along with editorial decisions in the presentation 

and selection of information to include and thus is not intended to 

be comprehensive. The Plural project collected much information 

concerning the field’s history and development, and we have done our 

best to consolidate this information in a manner that also serves to inform 

and frame the information contained in Part II. As such, and as with the 

narration of any story, this Historical Background ultimately reflects our 

own interpretations of this history.

Canada

Literature on Canadian ethnocultural arts organizations is 

sparse. Research on the field appears to have begun approximately 11 

years ago, with most literature regarding 

the somewhat broader field of Aboriginal 

arts rather than a specific consideration 

of Aboriginal arts organizations, and 

with virtually no information pertaining 

to non-Aboriginal ethnocultural arts 

organizations. In constructing this section, 

we have therefore been strongly guided by 

personal accounts of developments in the 

field.

To provide insight into the lack 

of a written history, or histories, and the 

relative youth of Canadian ethnocultural 

arts organizations when compared to 

their US-based peers, we have set first 

voice perspectives against the backdrop of 

past federal policies that highly prioritized 

immigration from Western Europe and 

that were designed to eradicate Aboriginal 

cultural practices. These policies, which spanned well over a century, 

have shaped contemporary government arts funding protocols in place 

to support ethnocultural arts organizations. Our history of Canada’s 

ethnocultural arts organizations thus tracks and is divided into four 

periods of implicit and explicit cultural policy: (i) a period dominated 

by overtly assimilationist legislation; (ii) a national push to develop a 

“Canadian” culture during the 1950s and 1960s; (iii) the move toward 

multiculturalism beginning in the 1970s; and (iv) the inception of 

governmental support for ethnocultural arts organizations beginning in 

the 1990s. 

Pre-1950

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Canada’s legislation 

was steeped in discriminatory immigration policies that sought to 

discourage immigrants from countries other than the United Kingdom, 

the United States, and Northern Europe, and among its many impacts, 

this legislation shaped the growth and composition of ethnocultural 

arts organizations.1 Beginning in the late 1800s, a demand for labor 

We all want to know that 

our stories matter. What 

we’re told over and over 

again by the ‘powers 

that be’ is that our story 

doesn’t matter. Our story 

doesn’t really matter 

because it’s too black, or 

it’s not black enough. Or 

it’s too angry or not angry 

enough. Or too gay, not 

gay enough. Doesn’t have 

enough white characters 

in it. Doesn’t have enough 

black characters in it.

—Kevin Free, Fire This Time 

Festival (September 23, 2013)

48
Part I

drew many immigrants from Hungary, Italy, Russia, and Ukraine to 

the country.2 While this trend continued to rise gradually for decades, 

the majority of immigrants during the first half of the 20th century 

originated from the United States and United Kingdom.3 Preceding 

these immigration waves, however, was immigration from China that 

began in the 1850s and continued steadily as many Chinese laborers 

were employed to build the Canadian Pacific Railway between 1880 and 

1885. Immediately following the completion of the railroad in 1885, 

federal policies enacted over the next 62-year period attempted to stop a 

continued influx of Chinese immigrants in a multitude of ways, including 

(i) the mandatory government registration of Chinese immigrants in 

1885, (ii) the imposition of head taxes, which were first imposed in 1885 

and then increased by 900 percent over the next 18 years,4 and (iii) the 

restriction of all further Chinese immigration in 1923.5

In 1947, An Act Respecting Citizenship, Nationality, 

Naturalization, and the Status of Aliens repealed the racist Chinese 

Immigration Act of 1923, but discrimination remained in governing 

policies. As another attempt to maintain control over the demographic 

landscape of Canada, the federal government instituted a policy 

that favored immigrants with a history of successful assimilation into 

Canadian culture. The changes made in 1947 outlined Canada’s desired 

immigrants: “British, Americans, and northern Europeans.”6

 In contrast, 

“[l]egislated bars against Asians remained in place, and administrative 

tinkering ensured that southern and eastern Europeans would find it at 

best difficult getting into Canada.”7 This flow of immigrants arriving in 

the first half of the 20th century served as a catalyst in the formation of 

ethnocultural arts initiatives in Canada. 

While identifying a specific date to mark the birth of 

ethnocultural arts organizations is challenging, there was a flurry of 

activity within the field in the early 1900s that suggests field growth and 

composition mirrored immigration patterns of the time. Though likely 

not the first ethnocultural arts organizations, the oldest organizations in 

the Plural project’s Canadian ethnocultural arts organization database 

appear to be the Alliance Française de Toronto, established in 1902 and 

obtaining registered charity status in 1976, and the Trail Pipe Band in 

Trail, British Columbia. Promoting the Scottish tradition of piping and 

drumming, the Trail Pipe Band has been playing continuously since 

the 1920s and became a registered charity in 1967, which is a year of 

particular significance for nonprofit organizations.8 Following federal tax 

reforms, charities were required to register beginning in 1967 to qualify 

for certain benefits of their tax-free status, and thus the year marks the 

earliest possible effective date of status for any registered charity.9 Seven 

of the 255 organizations listed in the Plural project’s Canadian database, 

or just under three percent, were registered in 1967, and at least five of 

these organizations were active before this date.10

Many of these early ethnocultural arts organizations were 

forged out of a need to build community and connect Canadians to their 

cultural heritages. For the Canadian Hungarian Cultural Society of 

Edmonton (CHCS), arts and culture related programming, including a 

dramatic society and music concerts, began as early as the 1940s and was 

arranged and engaged in by a mixed group of Hungarian immigrants.11

Although there were Hungarian Canadians in the early 1900s, the first 

large influx of Hungarian immigrants began in the years following 

World War II. The second substantial wave began in 1956 as a result of 

the Hungarian revolution and due in part to the Canadian Hungarian 

1884

1950

1884: Indian Act amendment bans Potlatches

1885: Chinese Immigration Act imposes head 

taxes and forces mandatory government 

registration on all Chinese immigrants

1890s: Residential school era begins

1947: An Act Respecting Citizenship, Nationality, 

Naturalization, and the Status of Aliens enacted

49
Historical Background

refugee resettlement program, which brought approximately 37,000 

Hungarians to Canada.12 Artistic Director Susanna Biro notes that 

...the people who were involved in founding this society 

would have been from both of these groups...All of 

them would have been volunteers... having the cultural 

background in common. And the majority would have 

been interested in artistic and cultural pursuits because 

that was the rationale also behind the organization.13

The origins of other first generation ethnocultural arts 

organizations were more overtly political. One such example is the 

Winnipeg-based Ukrainian Cultural and Educational Centre (UCEC), 

which was founded in 1944 at a time when the Ukrainian Canadian 

community was divided across religious and political lines.14 The first 

Ukrainian immigrants who arrived in Canada came during the late 

1890s and were mostly economic immigrants who travelled to the 

country in search of work. Two subsequent immigration waves followed 

World War I and World War II and largely consisted of political refugees 

who were unable to stay in either the Soviet Union, or Poland, and were 

unwilling to return to Soviet territories.15 By one estimate, “some 35-

40,000 Ukrainian refugees would relocate to Canada...by 1951, there 

were some 395,000 Ukrainian Canadians.”16 UCEC was formed out 

of a need to educate and unite these disparate groups of Ukrainian 

Canadians about their shared cultural heritage as well as a need to 

preserve, protect, and promote the arts and culture of Ukraine.

Conscious of the destruction that World War II had caused in 

their country of origin, Ukrainian Canadians were motivated to protect 

their cultural heritage through the collection and preservation of cultural 

artifacts. As related by the executive director and chief of collections at 

UCEC,

 

We participated in community public actions of protest, 

petition writing and all that kind of thing, when the 

Soviets were destroying cultural property in the territory 

of Ukraine. We continued to collect any kind of cultural 

property that had provenance from Ukraine, because 

after the Second World War, there was a great influx of 

immigrants, refugees from Ukraine...and many of them 

came with cultural property in their suitcases. So our 

organization offered a home for that property...there 

was a focus on saving what was taken out of Ukraine 

during the war. In fact, some of our best items came to 

us that way, dating from the 17th and 18th centuries.17

UCEC has a longstanding history of innovative programming and 

collecting practices that has helped to make its collection of materials 

on Ukrainians become the largest community-based archive in North 

America.18 In the late 1940s, the organization held a contest to collect 

stories from new Ukrainian immigrants reflecting on their experiences 

during World War II. The prize for the winning submission was 

publication;19 many of the stories include information regarding 

accounts of the Great Ukrainian famine, long denied by the Soviet 

Image 13. Lira Ensemble soloist Anna Zurek Wojtelwicz and the men 

of the Lira Dancers in authentic folk garb from the Rzeszow region 

of Southern Poland. Photograph by Warren Johnson. Reproduced by 

permission from the Lira Ensemble.

50
Part I

Union and government of Ukraine.20 This collection of between 80 and 

100 documents attracts the attention of both Ukrainian Canadians and 

scholars of Ukrainian history as the accounts are from primary sources 

and were written a mere 15 years after the famine.21

When Canada signed the Universal Declaration of Human 

Rights in 1948, the move may have sparked a shift in Canadian 

immigration policy as lawmakers found themselves confronting charges 

of hypocrisy both at home and abroad.22 Nevertheless, despite the 

increased criticism, amendments made to the Immigration Act in 1952 

granted power to the Governor-in-Council to continue to discriminate 

against ‘non-preferred’ immigrants for reasons including nationality, 

citizenship, geographical area of origin, customs deemed ‘peculiar,’ 

and the fear that immigrants would not be able to assimilate into a 

Eurocentric Canadian way of life.23

Simultaneously, Canadian legislation was directed toward 

eradicating Aboriginal culture through forced assimilation.24 The 

residential school system was possibly the biggest attack on the cultures 

of Aboriginal peoples. With the first residential schools established in 

Upper Canada25 in 1840, in 1879 the federal government adopted a 

national policy that focused on creating and supporting additional 

residential schools.26 This policy was based on the Indian industrial 

school system that had been developed in the United States under 

President Ulysses S. Grant’s Policy of Aggressive Civilization, enacted in 

1869.27 Initially conceived and administered by Christian churches and 

funded by the federal government,28 this system created a partnership 

that lasted until the government took control of the residential schools in 

1969.29 Between 1883 and 1884, the government allocated an estimated 

$44,000 for the establishment of schools in the West30 and by the 1890s, 

the rapid expansion marked the beginning of the “residential school 

era.”31 An estimated 150,000 Aboriginal children attended as many as 

80 residential schools.32

The residential school system was designed to erase all traces 

of Aboriginal culture through the assimilation of Aboriginal children 

into Canadian society.33 Children were removed from their homes and 

their families and in many cases were forced to travel hundreds of miles 

to attend school.34 These schools enforced the European Canadian and 

Christian values of the dominant society: “The seeds of those values 

were, of course, embedded in each and every academic subject, in the 

literature they read, the poetry they recited, and the songs they were 

taught to sing.”35 Punished for speaking their own languages or engaging 

in their own cultural traditions, Aboriginal children were instead directed 

to recite Christian prayers daily, to dress in European clothing, and were 

instructed in the gender-specific roles of a modern Eurocentric Canadian 

economy.36 Over the long history of the residential schools, students were 

subjected to substandard living conditions and harsh punishments such 

as beatings and being shackled to beds, emotional, physical, and sexual 

abuse, neglect, overwork, overcrowding, poor ventilation, sanitation 

issues, disease, and even death.37 

As Canada’s educational system was working to strip Aboriginal 

youth of their cultures while away from home, other federal laws 

were directed toward rendering the practice of Aboriginal cultures 

illegal inside Aboriginal homes and communities. From 1884 to 1951, 

multiple amendments to the Indian Act made repeated attempts to 

outlaw potlatches, Tamanawas dances, Blackfoot sundances, and the 

Cree and Saulteaux thirst dances as well as participation in stampedes 

and exhibitions.38 Furthermore, the amendments outlawed exchanging 

money, goods, and/or gifts before or after ceremonies, dances, or festivals 

and wearing Aboriginal costumes or dancing off of an individual’s 

home reserve all in an attempt to make the banning of potlatching 

more clearly defined, and therefore enforceable, under the law.39

Despite these and other attempts to eliminate Aboriginal ceremonies 

and cultural practices, Indigenous peoples privately maintained their 

culture. After a Christmastime potlatch held in 1921, local government 

officials, operating under the general direction of Indian Affairs Deputy 

Superintendent Duncan Campbell Scott, confiscated a number of 

ceremonial items. Many of these items were later sold and eventually 

ended up at the Canadian Museum of Civilization and the Royal British 

Columbia Museum.40

As with its immigration policies, slowly the government began 

to change direction with respect to its discriminatory policies against 

Aboriginal peoples. In 1951, with the passing of another amendment 

to the Indian Act, the government finally lifted the provision that had 

outlawed potlatching and participation in certain other Aboriginal 

cultural practices. Additionally, in the 1950s, the Department of Indian 

51
Historical Background

Affairs began to reform the residential school system, though the long 

overdue changes benefited the teachers more than the students. The 

policy changes included a shift from a half work day and half school day 

to a full school day, hiring more competent teachers, and the start of the 

discussion of integrating schools that would allow for some children to 

remain at home when possible.41

1950-1970

1951 marked the beginning of noteworthy changes in Canada’s 

cultural landscape. The publication of the Massey-Lévesque Royal 

Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences (Royal 

Commission) in this year has been cited for serving as the catalyst for 

the growth of Canada’s mainstream arts42 as it problematized both 

the perceived lack of a distinctly Canadian culture and the country’s 

dependence on the importation of US culture and generosity.43 The 

Royal Commission called for the formation of the Canada Council, which 

was established six years later (1957). 

In its formative period, the funding priorities of the Canada 

Council were narrowly focused on “developing a professional arts 

infrastructure in both official languages, principally in urban areas.”44 

As artist, curator, and researcher France Trépanier notes in Aboriginal Arts 

Research Initiative: Report on Consultations, the Canada Council was solely 

“concerned with European-based art forms, such as ballet, classical 

music, theatre, and literature.”45 The Royal Commission significantly 

undervalued the artistic practices of Canada’s Aboriginal peoples, 

having posited that the extinction of Aboriginal arts and culture was 

inevitable, and this sentiment, observes Trépanier, potentially led to the 

Canada Council disregarding the work of Aboriginal artists during this 

“nation building period.”46 Although the Royal Commission labeled the 

work of these artists as “lesser arts and crafts,”47 the report did call for 

some assistance in preventing Aboriginal arts and cultural practices from 

disappearing entirely. However, the Royal Commission ignored the role the 

government had in violently suppressing these cultures in the first place:

...a flexible programme is needed to encourage Indians 

to produce their best work; publicity and information are 

needed to enable other Canadians (already, as we have 

seen, keenly interested in handicrafts) to understand 

its value. We have even had a suggestion that a special 

council reporting to the Cabinet be responsible for this 

work.48

Following the establishment of the Canada Council, provincial arts and 

cultural councils slowly began appearing in the 1960s; the first was the 

Québec Department of Cultural Affairs (1961), followed by the Ontario 

Arts Council (1963), and the Manitoba Arts Council (1965). 

The cultural landscape of the 1960s was further shaped by 

the rise of Aboriginal activism,49 which brought increased attention 

and, for the first time, some support to Aboriginal arts and culture, and 

sweeping changes to immigration policy. In the middle of the decade, 

the Kwakwaka’wakw began to pressure the National Museum of Man 

for the repatriation of the Potlatch items that had been confiscated 

by the Department of Indian Affairs in 1922.50 By 1965, the Indian 

and Northern Affairs Canada Centre, now known as the Aboriginal 

Art Centre at Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada 

(AANDC) was established to support the development of Aboriginal 

artists working in both traditional and contemporary artforms.51

1950

1970

1951: Ban on potlatches is lifted

1957: Canada Council established 

1965: INAC Centre (now AANDC) founded

1967: Indians of Canada pavilion is featured at 

Expo 67

1969: Canada officially becomes a bicultural, 

bilingual nation 

52
Part I

In addition, the Indians of Canada Pavilion at Expo 67 was 

unprecedented as it afforded Aboriginal peoples from across the 

country the opportunity to showcase their art and culture to a national 

and international audience. Individuals working on the exhibition 

used this opportunity to address the devastating effects of Canadian 

policies on the various Aboriginal ways of life. The Indians of Canada

Pavilion confronted the nation’s history of forced religions, broken 

treaties, and the pervasive imposition of Eurocentric culture.52 Both 

Expo 67 and the 1967 production of The Ecstasy of Rita Joe, produced 

by the Vancouver Playhouse in British Columbia, marked an important 

moment in the history of Aboriginal arts in Canada as these two artistic 

endeavors presented Aboriginal life in a mainstage context and drew 

attention to concerns regarding authenticity and representation:53

These encounters, such as the Indians of Canada 

Pavilion, served to illustrate the question of ‘ownership’ 

of Aboriginal images and stories. Who would create 

them? Who would present them? Where, how and 

to whom would they be presented? These questions 

continue urgently to the present day.54

The heightened visibility of human rights concerns and shifting 

political and cultural climate was reflected in legislation enacted during 

this period. In 1960, the Canadian Bill of Rights was signed into law, 

making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, color, 

religion, or sex, and thereby continuing to project the country’s image 

as a liberal democracy. Immigration reforms passed in 1962 were meant 

to quiet claims of discrimination based on the grounds of race, color, 

and/or ethnicity by calling for skills-based selection.55 Counter to these 

reforms, however, the federal government also limited the sponsorship 

rights of non-European immigrants, and critics complained that these 

changes were still discriminatory and questioned the vague skill-based 

selection policy.56 The actions of both groups were in response to the 

increasingly diverse composition of immigrants as immigration levels 

grew; eventually, this trend was reinforced by the immigration overhaul 

in 1967, which resulted in the adoption of the points system.57

In 1969, Canada officially became a bilingual, bicultural nation, 

a move that simultaneously hinted at a vision of a Canadian culture 

defined not by assimilationism but by heterogeneity while it reaffirmed 

the government’s allegiance to the predominant British and French 

cultures. Research for the Plural project suggests that ethnocultural arts 

organizations during this period reflected this tension. We identified 

no information to indicate the field’s size, but based on interviews and 

a review of the project’s ethnocultural arts organization database, it 

appears that most ethnocultural arts organizations continued to track 

immigration patterns and thus were primarily founded and based 

in European-origin and other White communities. Among these 

organizations were Edmonton’s Ukrainian Shumka Dancers (1959), the 

Sudbury Finnish Male Choir (1960), and the Saskatoon-based Yevshan 

Ukrainian Folk Ballet Ensemble (1960). Emerging during the same 

period to support White ethnocultural arts organizations and artists 

were a few ethnocultural arts service organizations such as the Ukrainian 

Association of Visual Artists of Canada (1955); however, our research 

suggests that most support for these organizations derived from informal, 

community-based sources.

The political and cultural atmosphere of increased tolerance, 

if not yet support, also began to create a more hospitable environment 

for the emergence of ethnocultural arts organizations from other 

ethnic groups. Two of these pioneers were the Toronto-based Japanese 

Canadian Cultural Centre (JCCC) and Vancouver-based Dancers of 

Damelahamid. Founded in 1963, JCCC currently supports a wide array 

of arts and culture programming, including the Toronto Japanese Film 

Festival. Dancers of Damelahamid, which was founded in the 1960s 

“out of an urgency to ensure that the knowledge of [the group’s Gitksan 

ancestors] was not lost, and to uphold the ancient cultural wealth,” of 

this lineage, has evolved into an acclaimed professional Aboriginal dance 

company, a development facilitated in part due to “a changed society 

[that] created the context for the dances to survive through a new role: 

dance as a performance for public audiences, rather than as a private 

expression...”58

1970-1990

Propelled in part by the changing demographic landscape, 

governing policies adopted in the 1970s and 1980s shifted from an 

emphasis on assimilation to multiculturalism as an inherent part of 

53
Historical Background

“Plug from the Bush”

The below information (and reminder) was provided to us courtesy of 

the Debajehmujig Creation Centre’s Executive Director Ron Berti:1

I am thinking that there is a rather important influence that I 

haven’t found represented, and it was the inspiration behind an entire 

generation of artists including the founders of Debajehemujig, Shirley 

Cheechoo and Blake Debassige. It is Tom Peletier, the Manitou Arts 

Foundation, and the Schreiber Island School.

With the cultural emancipation of the Anishnaabeg of the Great 

Lakes beginning in 1960, Wikwemikong led the way by establishing the 

first modern day Aboriginal Cultural Celebration in Eastern Canada – 

the Wikwemikong Pow Wow. This happened in Wikwemikong because 

it remained such a strong monoculture on this large Unceded peninsula. 

Leaders quickly emerged and in 1966 Tom Peletier started the Manitou 

Arts Foundation. Tom was an Ojibwe writer from Wikwemikong who 

was concurrently assisting with the creation of the Indians of Canada 

Pavilion for Expo ‘67. [Citing an art historical piece written by Ojibwa 

artist and storyteller Nokomis, who grew up on land north of Lake 

Superior, Berti continues,]

Tom organized a summer school which was held on 

Schreiber Island, with Daphne Odjig, Carl Ray and 

Gerald Dokis as resource people. Among the students 

were Cheechoo, Debassige, Randolph Trudeau, Leland 

Bell, and Martin Panamick, who went on to achieve 

reputations as Indian artists with their own unique 

visions and styles that still bear certain indications of their 

origin in Manitoulin’s Manitou Arts program. Legends 

and traditional stories were what most often inspired 

the young painters, but they were also interested in 

nature painting, cultural history, and storytelling. These 

young artists later found mutual support and a cultural 

framework through the summer art programs organized 

by the Ojibwe Cultural Foundation, which continued 

the arts and culture programs of the shorter-lived 

Manitou Arts program. In 1976 and 1977, the summer 

arts site chosen was Dreamer’s Rock on the Birch 

Island Reserve of Manitoulin. The site had spiritual 

significance. In the past, young Anishinaabeg had gone 

there on a vision quest to seek direction in their lives. It 

was hoped that the choice of site might enhance artistic 

visions. The meetings indeed strengthened Indian ways 

and values – as seen in their paintings and drawings that 

celebrated old ceremonies and new dreams.2

Wikwemikong has continued to be a cultural resource as it 

provides all aspects of a fully independent reserve community that is 

not a fly-in isolated and remote community. We refer to it as a ‘cultural 

home community.’ And while many other companies receive credit for 

productions because they are recorded once they are produced – few 

people look at the influence of this arts organization on a reserve as 

it has served a great many native playwrights. Tomson Highway lived 

on the reserve with our president Marjorie Trudeau and based the Rez 

Sisters characters on the people he came to know. It was workshopped at 

Debajehmujig before it reached Toronto. Drew Hayden Taylor lived with 

Marjorie – playwright of Toronto at Dreamer’s Rock. As did Larry E. Lewis 

– Lupi the Great White Wolf – the first full length professional production 

entirely in Ojibway. The first group of Aboriginal Canadian Actors Equity 

Artists was almost all from Wikwemikong and alumnae of Debajehmujig 

– Gloria Mae Eshkibok, Levi Agounie, Kevin Eshkawkogan, as well as 

the first Aboriginal Equity Stage Manager – Jeffrey Trudeau. These were 

all people who were born and grew up and continue to live on reserve.

Notes

1. Ron Berti (Executive Director, Debajehmujig Creation Centre), 

email message to Mina Matlon, July 24, 2014, email on file with Plural project 

co-leads.

2. Nokomis, “Woodland School Influence,” Native Art in Canada; An 

Ojibwa Elder’s Art and Stories (blog), http://www.native-art-in-canada.com/

woodlandsschoolinfluence.html.

54
Part I

Canadian identity. Activism during the period further established the 

foundation necessary to inspire and support the substantial numeric 

growth of ethnocultural arts organizations that also began at this time:

Events and developments during the 1960s paved 

the way for the eventual demise of assimilation as 

government policy and the subsequent appearance 

of multiculturalism. Pressures for change stemmed 

from the growing assertiveness of Canada’s 

Aboriginal peoples, the force of Québécois 

nationalism, and the increasing resentment of 

ethnic minorities toward their place in society.59

In 1971, the federal government adopted an ethnocultural policy and 

earmarked close to $200 million, or approximately $1.215 billion in 2014 

dollars when adjusted for inflation (real dollars), for its implementation.60

The objectives of the ethnocultural policy were multiple:

• To help cultural groups preserve and promote their 

ethnocultural identity;

• To help cultural groups overcome the obstacles that prohibit 

them from participating in Canadian society;

• To foster cultural exchanges amongst Canadian cultural 

groups; and

• To assist all immigrants in obtaining proficiency in at least 

one of Canada’s official languages.61

Michael Dewing, author of Canadian Multiculturalism, has 

referred to the period between 1971 and 1981 as the formative 

period of the multicultural policy. This 10-year span witnessed the 

formation of a variety of government initiatives designed to aid in 

accomplishing the goals set forth by the ethnocultural policy, including 

the creation of a Multicultural Directorate within the Department 

of Secretary of State in 1972 and a Ministry of Multiculturalism in 

1973, and the establishment of the Canadian Consultative Council on 

Multiculturalism (now the Canadian Ethnocultural Council) also in 

1973. Key among its objectives, the Canadian Ethnocultural Council 

is intended to connect the government with ethnic organizations to aid 

in decision-making processes.62 While the federal government was fine 

tuning its multiculturalism policies, in 1974 Saskatchewan became the 

first province to pass its own Multiculturalism Act. Ontario introduced its 

multiculturalism policy in 1977, with corresponding legislation enacted 

in 1982. 

After 17 years of development and incremental policy 

amendments, Parliament enacted the Canadian Multiculturalism 

Act in 1988 and made Canada the first country to possess a national 

multiculturalism policy. This historic move greatly impacted, and 

continues to impact, subsequent government arts policies and agendas. 

However, research for the Plural project also made apparent the 

overwhelming sentiment of interviewees that although adopted as a 

policy, multiculturalism as a concept has yet to be fully implemented or 

realized in practice.

The move toward a more equitable cultural policy was greeted 

by an increasingly culturally diverse citizenry. By the 1980s, the 

racial and ethnic profiles of many cities had begun to change as new 

immigrants settled in urban areas, continuing an historic trend.63 Further 

immigration reform in 1976 simultaneously resisted and welcomed the 

new immigrants: the reform gave rise to a quota system in addition to 

1970

1990

1970s: Phasing out of residential schools begins

1972: ANDPVA founded

1985: Non-European immigrants top 60 percent; 

TSAR, focused on publishing multicultural 

literary works, especially work that pertains to Asia 

and Africa, founded

1988: Parliament passes the Canadian 

Multiculturalism Act; Desh Pardesh, the first 

collective of Queer South Asian artists in the 

world, is founded

55
Historical Background

imposing tighter controls on family reunification but also created refugee 

and entrepreneurial immigrant categories.64 Due in part to (some of) 

these reforms, the presence of visible minorities in Canada now steadily 

increased. Of the immigrants who arrived in Canada in the late 1970s, 

approximately 56 percent belonged to a visible minority group; by 1981, 

nearly 67 percent of all immigrants to Canada had been born outside 

of Europe.65

Research for the Plural project indicates that both this diverse 

influx of newer Canadians and more settled immigrant groups were 

part of the new wave of ethnocultural arts organizations that arose out 

of this nascent era of multiculturalism. Seventy-nine organizations in 

the Plural project’s Canadian organizational database, or approximately 

31 percent, registered for charitable status during the 1970s and 1980s. 

Among these organizations were the Canadian Society for Asian Arts 

(1970; Vancouver), the Latvian Canadian Cultural Centre (1977; 

Toronto), Théâtre l’Escaouette (1979; Moncton), the Nikkei National 

Museum & Cultural Centre (1980; Burnaby), the Kala Bharati 

Foundation (1981; Montréal), the German Canadian Male Chorus of 

Calgary (1982; Calgary), the Pomegranate Guild of Judaic Textiles (1985; 

Toronto), and the Debajehmujig Theatre Group (now the Debajehmujig 

Creation Centre) (1988; Manitoulin Island). Other organizations, such 

as Montréal’s Black Theatre Workshop (incorporated as a nonprofit 

in 1972), began to formalize operations in this period. The lack of 

literature makes it difficult to gage the number of organizations founded 

that have ceased to exist, but interviews for the Plural project indicate 

the existence of a far greater number of organizations during the 1970s 

and 1980s. In the area of Black theater alone, groups formed during 

these two decades included Toronto’s Theatre Fountainhead (1973) and 

Black Theatre Canada (1973) and Halifax’s Kwacha Playhouse (1984). 

Our research also suggests that the mandates of many of these 

organizations resembled those of prior generations of ethnocultural arts 

organizations, and that despite a political shift toward multiculturalism, 

like these prior generations they found little substantive support from 

federal, provincial, or other arts services for their work. In 1970, Lorita 

Leung, a dancer, choreographer, and arts educator, immigrated to 

Canada.66 Shortly after arriving in Richmond, British Columbia, Leung 

began teaching weekly Chinese dance classes out of the basements of her 

home and church, in the process founding 

the Lorita Leung Chinese Dance Academy 

– one of the first Chinese dance schools 

in North America. Leung started the 

academy both to connect young Chinese 

Canadians with their cultural heritage and 

to preserve and promote Chinese dance 

by developing dancers that could form the 

basis of a future company. Soon thereafter, 

Leung founded two semi-professional 

performance groups: the Lorita Leung 

Chinese Dance Company (for dancers aged 

14 and up) and the Little Panda Children’s 

Performing Group (for dancers between 

the ages of 9 and 14). In 1984, due largely 

to the lack of alternative means of support 

for the academy and dance companies, 

Leung launched the Lorita Leung Dance 

Association as a registered charity to 

support these groups. The objectives of the association are to “preserve, 

promote and enhance Chinese dance...by sponsoring the Lorita Leung 

Dance Company, by organizing the Chinese Dance Summer Intensive 

and by presenting the Beijing Dance Academy Chinese Dance Syllabus 

in Canada.”67

Both separate from and related to her work as founder and 

executive director of the four dance organizations, Leung has been 

supportive of the arts community in the Vancouver area and in many 

ways can be credited with building and maintaining the vibrancy of 

the Chinese dance community in Canada. She is a member of such 

organizations as the Vancouver Multicultural Society and the Alliance 

for Arts and Culture in Vancouver, joining these networks even though 

she has never benefited from their services. Her efforts through the 

Lorita Leung Dance Association have been responsible for many cultural 

exchanges between Canada and China, where Leung is well known for 

her service to Chinese dance. For example, Leung introduced the Beijing 

Dance Academy Chinese Dance Examination Syllabus to Canada, 

subsequently teaching the examination program, in an effort to provide 

The sole purpose of this 

company was really to 

look at the state of men 

and dance, to dispel 

stereotypes, to build 

community by linking the 

arts and social justice, 

and to show the diversity 

of dance being created by 

men in the field, especially 

African American men 

because it still remains 

an often unheard voice 

despite all the progress 

that has been made.

– Helanius Wilkins, Founder & 

Artistic Director of Edgeworks 

Dance Theater (August 21, 2013)

56
Part I

the highest standards of professional 

training for Chinese dancers in North 

America. Leung is highly regarded as 

a steward for Chinese dance and has 

received accolades from both China and 

Canada for her decades of work within the 

discipline.

Over her more than 40-year history 

of contributions to the Chinese Canadian 

and greater dance communities, Leung 

has found little support in government 

or third-party programs for the academy, 

dance companies, or association. Although 

founded in part to access larger funding 

opportunities, the Lorita Leung Dance 

Association has never received grant 

assistance from funding agencies such as 

the Canada Council as the Lorita Leung 

Dance Company has not been in a position 

to pay their dancers nor has it otherwise met 

the implicit grant eligibility requirements 

tied to “professional” artists and companies. These requirements have 

changed over the past several decades, but at the minimum they have 

generally limited funding opportunities to registered or incorporated 

non-profit organizations that, according to the funding agency and/or 

members of an arts jury panel, work with professional artists, present 

work in a manner considered to be professional, and possess a certain 

administrative infrastructure. Although the company adheres to widelyacknowledged professional standards of excellence for its art form, it 

functions as a community-based and structured company serving mainly 

recent immigrants and first generation individuals, and the company 

consists of dancers who work full-time elsewhere and/or attend school. 

Absent a basic source of financial support afforded to mainstream 

arts institutions, the Lorita Leung Dance Company has supported itself 

for many years through individual contributions and fundraising efforts 

such as a yearly gala, which brings in approximately $12,000. The Lorita 

Leung Dance Academy is funded through class tuition, an important 

source of earned income that is also used to support other initiatives 

We had a total absence 

of anything that was 

artistically fulfilling for 

us. What was available 

to us had problems at 

two levels. One was that 

the community that 

was practicing art was 

practicing very “exotic” 

art...and on the other side, 

the system was very...

dedicated to the dominant 

cultures. Minorities had no 

place in it. Teesri emerged 

as a response to these two 

polarities. 

– Rahul Varma, Artistic 

Director of Theatre Teesri 

Duniya (October 17, 2013)

related to the academy, performing groups, and/or association. This 

financial structure has enabled the academy and performing groups 

to survive for decades, and to attract and garner local to international 

acclaim. It has not, however, been sufficient to permit them to fully 

realize their potential: the Lorita Leung Dance Company almost never 

tours, and on the rare occasions when the company has gone on a small 

tour, the dancers have had to pay their own way. As Leung notes, “We 

really watch every penny [with] no outside help.” 

While government and general nonprofit arts services were, 

and remain, slow to develop to effectively support the growing field of 

ethnocultural arts organizations, a few dedicated government programs 

and ethnocultural arts service organizations began to emerge with the 

adoption of the country’s ethnocultural and multicultural policies. 

Established in 1974, the Ontario Arts Council’s (OAC) Community Arts 

Development Office (CAD) began funding local arts councils, arts festivals, 

folk arts councils, and Aboriginal arts groups. Two years later (1976), 

OAC established the first Aboriginal arts funding program.68 Shortly 

preceding these more targeted provincial programs, the country’s oldest 

Aboriginal arts service organization, the Toronto-based Association for 

Native Development in the Performing and Visual Arts (ANDPVA), was 

founded in 1972.ANDPVA’s mandate is to serve Indigenous artists and 

organizations working in any arts discipline by providing assistance with 

promotion, professional development, networking, and by otherwise 

acting as an advocate for Indigenous arts.69 The Centre for Indigenous 

Theatre, founded in 1974 as the Native Theatre School and also based 

in Toronto, paralleled ANDPVA’s efforts with programming aimed at 

providing Aboriginal theater artists with an Indigenous platform through 

which these artists could train, develop, and explore ideas.70

Throughout the late 1970s and 1980s, Aboriginal artists and arts 

organizations increasingly exercised their now more widely acknowledged 

rights to cultural self-determination. In 1979, the Kwakwaka’wakw 

successfully negotiated the return of the bulk of the potlatch collection 

housed in the National Museum of Man and divided it between two 

Kwakwaka’wakw museums. The first museum, the Kwagiulth Museum 

in Cape Mudge, opened in 1979 followed by the U’Mista Cultural 

Centre, which opened in 1980 in Alert Bay.71 The same year, Theytus 

Books became Canada’s first Aboriginal owned and operated publishing 

company. 

57
Historical Background

Image 14. Promotional flyer for Prismatic Festival, August 2014. 

Reproduced by permission from Shahin Sayadi of Onelight Theatre 

and Prismatic Festival.

The sluggish movement of mainstream arts spaces in presenting 

artwork representative of a multicultural Canada only served to reinforce 

the importance of these Indigenous controlled cultural spaces. In a 

study commissioned by the Canada Council, The Developmental Support 

to Aboriginal Theatre Organizations, playwright, director, and performer 

Marie Clements observes that “the moment Aboriginal theatre truly 

came alive” for some Aboriginal theater professionals was with the 

production of The Rez Sisters in 1986.72 The play, written by Tomson 

Highway, went on to tour nationally, won several awards, including 

a Dora for Outstanding New Play, and was produced internationally 

following its world premiere at Toronto-based Native Earth Performing 

Arts (Native Earth). For others, however, that “watershed moment”73

came nineteen years earlier in 1967 with the production of The Ecstasy 

of Rita Joe. Clements illustrates the problem that fixating on these two 

successes, which occurred more than one decade apart, poses when 

considering the growth of Aboriginal theater:

Ironically, these two very different animals that make 

up Canadian Aboriginal theatre are the two most likely 

examples to come to mind when asked for success 

stories of Aboriginal theatre and indeed they were, and 

are, “perfect” in memory. Almost too perfect perhaps. 

We have to acknowledge that they have left a profound 

legacy that is still being felt today. However, it would 

seem that if we only recall success by these two illustrious 

and rebellious acts of theatre in Canada (The Ecstasy of 

Rita Joe and The Rez Sisters) and none other, then we also 

have to acknowledge that these two disparate theatre 

productions also represent the few – and in some cases 

the last – time an Aboriginal theme or playwright has 

been produced on many of the mainstream stages of 

Canada.74

Founded in 1982, four years before its production of The Rez 

Sisters, Native Earth is the country’s oldest professional Aboriginal theater 

company and, in 1983, it also became the first professional Aboriginal 

theater to receive funding from the Canada Council.75 In 1985, the 

Society of Canadian Artists of Native Ancestry (SCANA) was formed, 

joining existing efforts to push for mainstream recognition of Aboriginal 

art. Specifically, SCANA sought for the inclusion of Aboriginal artists in 

58
Part I

mainstream Canadian galleries. 

Similar to the experiences of Aboriginal arts organizations, 

although the move toward the adoption of a multiculturalism policy 

theoretically opened the door for equitable support of other ethnocultural 

arts organizations, in reality the door remained closed for many in the 

ethnocultural arts community. In 1986, Vancouver-based Kokoro 

Dance Theatre Society (Kokoro Dance) was incorporated as a nonprofit 

organization with a mandate to “re-define the meaning of Canadian 

culture through teaching, producing and performing new dance 

theatre with an emphasis on multi-disciplinary collaboration and crosscultural exploration.”76 Active for years both in the city’s contemporary 

dance community and abroad before establishing Kokoro Dance, Cofounders and Artistic Directors Barbara Bourget and Jay Hirabayashi 

were inspired to form the company after attending a Japanese butoh 

performance by Berkeley-based Harupin-Ha in Vancouver in 1980. The 

partners had just left a Canada Council funded experimental dance and 

music arts collective where they had been actively involved in all aspects 

of managing the collective, including acting as choreographers and 

performers and handling grant writing and general administrative needs. 

With their combined years of artistic and administrative experience, 

Bourget and Hirabayashi set off to build their new dance company. The 

partners selected the name “Kokoro,” a Japanese word meaning “heart, 

soul and spirit,” for the new company. “At that time,” notes Hirabayashi, 

“in 1986, there wasn’t a single dance company annually funded by the 

Canada Council that didn’t have an English or French name.”

Before Kokoro Dance could apply for Canada Council 

operating funding, however, the partners first had to demonstrate that 

they were capable of running the company. “[Canada Council’s Dance 

Section] told us the first year [that we had to] prove that we could have 

an administration, hire dancers, produce a show, and do all the things 

that a company is supposed to do. Without any money. And once we 

had done that, we could apply,” Hirabayashi recalls. “So we did that.” 

The partners had already choreographed Rage, a collaborative work with 

Katari Taiko, Canada’s first taiko drumming ensemble (founded in 1979), 

for which they had received a small project grant from the Department 

of the Secretary of State, Multiculturalism Sector. In this piece, members 

of Katari Taiko danced. In their second season, with some assistance 

through a small Canada Council “Explorations” project grant, which 

was intended to support work that pushed artistic boundaries, Kokoro 

Dance produced a second piece, Episode in Blue – A Cantata from Hell, 

that employed a complete artistic role reversal: musicians danced while 

dancers sang. Box office sales combined with the project grants the 

partners had received meant that the company had fulfilled the eligibility 

requirements at the time for operating funding. Now in its second fiscal 

year, Kokoro Dance applied for operating support and was rejected: 

We got invited to the Canada Dance Festival with 

[Rage], and we got a standing ovation, and so we 

thought we would get a grant. And the assessor said 

it was an ‘excellent amateur production’ because 

Katari Taiko...they weren’t professional. They were 

a community drumming group, and we had them 

dancing...and so obviously they weren’t trained.

Kokoro Dance’s grant process fell into a pattern. Each 

consecutive year the partners applied to the Dance Section for 

support, and each year they failed to obtain it. Dance Section jury 

members reviewing Kokoro Dance’s performances labeled it as “not 

authentic,” accused the artists of “jumping on a fad,” and made 

additional comments that indicated that the company’s artistic practice 

was completely misunderstood. Like many culturally diverse arts 

organizations, Kokoro Dance’s performances were interpreted through 

a mainstream, Eurocentric lens and lost in translation. Moreover, the 

partners’ experiences contrasted sharply with those of friends and 

former colleagues, who had started their own companies at the same 

time but under French and Anglo names and presented contemporary 

Western-inspired work. One colleague immediately received a $50,000 

grant from Canada Council for such a company.

In an attempt to improve Kokoro Dance’s future funding 

prospects, Hirabayashi wrote annual letters to the Canada Council 

asking for more information about funding standards and practices 

but never received a response. Frustrated by the amount of time and 

work the partners put into the grant applications without any funding in 

return, he eventually informed the Canada Council that the company 

would no longer seek Canada Council funding. Hirabayashi says,

59
Historical Background

pro-actively address pervasive issues of racial and cultural discrimination 

in federal and provincial programs. In that year, a summer-long standoff 

between the municipality of Oka and the Mohawk of Kanesatake erupted 

after the town announced plans to expand a golf course over Mohawk 

burial grounds. Both sides contested the ownership of the land and the 

Mohawk set up barricades to stop the planned development.78 Soon, 

Indigenous peoples from across Canada and the United States joined 

the Mohawk in protest, and the event drew national and international 

press coverage. Over the course of the 78-day demonstration, the 

provincial government tried to intervene and eventually as many as 

2,500 army soldiers descended upon the barricades.79 In highlighting 

the poor relations between the Canadian government and its Aboriginal 

peoples, Oka led to a heightened consciousness among all branches of 

government and its citizens that the newly-enacted national ideology of 

multiculturalism was far from existing as a reality.

Responding to national events and “calls for action from 

the culturally diverse and Aboriginal arts communities, the [Canada 

Council] acknowledged that its programs, committees, and staff did 

not reflect the face of modern Canada.”80 Changes within the Canada 

They operated on a peer assessment system, but if you’re 

doing work that is not Eurocentric you don’t have any 

peers because all of the assessors that they would send 

were the artistic directors of funded companies. So right 

from the start, they’re actually not your peers, because 

they have funds and you don’t.

Although denied funding on a federal level, Kokoro Dance was 

receiving some financial support at the city and provincial levels. With 

this support, earned income, and through self-funding, the partners 

persisted in their work, albeit on a much smaller scale. By the turn of 

the decade, Kokoro Dance had established a diverse repertoire and was 

performing constantly to increasingly diverse audiences. 

Around 1990-91, Hirabayashi spoke with a program officer at 

the Canada Council’s Dance Section to inquire about individual arts 

grants, and during this conversation discovered that the company’s last 

performance had earned an excellent review. The discussion revealed that 

the Canada Council regularly sent assessors to “keep track of things” and 

that Kokoro Dance needed two additional positive reviews to be eligible 

for funding. At this time, Hirabayashi also discovered that he could 

provide the Canada Council with a list of reviewers that Kokoro Dance 

did not want sent to conduct performance reviews. Realizing that most 

assessors within his discipline were failing to understand the company’s 

work, Hirabayashi sent a list containing the names of all of the artistic 

directors of dance companies then-funded by the Canada Council and 

said that none of these individuals were allowed to assess Kokoro Dance. 

He then requested that the Canada Council send reviewers from any of 

the other sections for theater, music, or the visual arts. “So they sent a 

couple of theatre people and we got excellent assessments.” Hirabayashi 

adds, “And with the one good assessment we had [already received], we 

were able to get a grant.” 

In 1992, Kokoro Dance was awarded its first Canada Council 

operating grant in the amount of $20,000, possibly rendering it one 

of the earliest culturally diverse dance companies to receive Canada 

Council operating support.77

1990-2012

The Oka crisis of 1990 set a new tone of urgency in the need to 

1990

2012

1990: The Oka crisis; Establishment of REAC and the Equity Office 

at the Canada Council

1992: Full Circle founded; Celebrating African Identity: Strategies of 

Discovery, Affirmation and Empowerment (CELAFI) festival and 

conference founded; Minquon Panchayat formed

1994: Aboriginal Arts Secretariat (now Aboriginal Arts Office) is 

established at the Canada Council 

1995: Rude, by Clement Virgo, travelled to the Cannes Film Festival 

and kicked off the Perspective Canada program at the Toronto 

International Film Festival. Rude is the first feature film shot entirely 

by a black Canadian filmmaker and is nominated for eight Genie 

Awards 

1999: The Aboriginal Peoples Television Network begins national 

broadcasts and becomes first national public television network for 

Indigenous peoples

60
Part I

Council began to account for the country’s racially diverse landscape 

and the organization’s lack of knowledge of non-European arts and 

cultural practices. Upon the “advice of committees for both racial 

equity and Aboriginal arts,” the Canada Council actively committed 

to supporting “Aboriginal and culturally diverse arts practices and 

to equity” as an organizational goal.81 In 1990, the Canada Council’s 

Equity Office and Advisory Committee for Racial Equality in the Arts 

(REAC) were both established. REAC consists of arts professionals who 

represent various regions and artistic disciplines, and the committee 

offers recommendations on policies and programs aimed at advancing 

racial equality and cultural diversity within the arts. As observed by 

many Plural project interview participants, prior to the formation of 

REAC, ethnocultural arts organizations lacked their own peers on the 

peer assessment panels and were regularly discounted as unprofessional. 

Originally included under the Equity Office and as part 

of REAC’s mandate, shortly after the formation of these initiatives 

Aboriginal artists and activists successfully lobbied for a separate office 

within the Canada Council dedicated to the distinctive needs of the 

country’s Indigenous peoples. In 1994, the Aboriginal Arts Secretariat 

(now the Aboriginal Arts Office) was established. Working closely 

with each of the arts discipline sections of the Canada Council, the 

Aboriginal Arts Secretariat served as an advocate for Aboriginal arts 

and a liaison for Aboriginal artists and organizations seeking funding 

and networking opportunities.82 Our research for the Plural project 

failed to clarify whether either the Equity Office or the Aboriginal 

Arts Secretariat engaged in any independent programming, including 

grantmaking, during the 1990s, but it does appear that the Equity Office 

similarly served as an advocate for the work of culturally diverse artists 

and organizations. 

The formation of these two offices signified watershed moments 

in the development of the ethnocultural arts field. For the first time, 

there was a concerted effort on a national level to support artists and 

organizations whose art, culture, and points of view had been targeted 

for destruction, misrepresented, appropriated, and/or ignored. Based on 

a review of both the quantitative and qualitative components of research 

for the Plural project, it is our belief that, insomuch as Canada Council 

funding directly impacts organizations and more broadly serves in a 

leadership role with respect to shaping the arts support environment, 

the recognition and carving out of Aboriginal arts from other equity 

goals and initiatives also staged the way for different developmental 

paths within the ethnocultural arts field. As described further infra, 

the attention provided to Aboriginal artistic practices, which entailed 

efforts to more deeply understand and design programs specifically 

aimed at supporting the full artistic self-determination of Indigenous 

artists, contributed to the dramatic growth, diversity, and vibrancy of 

Aboriginal arts and organizations over the following two decades.

While the acknowledgement of the need for equitable support 

of culturally diverse arts and the institutionalized commitment to 

principles of cultural diversity were important and necessary changes to 

the arts support environment, our research suggests that the broad (and 

increasingly broadened) mandates of these efforts, combined with more 

ghettoized implementation, has resulted in a comparatively weaker 

support environment for culturally diverse arts organizations. Moreover, 

excepting francophone arts organizations, which for reasons discussed 

in the Methodology have not been included in the Plural project, the 

move toward cultural equity largely omitted a third member of the 

ethnocultural arts field. Established by both recent and more settled 

immigrant communities, White ethnocultural arts organizations resisted 

assimilationist pressures, in the process working to preserve the cultural 

knowledge of their ancestors and to build a canon of work in a diasporic 

context. For organizations like UCEC, obtaining federal or provincial 

arts funding proved a challenge as their work was neither understood 

nor valued:

You weren’t applying for an art exhibition. You were 

applying because you were Ukrainian, and you were 

directed to the Canadian Heritage program. Institutions 

like us, or some dance companies like Shumka, that 

were semi professional, would say why can’t I apply 

under dance, performing arts, or whatever. We should 

have access to that, and we were denied that access. 

The landscape in that respect though has shifted...But 

you still have to work at it. You still have to make the 

argument that you aren’t just an ethnic organization 

that is doing community work. You have to justify 

yourself that you are a professional institution and that 

you’re offering services related to culture and art.83 

61
Image 15. Members of the Vesnivka Choir in Rome for the ensemble’s European debut, 1969. The choir helped celebrate 

the consecration of St. Sofia Cathedral. Reproduced by permission from Vesnivka Choir. 

62
Part I

Neither falling into targeted programs for other ethnocultural arts 

organizations nor frequently meeting criteria designed for mainstream 

arts organizations, our research suggests that many of these 

organizations operated, and continue to operate, on little to no support 

from governmental arts funding bodies. 

Around the period that the Canada Council began modifying its 

programs and policies, and new federal agencies such as the Department 

of Canadian Heritage (Canadian Heritage), established in 1993, were 

provided with mandates that included support of ethnocultural arts 

activity, provincial councils were engaging in a similar process. In 1991 in 

British Columbia, the government established the First Peoples’ Cultural 

Council to administer programming designed to support First Nations’ 

language, arts, and cultural revitalization in the province. Working closely 

with BC First Nations, First Nations arts and culture organizations, and 

the BC Arts Council, the First Peoples’ Cultural Council provides funding 

and advocacy for cultural and language programs, as well as advisory 

services to governmental bodies and representatives on initiatives related 

to First Nations arts, language, and culture.84 As previously noted, in 

the 1970s, OAC was the first government entity to establish Aboriginalspecific arts funding; in 1996, it established its own Aboriginal arts office. 

Describing the significance of the flexible, process-based programming 

that subsequently evolved out of that office, OAC Aboriginal Arts 

Officer Sara Roque writes, “it is important to note that the concept of 

a distinct office was initiated by Aboriginal artists and allies in Ontario, 

who saw the need for assessors who could understand the realities of 

Aboriginal peoples. These visionaries understood that...Aboriginal 

peoples and communities needed to assume control and be the stewards 

of their artistic and cultural protection and evolution. They understood 

that this is where survival is rooted.”85 

Working to monitor, move forward, and bolster budding federal 

and provincial arts council support for the field, to address service gaps, 

and to tackle issues related to underrepresentation in mainstream arts 

institutions, a new wave of ethnocultural arts service organizations 

and initiatives emerged during the 1990s. Part of this movement was 

Minquon Panchyat, which sprung out of the 1992 Conference of the 

Association of National Non-Profit Artists’ Centres/Regroupement 

d’artistes des centres alternatives (ANNPAC/RACA).86 Calling the 

attention of conference attendees to the “dismally low number of people 

of colour and First Nations artists present,” dub poet and conference 

keynote speaker Lillian Allen invited the latter group to caucus.87

Selecting the name “minquon panchyat” – “an amalgamation of two 

words: a Maliseet word...meaning rainbow, followed by a Sanskrit 

word...meaning council” – the group’s goals were “to make ANNPAC 

more inclusive through the inclusion of artists’ groups of color and 

First Nations, to network those who already had membership, and to 

educate and transform the mandates of artist-run centres with low 

numbers of First Nations and people of color.”88 Initially supported by 

ANNPAC, the relationship between the two groups soon degraded, beset 

by disputes “ostensibly over bureaucratic violations and whether new 

centres introduced fit the criteria of ANNPAC membership” wherein 

“‘supposedly procedural language and bureaucratic formality were used 

to reinforce the (white) status quo of ANNPAC, enabling interrogations 

and exclusions in a barely-veiled language of discrimination.’”89 Within 

a year, Minquon Panchyat left ANNPAC. Following the departure of 

a number of artists-run centres that supported the rainbow council 

initiative, ANNPAC folded.90

Minquon Panchyat was one of many efforts in the building 

momentum to tackle systemic inequality permeating the country’s arts 

ecosystem. Among the currently operating ethnocultural arts service 

organizations founded in this decade are the Halifax-based African 

Nova Scotia Music Association (1997) and the Vancouver Asian Heritage 

Month Society (1996). An important part of the distribution mechanism 

for ethnocultural work, Montréal-based arts presenters Accès Asie 

(1995) and Montréal, arts interculturels, or MAI (1999), and the critical 

publications alt.theatre: cultural diversity and the stage (1998), founded and 

published by Montréal-based Teesri Duniya Theatre, and Kokoro Moon 

(1991-1994), produced and published by Kokoro Dance, were all also 

formed in the 1990s and, except for Kokoro Moon, continue to operate 

today.

Following federal, provincial, and nongovernmental initiatives 

directed at creating a more culturally equitable arts support environment, 

research for the Plural project suggests that the field of ethnocultural 

arts organizations, particularly for Aboriginal and culturally diverse 

arts organizations, began to expand and grow at a more rapid, though 

63
Historical Background

the Canada Council’s response to internal research undertaken during 

the 2000-2001 fiscal year that of the 5,700 grants made in that year,94

the arts agency had awarded 10 operating grants to culturally diverse 

arts organizations, and that only 3.4 percent of the Canada Council’s 

total 2000-2001 funding went to these arts organizations. Additional 

research identified lack of funding as a causal factor for the slower 

development of organizational capacity among culturally diverse arts 

organizations. Weak administrative infrastructure, the research found, 

in turn contributed to the underfunding, and at times closure, of these 

organizations despite their great artistic merit and contributions to the 

Canadian arts community, a situation reflected in the experiences of 

certain culturally diverse arts organizations in the 1990s. 

Having identified that Canada Council support was not reaching 

many culturally diverse arts organizations and that lack of support was 

negatively impacting the field, CBI was built within a framework and 

in a manner that responded to decades of systemic discrimination by 

leaving intact the overall integrity and centrality of the existing system; 

moreover, CBI’s limited program term, size, and budget suggested a lack 

of commitment to, and confidence in, the prospects of the culturally 

diverse arts field. Introducing CBI in its Annual Report 2001-2002, the 

Canada Council wrote,

Although we can often sense that something might be 

successful, we can’t truly predict success. The same 

applies for the longevity of an artistic career or an arts 

organization. Aware of this principle of unpredictability

and the immense creative capacity of certain culturally diverse 

community organizations, the Canada Council for the Arts 

launched [CBI]. Its non-renewable multi-year grants 

are a proactive response to the need for resiliency within 

organizations...organizations received supplementary 

funding for the next three years to adopt strategies to 

consolidate their creative activities.95

By the end of the 2001-2002 fiscal year, the Canada Council had 

awarded 6,300 grants to artists and arts organizations totaling $125 

million, $101 million of which consisted of grants to arts organizations 

alone.96 Fifty-one of these grants were awarded to arts organizations 

not necessarily linear, rate in the 1990s. Organizations founded or 

formalized as registered charities during this period include the KoreanCanadian Symphony Orchestra (1990; Toronto), b current performing 

arts (1991; Toronto), Full Circle First Nations Performance (1992), the 

Danish Canadian National Museum & Gardens (1992; Spruce View, 

Alberta), the Collective of Black Artists (1993; Toronto), the Toronto 

Ukrainian Festival (1995; Toronto), the Saskatchewan Native Theatre 

Company (1999; Saskatoon), NAfro Dance (1999; Winnipeg), and Vues 

d’Afrique (1999; Montréal). Part of a new movement of Indigenous arts 

and activism that arose post-Oka, a number of Plains-based Indigenousrun artist centers and collectives were also established during this period, 

including the Sâkêwêwak Artists’ Collective (1995; Regina), Tribe (1995; 

Saskatoon), Wapimon (mid-1990s; Beauval), and Urban Shaman (1996; 

Winnipeg). 

Our research further identified arts organizations and 

movements that began in the early 1990s but, unable to access substantive 

support, ceased operations within this decade. Formed around 1989, the 

Toronto-based Canadian Artists Network-Black Artists in Action, or 

CAN: BAIA, consisted of a collective of Black artists who organized a 

wide range of multidisciplinary events and programs aimed at increasing 

the value, heightening the visibility, and otherwise advocating for 

the publication, performance, and exhibition of artwork by artists of 

African Canadian descent.91 Despite robust programming throughout 

the decade, there is little remaining documentation on the group, which 

disbanded at some point in the late 1990s. 

Building on the framework of support established in the 

previous decade, the 2000s ushered in a series of government-sponsored 

arts services for, and research on, Aboriginal and culturally diverse arts 

organizations. Many of the models and programs for the current support 

system were created, expanded, and/or restructured during this time. In 

2001, the federal government supplemented its annual appropriation to 

the Canada Council with a $25 million dollar commitment over a fiveyear period for the “Tomorrow Starts Today” initiative, which raised the 

art agency’s total budget for the 2001-2002 fiscal year to $152 million.92

Of this amount, the arts agency earmarked $1.5 million dollars, taken 

from the Tomorrow Starts Today appropriation, to launch its Capacity 

Building Initiative (CBI).93 Administered by the Equity Office, CBI was 

64
Part I

through CBI for a total of slightly more than $1.5 million awarded under 

the program’s inaugural year.97

From the beginning, the focus of CBI programming was on 

assisting leading professional organizations in building administrative 

capacity so as to integrate, or “consolidate,” them into the operating 

programs of the Canada Council’s discipline sections and, particularly 

for organizations already receiving some operating support, at higher 

levels of funding. CBI had four objectives: (i) to provide stable multi-year 

funding for a limited period in which organizations could strategically 

plan, leverage other types of funding, and take other appropriate 

action(s) to make them more competitive in the operating programs; (ii) 

to stimulate collaborative learning as a means of building capacity; (iii) to 

encourage the more equitable funding of established organizations; and 

(iv) to multiply the impact throughout the broader arts ecosystem (this 

last objective was abandoned with subsequent revisions of the initiative).

CBI’s initial, base program, “Capacity Building to Support 

Culturally Diverse Artistic Practices,” consisted of a capacity building 

grant in the amount of $30,000 per year for three years, which could 

be used for such activities as hiring staff, enhancing outreach, and 

developing networks for touring (the Multi-Year Program).98 Eligible 

grantees were those that engaged and supported (i) Canadian artists 

of African, Asian, Latin American, Middle Eastern, and/or mixed 

racial descent and/or (ii) arts practices that explored and represented 

the expressions, perspectives, and experiences of these artists or were 

rooted in African, Asian, Latin American, and/or Middle Eastern 

artistic traditions.99 The first cohort of CBI grantees were identified and 

selected on an invitational basis. 

Over the course of the next two years, several additional 

grantees were invited to participate in the Multi-Year Program, and a 

second base program, “Stand Firm,” was added. Limited to Multi-Year 

Image 16. Dark Diaspora ... in Dub, b current, 1992. Left 

to right: Charmaine Headley, Kim Robinson, Vivine 

Scarlett, Junia Mason, and Ahdri Zhina Mandiela. 

Written, directed, and set design by Ahdri Zhina 

Mandiela, co-directed and set design by Djanet Sears. 

Reproduced by permission from b current.

65
Image 17. Promotional poster for Storytellers, 2003. Sâkêwêwak Artists Collective Inc. Designed by Anthony Deiter using 2D 

animation modeling. Reproduced by permission from the Sâkêwêwak Artists Collective Inc.

66
Part I

• Support to Aboriginal Peoples Dance Organizations and 

Collectives – aimed at “supporting activities that sustain, 

invigorate, strengthen or stabilize their operations”

• Grants to Dance Professionals ($20,000 maximum) 

– involving professional development, creation, 

apprenticeship/mentorship and production support; 

“Aboriginal dance professionals may choose to be assessed 

by a national peer assessment committee of Aboriginal 

dance professionals”

• Production Project Grants to Dance Collectives and 

Companies ($30,000 maximum); “Aboriginal collectives 

and non-profit dance companies may choose to be assessed 

by a national peer assessment committee of Aboriginal 

dance professionals”

• Aboriginal Peoples Collaborative Exchange Program 

($30,000 maximum) – aimed at assisting “individual artists 

or artistic groups from Aboriginal communities to share 

traditional and/or contemporary knowledge or practices 

that will foster the development of their artistic practice”

With the Dance Report, the Canada Council sought both to better 

understand Aboriginal dance and to increase use of Canada Council 

programs by Aboriginal dancers and organizations.

The study contains a wealth of administrative and programmatic 

information on the surveyed organizations, including years in operation 

(8.8 on average, with over 50 percent in operation for less than 5 years), 

revenue (mostly reliant on local fundraising followed by band council 

support, with the least amount of support from provincial sources), 

and audiences (intergenerational for most and on average 35 percent 

Aboriginal).103 At the time of the survey, less than one-fifth of dance 

groups were operating on a full-time basis with the remaining majority 

operating part-time, seasonally, or “ad hoc.”104 Twenty-six percent 

reported that their group was incorporated, and 46 percent identified 

their dancers as “professional” based on the provided Canada Council 

definition, which defined “a professional dancer as someone with 

specialized training, as someone who is recognized as a professional 

by other artists in the field, as someone committed to devoting more 

time and effort to their artistic activities if financially feasible, and as 

Program grantees and a few other existing Canada Council grantees, 

Stand Firm provided ongoing opportunities to engage in peer learning, 

resource sharing, and the forming of alliances. Examples of Stand 

Firm activities over the course of its tenure were the organization of 

a national forum, teleconferenced 

lectures and facilitated discussions, 

and local networking and professional 

development activities managed by 

the Equity Office and delivered by 

regional facilitators operating out of 

Vancouver, Toronto, and Montréal. 

Separate from but related 

to Canada Council efforts, other 

governmental entities were developing 

their own programming to support 

cultural diversity in the arts. For 

example, through such programs as 

“Cultural Spaces Canada,” “Arts 

Presentation Canada,” the “National 

Arts Training Contribution Program,” 

and the “Canadian Arts and Heritage 

Consolidation Program,” Canadian 

Heritage supported the projects of as 

many as 47 Aboriginal organizations 

and 57 culturally diverse organizations 

between 2001 and 2003.100

During this period, the Canada 

Council and Canadian Heritage 

initiated several of the first major 

studies on Aboriginal and culturally diverse arts organizations. Possibly 

the first such study, in 2003 the arts agency published findings from a 

survey it had co-sponsored with Canadian Heritage that investigated 

the characteristics, needs, and support environment of Aboriginal dance 

groups and artists (the Dance Report).101 Similar in its specificity but 

differing in approach, by 2003, the Canada Council had developed 

several programs targeting or referencing Aboriginal arts organizations, 

including:102

Prior to SAVAC existing, 

there was a collective 

called Desh Pardesh. 

Desh Pardesh started as a 

queer collective that was 

engaging with arts to create 

a community but then also 

educate the community 

about queer issues...a 

group of seven came out 

of Desh Pardesh after Desh 

Pardesh disbanded, and 

they created the South Asian 

Visual Arts Collective...

[then] they decided to shift 

from a collective to a more 

hierarchical structure and 

created an artists run center. 

– Indu Vashist, Executive Director 

of the South Asian Visual Arts 

Centre (May 15, 2013) 

67
Historical Background

someone with a history of public performances.”105

Findings indicated that “[m]any of the dance groups and dance 

artists surveyed perform traditional Aboriginal dance while some perform 

a combination of traditional and contemporary dance or a fusion of 

styles...[both groups and artists] also often integrate other art forms into 

their performances, including storytelling, theatre, singing, live music, 

masks, regalia and ceremonial items. Other[s] use slide presentations, 

videos, and visual art.”106 Mandates were similarly varied, ranging from 

the preservation of “cultural heritage to bringing Aboriginal culture 

to a wider public to encouraging and educating young people.”107 Not 

surprisingly, group objectives for their work reflected these different but 

related mandates. Short-term objectives included the following:108

• Knowledge transmission

• Training and professional development for dancers

• Youth involvement

• Design, repair, and creation of regalia, masks, and costumes

• Increasing touring

• Increasing administrative capacity to work toward becoming 

a more formal group or operating year-round 

Longer-term objectives included the following:109

• Obtaining self-sufficiency

• Increasing touring, especially internationally

• Developing an arts center or facility to accommodate training 

and/or performance 

• Expanding into other arts-related areas

Surveyed groups faced significant challenges related to “turnover 

of dancers, having to share space, lack of cultural awareness and support 

from leadership in non-Aboriginal institutions, attracting the younger 

generation and lack of funding to pay for facilities, to pay dancers 

and other staff and to make or purchase regalia and costumes.”110

Reflecting on these findings, the Dance Report’s author(s) point to a lack 

of administrative support or expertise necessary to increase revenues 

and expand markets.111 Notably, established arts service organizations 

appeared to be providing a minimal role in addressing the needs of 

surveyed dance groups: almost 90 percent of the groups reported 

that they were not a member and/or had no access to arts service 

organizations.112 Finally, groups recommended a number of initiatives 

and tools that would assist their work, including:113

• Workshops in grant writing and arts management materials

• Website development

• Professional development in tour coordination

• A directory of Aboriginal dance groups and artists

• Opportunities for networking and communicating with 

other Aboriginal dance groups

Our literature review indicates that the Dance Report was 

one of a number of governmentinitiated research projects undertaken 

in the 2000s primarily aimed at better 

informing arts service providers on, and 

subsequently improving the landscape of 

support for, Aboriginal arts and culture 

practices. Among this other research is 

the following: a series of consultations 

and other research commissioned by 

the Alberta Foundation for the Arts 

from 2005 to 2006 and discussed briefly 

infra; a series of consultations and other 

research commissioned by the Ontario 

Arts Council in 2007, 2008, and 2012 and 

the first two of which are discussed briefly 

infra; Marie Clements’s The Developmental 

Support to Aboriginal Theatre Organizations

(2005); France Trépanier’s Aboriginal Arts 

Research Initiative: Report on Consultations

(2008); Trépanier’s and Chris CreightonKelly’s Understanding Aboriginal Arts in 

Canada Today: A Knowledge and Literature 

Review (2011); and Bruce E. Sinclair’s We Have to Hear Their Voices: A 

Research Project on Aboriginal Languages and Art Practices (2011).114 Nongovernmental studies include France Trépanier’s Final Report: Aboriginal 

Arts Administration Forum (2008) and Strategic Moves/CAPACOA’s 

Supplementary Report on Presenting and Aboriginal Communities; The Value of 

Presenting: A Study of Arts Presentation in Canada (2012). 

Between 2003 and 2004, the Canada Council and Canadian 

The mission of our 

group...is to find mutual 

connections of cultures, 

interconnections. What 

can unite us, what triggers 

us, what makes you and I 

laugh, although we’re from 

different cultures, or cry. 

And I wanted to prove with 

this production that these 

triggers can be triggered – 

I apologize for my English 

– without the necessity of 

language.

– Igor Golyak, Artistic Director 

of Arlekin Players Theatre 

(September 19, 2013)

68
Part I

simultaneously “anchored in the community,” which formed the base 

of these organizations’ support.119 Possessing modest expenses and, at 

the time the study was conducted, no financial reserves, participating 

organizations used partnerships as a means of surmounting resource 

constraints.120 In addition to various forms of community support, 

these organizations were frequently heavily reliant on a single source 

of financial support, which generally derived from government project 

grants and “the rejection or non-renewal [of which could] compromise 

the activities of the organization.121

Stories from the Field identified a number of challenges that 

confront Aboriginal and culturally diverse arts organizations, including 

the following:122

• Weak and/or inactive board

• Access to project, as opposed to operating, funding: “grants 

awarded on an annual or even multi-year (three-year) basis 

allow an organization to establish a minimum of security for 

its operations and anticipate future needs”

• High intensity, stressful work environment; “fatigue, 

isolation, financial uncertainty and questions of survival are 

the everyday lot of the manager”

• Lack of training at all levels, from volunteers to board

• Obtaining equitable visibility outside of organizations’ own 

communities

• Marginalization and ghetto-ization of organizations

• Expanding audiences while maintaining the relationship 

with communities of origin

• The report also recommended a number of best practices 

and initiatives as a means to addressing these organizational 

challenges, including the following:123

• Strategic selection and use of board members to mobilize 

resources and manage growth

• The availability of appropriate mentors to guide 

the organization through key periods/moments of 

organizational change

• Access to opportunities for exchange and professional 

collaboration

• Creation of tools facilitating regular communication and 

Heritage initiated a study on the 

management practices of Aboriginal 

and culturally diverse arts organizations. 

Published in 2004, the resulting report, 

Louise Poulin’s “Stories from the Field”: 

Perspectives on Innovative Management 

Practices for Aboriginal and Culturally Diverse 

Arts Organizations (Stories from the Field), was 

the first, and we believe remains the only, 

nationwide study specifically regarding 

culturally diverse arts organizations.115

Based on discussions with organizations 

ranging in location, size, discipline, and 

ethnocultural group, many of which 

were members of Stand Firm, Stories from 

the Field highlights certain characteristics, 

challenges, and means of addressing 

challenges common to Aboriginal and 

culturally diverse arts organizations.116

Referencing the “unique...

community-based” organizational 

structures of these organizations, Poulin 

notes that “[i]t is hard to achieve a 

consensus on the definition of effective 

organization,” and further, innovative 

practices leading to better organizational 

development “cannot really be entered into without taking into account 

the context and constraints under which the organizations evolve, as 

well as the challenges and problems they face in their organizational 

development.”117 Observed management practices reflected the weak 

existing support environment for ethnocultural arts organizations: “we 

recognize the efforts of organizations to adapt their structures according 

to the limited resources available to them, we note the fragility of their 

financing structure and we see that their management is based on 

volunteer resources.”118

Inclusive of “all cultures, generations and social classes,” Poulin 

found that Aboriginal and culturally diverse arts organizations were 

Vesnivka choir started as 

an offshoot of Ukrainian 

school, held on Satudays. 

All the girls had to stay 

behind after the end of 

classes, for choir. This was 

in 1965. These young girls 

were the start of the choir 

that has lasted for almost 

50 years. The choir started 

with local concerts, and in 

1969 even ventured to Rome.

Over the years Vesnivka 

has evolved into a choir of 

women who have travelled 

extensively to Europe, the 

United States, and South 

America. A very interesting 

fact is that we still have

an original member singing 

with the choir since 1965.

– Irene Nabereznyj, President & 

Board Member of Vesnivka 

Women’s Choir (October 14, 2013)

69
Historical Background

exchange with various audiences and partnership with 

organizations with the same cultural identity

When considering and crafting models and initiatives as tools in 

organizational development, Poulin repeatedly emphasizes in Stories from 

the Field that it is important not to ignore “the reality...that there is a 

flagrant lack of resources for these organizations...”124

In 2004, CBI was extended by one year, during which time the 

Canada Council undertook a review of CBI programming.125 While the 

review found that the support environment for culturally diverse arts 

organizations was improving, it identified a number of issues, such as 

lack of resources, low operating support, and difficulty in diversifying 

revenue, that continued to face organizations. These findings resulted 

in a three-year extension of CBI and both expansions and revisions of 

the initiative. One of the first revisions was a change in the eligibility 

requirements, which transitioned the selection process from an 

invitational system to a competitive, open application process. Between 

2005 and 2009, programming included the following:

• Starting in 2005, a revised and renamed Multi-Year Program 

(now “Capacity Building Grants for Culturally Diverse 

Organizations”) consisting of two grant types: (i) annual 

grants of up to $30,000 for capacity building activities and 

(ii) consolidation grants of up to $30,000, which combined 

with discipline section operating grants (Multi-Year Program 

II). Organizations that had received a Canada Council grant 

since 2001 and that had developed a three-year strategic plan 

were eligible to apply for an annual grant. For consolidation 

grants, accessible to organizations already receiving annual or 

multi-year operating support from the Canada Council and 

that had strengthened their administrative operations through 

previous capacity building activities, organizations could 

apply to have their CBI and operating grants combined.126 

Both grants were to be used for capacity building activities.

• Starting in 2005-2006, the continuation and evolution of 

Stand Firm into an Equity Office managed network guided 

by participant needs.

• In 2007-2008, the introduction of a new program, 

“Creative Capacity Building Grants for Culturally Diverse 

Organizations” (renamed to “Community Capacity Building 

Grants to Culturally Diverse Arts Organizations”), which 

offered a one-time $50,000 grant to current Multi-Year 

Program II grantees on a competitive basis in support of 

projects aimed at strengthening creative communities (e.g., 

increasing knowledge of culturally diverse arts practices and 

supporting initiatives for community engagement).

• In 2008-2009, the formalization of Equity Office support 

of travel-related activities with the introduction of two 

travel grants: “Travel Grants to Stand Firm Participants” 

and “Professional Development Travel Grants to Culturally 

Diverse Artists.” 

In 2007, the Canada Council’s Moving Forward: Strategic Plan 

2008-11 affirmed the arts agency’s commitment to diversity and equity 

as an organizing principle for its support of the arts.127 Observing that 

“[d]efinitions of what constitutes art are much broader than in the past, 

and less constrained by European experience,” as well as the increasing 

diversity and recognition of the country’s existing “rich multiplicity 

of cultural traditions and influences,” the Canada Council prioritized 

enhancing its “leadership role in promoting equity as a critical priority 

in fulfilling Canada’s artistic aspirations.”128 Reaffirming the importance 

of existing equity initiatives, the arts agency’s annual report for the 

subsequent year stressed a commitment to equity “in the broadest sense 

[as] a fundamental value,” indicated the need for the value to be “further 

operationalized across the organization,” and, further, “as resources 

allow, expanded into areas the Council has not yet prioritized.”129 This 

last statement hinted at an important new dimension of the Canada 

Council’s, and the Equity Office’s, targeted programming with a 

reference to disability arts as a particular area of interest.130 By the 

time the Canada Council published its Annual Report 2009-10, it had 

“extended its equity work to include regional, linguistic, cultural, racial, 

generational and gender-based equity, with a new emphasis on other 

areas such as disability” and broadened the mandate of the small Equity 

Office accordingly.131

As with the Equity Office, programming, including 

grantmaking, within the Aboriginal Arts Secretariat began to quickly 

expand around 2005. In discussion with Louise Profeit-LeBlanc, at the 

70
Part I

To ensure the longevity of [Aboriginal art and 

culture]...preservation, and I don’t mean put it in 

formaldehyde. I mean to really exploit it, and make 

it grow. So that everybody in Canada becomes more 

aware of this incredible gem, if you will. I like to call it a 

gem because it’s many sided. That’s the basic premise of 

the responsibility that I think I hold. And that’s not only 

for our ancestors, to honor them, but for our youth and 

for our future...this is the premise of these programs. 

And also I really feel that it’s tied to what’s gone down 

in our past, and the oppression of Aboriginal peoples. 

Despite that, it’s like – you walk on grass, and grass pops 

up after you’ve walked on it. It can’t be beaten down. 

And this is what I feel the arts has allowed us to do. Has 

given us this ability, or this flexibility, or this strength to 

just pop back. 

And the other aspect of that, and this is what really 

came out in our dialogues as all of our staff proceeded 

to establish our first strategic plan, was that this is the 

first art of Canada. So therefore it must be honored. 

Therefore, every Canadian citizen, they must be 

educated about it. Every child should know about it in 

school. So that’s the bottom line premise. But for me 

it’s about reconciliation of what has passed. And so 

the way I look at it too is that every dollar that leaves 

this corporation is one more means towards allowing, 

promoting, [and] enabling all of these nations to stand 

up, and to turn and reflect back to society who we really 

are. This is us.134

In contrast to the Canada Council’s objectives for CBI, 

which were directed at managing the networks and developing the 

administrative infrastructures of a small group of organizations, 

much of the Aboriginal Arts Office’s programming was, and is, either 

implicitly or explicitly aimed at encouraging “social and community 

environments that support the development of Aboriginal arts and 

artistic practices.”135 Moreover, the wider array and more holistic and 

accessible design of programming, which also opened grant eligibility to 

different organizational models, largely abandoned the “professional” 

label for arts activities, and more recently began permitting oral 

time the Aboriginal Arts Coordinator for the Canada Council, regarding 

the evolution of Aboriginal arts programming in the arts agency and 

more generally within the country, she described a close relationship 

between the Secretariat and the Canada Council’s discipline sections 

over the previous ten years.132 During this period, the discipline sections 

had each added an Aboriginal arts officer to join existing section staff, 

and these officers managed Aboriginal-specific programs within their 

sections in addition to serving as advisors and consultants to the other 

section officers. Although by the beginning of the 2000s the Secretariat 

was managing its own programming, until 2005 it largely served as a 

liaison to the discipline sections as well as other federal agencies such as 

Canadian Heritage, further bolstering the work of the Aboriginal section 

officers and identifying areas where programming among the various 

offices could merge. Based on our discussion with Profeit-LeBlanc 

and other research for the Plural project, it is our belief that, through 

repeated exposure to Aboriginal arts and concerns and the creation of 

an environment allowing for joint opportunities and initiatives between 

programs to organically emerge, this situation provided Canada Council 

staff, as well as individuals regularly working and/or communicating 

with the arts agency, with greater awareness and understanding of, and 

confidence in, serving and advocating for Aboriginal artists and arts 

organizations. By 2005, in addition to supporting Aboriginal artists 

through its general programs, the Canada Council had developed 13 

Aboriginal-directed programs that were administered by the Secretariat, 

an Aboriginal arts officer, another discipline section officer, or some 

combination of the three.133

Referencing the planning process that led to Moving Forward: 

Strategic Plan 2008-11, Profeit-LeBlanc notes that “without hesitation...

all of the [Canada Council] staff felt very strongly that Aboriginal [arts] 

had to be a strategic priority.” This demonstration of federal support for 

Canada’s first arts, which for the majority of the country’s history had 

been targeted for destruction, now resulted in the official establishment of 

an Aboriginal Arts Office in 2005 to more fully support the development 

of Aboriginal artists, arts groups, and their work while continuing to 

consult with the discipline sections. The spirit of this crucial work is 

captured in Profeit-LeBlanc’s description of the Aboriginal Arts Office’s 

mandate and programming:

71
Historical Background

grant reporting, provided groups with greater agency and flexibility 

in identifying and addressing their particular needs. Finally, the larger, 

more embedded structure of Aboriginal arts programming within the 

Canada Council, in addition to the Aboriginal Arts Office, increased the 

accessibility of grant opportunities: 

People knew that when they called the Canada Council, 

Aboriginal specific program, that they’d be talking to 

an Aboriginal person. So they wouldn’t have to explain 

and give this big context...we understand the situation 

there. Also a lot of these officers are very helpful, hands 

on. And this is very unique to the Aboriginal programs, 

because in the other programs, they don’t really have 

time to do that...136

Between 2005 and 2012, grantmaking administered through the 

Aboriginal Arts Office included the following:137

• In existence prior to 2005 but revised, the Aboriginal Peoples 

Collaborative Exchange – International, a multi-disciplinary 

program offering grant support to Aboriginal artists, arts 

groups, artists’ collectives, and arts organizations to travel to 

other Aboriginal communities to collaborate in traditional or 

contemporary artistic practices; grant amounts range from 

$5,000 to $30,000 and are aimed at fostering “unique artistic 

relationships and networks through inter-nation collaborative 

exchanges among Aboriginal artists, across all disciplines.”

• In existence prior to 2005 but revised, the Aboriginal Peoples 

Collaborative Exchange – National, a multi-disciplinary 

program offering grant support to Aboriginal artists, arts 

groups, artists’ collectives, and arts organizations to travel to 

other Aboriginal communities to collaborate in traditional or 

contemporary artistic practices; grant amounts range from 

$5,000 to $30,000 and are directed to the same objective as 

the above-referenced International program.

• Developed around 2005 and ending by 2008/2009, the 

Capacity Building Initiative: Support for Aboriginal Artistic 

Practices.

• Starting in 2005, the Capacity Building Initiative: Flying 

Eagle, a program offering short-term funding to Aboriginal 

arts groups, collectives, organizations, independent arts 

administrators, and artistic and cultural mediators for up to 

six months to be used for organizational and/or professional 

development.

• Developed after 2005, the Elder and Youth Legacy Program, 

which provides Aboriginal arts organizations with grants of 

up to $20,000 to Aboriginal arts organizations to assist in 

artistic knowledge transmission from Elders to youth.

• Developed after 2005, Travel Grants for Aboriginal 

Collaboration Projects, which awards grants ranging 

from $2,500 to $3,000 to Aboriginal artists, arts groups, 

artists’ collectives, and arts organizations to travel to other 

Aboriginal communities to collaborate in a traditional or 

contemporary artistic practice with the goal of bolstering 

inter-nation artistic relationships and networks among 

Aboriginal artists across all disciplines.

• Starting in 2005 (and possibly revised to its current iteration), 

the Capacity Building Initiative: Annual Project Funding, 

a program offering project funding of up to $25,000 

for one-year to Aboriginal arts groups, collectives, and 

organizations committed to building their organizational 

and/or community capacity.

• Starting in 2005 (and possibly revised to its current 

iteration), the Capacity Building Initiative: Multi-Year 

Project Funding, a program offering multi-year project 

funding for up to three years to emerging or established 

Aboriginal arts groups, collectives, and organizations with 

either an already established administrative infrastructure 

or seeking to build one. This program’s objective is directed 

at assisting grantees in obtaining long-term sustainability. 

Grant amounts depend on a group’s status, with emerging 

organizations eligible to apply for a maximum grant award 

of $20,000 per year and established organizations eligible to 

apply for a maximum award of $30,000 per year.

Administered through the discipline sections, additional grant support 

directed toward Aboriginal artists and organizations and developed 

72
Image 18. Miss Lebron, Breath of Fire Latina Theater Ensemble, 2009. Left to right: Dan Lopeci, Linda Garcia, Juan Diego Ramirez, and Juan 

E. Carrillo. Written by René Solivan and directed by Jesus A. Reyes. Reproduced by permission from Breath of Fire Latina Theater Ensemble.

73
Historical Background

period of expanded CBI programming (2005 to 2009), overall Canada 

Council support of culturally diverse arts organizations had increased 

somewhat both in terms of the number of organizations funded and 

the amount of financial support 

received. One hundred and nineteen 

out of the 2,155 arts organizations, or 

5.5 percent, funded in the 2005-2006 

fiscal year were culturally diverse; in 

the 2009-2010 fiscal year, 136 out of 

the 2,257 Canada Council funded 

arts organizations, or 6 percent, 

were culturally diverse. Viewed 

alternatively, culturally diverse arts 

organizations received $4,494,341 

out of the $102,127,000 in Canada 

Council funding provided to arts 

organizations in the 2005-2006 fiscal 

year, or 4.4 percent of total arts 

organization funding; in the 2009-

2010 fiscal year, this amount rose 

slightly to 4.7 percent ($5,815,416 out 

of $122,890,000). While the amount 

of increased support for culturally 

diverse arts organizations as a whole 

was small, over the five-year period it 

also represented an increase at a faster 

rate than the corresponding rates 

of Canada Council support for arts 

organizations as a whole (14.3 percent 

compared to 4.7 percent, and 29.4 percent compared to 20.3 percent). 

This overall increased rate of support occurred despite the fact that 

the number of organizations receiving grants, and therefore the total 

amount granted, actually fell between 2008 and 2010.142

Much of the funding increase was driven by support to a core 

group of organizations. In the 2009-2010 fiscal year, 42 organizations 

were on Canada Council (annual and multi-year) operating support 

compared to 30 in 2005-2006 and the previously referenced figure of 

over the years included three grant programs in the Dance Section, one 

in the Media Arts Section, two in the Music Section, two in the Theatre 

Section, two in the Visual Arts Section, and three in the Writing and 

Publishing Section.138

We were unable to access sufficient information to determine the 

total number of Aboriginal arts organizations funded or the amount of 

funds awarded to these organizations by the Canada Council over the 

last decade.139 A review of the Canada Council’s annual reports does, 

however, provide the following information on overall funding levels in 

specific years:140 

• In the 2001-2002 fiscal year, a total of $4.2 million in funds 

was awarded to Aboriginal artists and arts organizations.

• In the 2007 to 2008 fiscal year, funding rose to a high of $6.7 

million, which was also a peak funding year for all artists and 

arts organizations during the mid-2000s.

• In the 2011-2012 fiscal year, this figure decreased to 

approximately $5.5 million. This decrease was in opposition 

to overall funding for artists and arts organizations, which 

after decreasing briefly at the end of the decade, once again 

increased.

Twenty Aboriginal arts organizations were awarded just under $1.3 

million in operating support in 2011-2012, figures that represent a slight 

decrease in support from the immediately preceding year and that amount 

to 1.9 percent of all arts organizations receiving operating support and 

1.36 percent of total operating funds awarded.141 The decrease in funding 

may be partly attributed to a drop in the number of applicants; ProfeitLeBlanc identifies issues related to possible applicant misunderstanding 

of the Canada Council’s eligibility requirements and programs possibly 

less well-aligned with current needs, all of which points to the need for 

better research into understanding the more recent downward trend. In 

the 2012-2013 fiscal year, the Canada Council began a comprehensive 

two-year review of all Canada Council Aboriginal arts programming.

In 2010, the Canada Council undertook a second major review 

of CBI. This review found that access to Canada Council funding had 

improved for culturally diverse arts organizations, due in part to CBI 

programming. Over the nine previous years, 90 organizations had 

received just over $16.6 million in funding under CBI. During the second 

It originally got started as a 

place for dancers of color to 

perform. That was what we 

call a selfish idea, initially. 

Three of us had recently 

graduated from the School 

of Toronto Dance Theatre...

we [had] backgrounds in 

contemporary work, and 

coming out of the Caribbean, 

we brought that with us. 

So we wanted a platform 

where we could put all those 

multiple voices together. But 

then it mushroomed into 

advocacy and recognition 

of Black art – dance art – as 

professional. 

– Charmaine Headley, Artistic Cofounder of the Collective of Black 

Artists (May 16, 2013) 

74
Part I

10 in 2000-2001.143 These 42 organizations received almost $2.5 million 

in operating support (and 42.9 percent of total grant support awarded 

to culturally diverse arts organizations in 2009-2010), which was an 

increase of almost 120 percent from the approximately $1.1 million the 

30 organizations received in 2005-2006 (and 25.3 percent of total grant 

support awarded to culturally diverse arts organizations in that year). 

This pattern followed CBI’s original stated purpose and overall program 

design, which were directed towards deepening support for specific 

organizations rather than broadening access and expanding support to 

culturally diverse arts organizations more generally. It must also be noted 

that this improved support for organizations identified by the Canada 

Council as the country’s leading and most innovative culturally diverse 

institutions still fell far short of the average support for arts organizations 

as a whole. While the median operating grant for culturally diverse arts 

organizations rose from $36,750 to $60,250 between 2005 and 2010, 

the average operating grant in the 2009-2010 fiscal year was $59,375, 

which was well below the average operating grant of $92,094 for all arts 

organizations in the same year.144

With respect to CBI, the review concluded that the initiative 

appeared to have been successful in assisting organizations with building 

administrative capacity and with becoming more competitive in accessing 

operating funding. Over the course of their participation in the program, 

CBI grantees had strengthened their human resources (e.g., hired staff), 

acquired physical resources (e.g., attained access to affordable space 

and/or purchased equipment), focused on outreach and collaboration 

as a means of obtaining long-term stability, and/or engaged in strategic 

planning. More broadly, however, while certain culturally diverse arts 

organizations had increased their capacity between 2000 and 2010, 

there were many within the field that had not. Organizations that were 

not positively impacted by CBI, either because they did not have access 

to CBI programming or because programming was less successful for 

them, were particularly in need of support. Echoing findings contained 

in Stories from the Field, the review found that these organizations and 

the field more generally experience numerous persistent challenges, 

including the following: 

• Access to stable government funding,

• Difficulties in fundraising and diversifying support,

• Access to funding to support creative development, 

• Access to stable and affordable space, especially performance 

space, 

• The need for more steady staffing (e.g., the ability to hire and 

pay employees and to decrease reliance on volunteer labor), 

• The need for artistic and administrative professional 

development, and 

• The need to increase visibility in the general arts community 

and access to general arts delivery and presentation 

mechanisms. 

Findings indicated that many of these and other challenges facing 

culturally diverse arts organizations are discipline-specific and require 

discipline-specific strategies. 

Similar to the Canada Council and also starting around the 

mid-2000s, research for the Plural project suggests that provincial arts 

agencies entered a period of re-examination of their support of equityseeking groups as demonstrated through feasibility studies, community 

consultations, and internal reviews conducted by these agencies. We 

briefly discuss herein assessments conducted by the Alberta Foundation 

for the Arts (AFA) and OAC, which were identified during our literature 

review and to which we were provided access. 

Between 2005 and 2006, AFA conducted a study aimed at 

determining whether to adopt targeted Aboriginal arts programming 

within the provincial arts agency as, at the time, it did not possess such 

programming. The study consisted of three phases, or components: 

first, an examination of the Aboriginal arts funding programs of other 

federal and provincial arts councils and boards to provide the agency 

with guidance in developing program criteria and guidelines and 

to identify key areas to explore during the other two phases; second, 

interviews with Aboriginal service providers to discuss and identify 

best practices when working with Aboriginal communities; and third, 

consultations with Aboriginal artists and arts organizations in Alberta 

regarding their funding needs (collectively, the AFA study).145 Research 

from the first phase of the AFA study identified a range of then-existing 

federal and provincial support programs across the country, with some, 

like the Canada Council and Canadian Heritage, more focused on 

community-based grants, and others, like OAC and the Saskatchewan 

75
Historical Background

the advancement of Aboriginal arts and artists could allow Alberta to 

more effectively celebrate its rich heritage of Aboriginal history and 

achievement.”153 Following completion of the AFA study, in September 

2006 AFA launched an action plan to 

enhance its support of Aboriginal arts in 

the province.154 In the 2006-2007 fiscal 

year, AFA granted $95,205 to Aboriginal 

arts organizations participating in the 

pilot program, a figure that was almost 

double the amount of support provided 

by the arts agency to Aboriginal arts 

groups and artists in the 2004-2005 fiscal 

year.155

The following year (2007), OAC, 

which research for the Plural project 

indicates serves a province that contains 

more than one-third of the country’s 

registered charity ethnocultural arts 

organizations, entered into a series 

of community consultations to better 

understand current and emerging 

issues facing Ontario’s arts community 

(collectively, the OAC consultations).156

The OAC consultations made a 

concerted effort to reach culturally 

diverse and Aboriginal artists and arts 

organizations and served to inform a 

new OAC strategic plan.

The many concerns expressed 

by participants in the OAC consultations 

echo those identified in numerous 

studies regarding the health of the 

arts community, including shrinking 

audiences, the need to diversify and 

reach new audiences, the decline of arts education in school system, 

the lack of local and municipal level support for communities existing 

outside major city centers, the lack of affordable presentation, 

Arts Board, more focused on support for advancing Aboriginal artists 

within their field of expertise.146 The authors of the AFA study note that 

several of the reviewed arts council/board programs made a concerted 

effort to address issues related to eligibility requirements, the application 

process (e.g., jury system), and/or the grant administration process, and/

or entered into partnerships with other governmental agencies and/or 

Aboriginal organizations to improve the success and accessibility of 

their Aboriginal arts programming.147 The AFA study also revealed that 

following the adoption of Aboriginal-specific arts funding programs 

by other arts agencies, these agencies had seen a dramatic rise in the 

number of Aboriginal applicants.148

Among the issues relating to the support and development of 

Aboriginal arts in Alberta, findings from the second phase of the AFA 

study indicated a lack of a “general understanding of the importance 

and value of Aboriginal arts” and the lack of a “strong infrastructure 

that supports Aboriginal arts in the province from a ‘bigger picture’ 

perspective.” Moreover, there are “lots of Aboriginal arts organizations 

and artists practicing, however there is no coordinating body or service 

organization that works on behalf of the entire sector – promoting 

its importance, providing training and development opportunities or 

sharing consistent communication with Aboriginal arts groups and 

artists throughout the province.”149 Interview findings from the second 

phase underscored the importance and value of “face-to-face meetings 

to build relationships and exchange information” and of working closely 

with Aboriginal communities in program design.150

The third phase of the AFA study identified a number of needs 

of, and suggestions by, the province’s Aboriginal arts community with 

respect to support activities. The most important identified needs were 

for financial and artistic resources, and access to work space; other needs 

related to training in the areas of business management and marketing.151

In terms of support, artists suggested that AFA serve as an advocate of 

Aboriginal arts through the allocation of funding for the development 

of programs that benefitted beginning through professional level 

Aboriginal artists and arts organizations, the creation of networking 

opportunities, and the encouragement of ongoing communication 

and dialogue with the field in addition to other activities.152 Overall, 

the AFA study indicated that grant programs “designed specifically for 

I had been involved in my 

synagogue doing an annual 

concert, and each year it 

was getting bigger and 

bigger. It was obvious...

that there was a market 

for it in Boston. And in 

fact, the first piece of 

research that I uncovered 

was Boston was the largest 

Jewish community in the 

United States that did 

not have a Jewish music 

festival. So I knew that this 

would succeed, I just didn’t 

know what it was going 

to be...I had no major 

connections to the world of 

philanthropy. I was a guy 

with an idea, with a great 

marketing background. 

– Joseph Baron, Co-founder 

& Executive Director of the 

Boston Jewish Music Festival 

(September 18, 2013)

76
Part I

rehearsal, and creation spaces, the high costs of maintaining owned 

space, staff retention, and fundraising.157 In addition to these issues, a 

number of which impact both ethnocultural and non-ethnocultural arts 

organizations, the OAC consultations identified challenges pertaining 

more specifically to “new Canadian,” immigrant and culturally diverse 

artists and arts organizations. Key findings from this aspect of the OAC 

consultations are as follows:158

• Feelings of isolation from the broader Ontario arts community 

due to the practice of art forms that were often misunderstood 

by this greater arts community; “[t]his perception often makes 

it difficult for these artists to reach arts audiences and potential 

donors beyond their immediate cultural communities”

• Finding financial support to support research, collaboration, 

and education within artists’ countries of origin, which in 

some instances was a necessary component of culturally 

specific artistic practices

• New Canadian artists working in practices that incorporated 

languages other than English and French faced additional 

issues with respect to audience development and financial 

support

Similar to feedback contained in the AFA study, among other roles for 

OAC, participants in the OAC consultations identified a “need for OAC 

to play a leadership role in demonstrating that culturally diverse practices 

form an integral part of Ontario’s arts fabric.”159

Discussions with the province’s Aboriginal artists and arts 

organizations identified similar concerns to those expressed in the other 

components of the OAC consultations and included the following 

additional primary concerns:160

• Issues of access due to Western-centric definitions of arts and 

artists and standards of evaluation

• A need for a simpler, more flexible grant application process 

and program design “based on the activities artists and arts 

organizations engage in”

• A need for both increased and multiple forms of outreach to 

northern artists, Aboriginal artists, and artists of color

• Assistance in the development of arts service organizations 

and new means of funding developing organizations

• A need to provide greater support for Aboriginal arts 

organizations due to historic disadvantages compared to 

older mainstream organizations

• Assistance with networking 

• The need for OAC to more actively promote the arts 

and artists working in education, corrections, health, and 

community development

• A need for workshops and training sessions for Aboriginal 

artists and artists of color lacking access to mainstream 

training organizations or where no such training exists for 

their art forms

Overall, participants from this series of the OAC consultations 

expressed the need for “OAC to undertake organizational change that 

would ensure the increased participation and representation of artists 

of colour, regional artists and Aboriginal artists.”161 Subsequently, 

among the vision statements contained in OAC’s 2008-2013 strategic 

plan, Connections and Creativity, was a vision statement that identified 

“Aboriginal, francophone, culturally diverse, new generation and 

regional artists and arts organizations” as “priority groups.”162 In 2011, 

according to OAC’s annually published performance measures, in the 

2010-2011 fiscal year, Aboriginal arts organizations were awarded three 

percent and culturally diverse arts organizations were awarded four 

percent of OAC operating funds.163

Based on research for the Plural project, by 2012 eight 

provinces and all three territories had developed targeted funding 

for ethnocultural arts organizations. With respect to other sources of 

contributed financial support – namely, foundation, corporation, and 

individual contributions – research for the Plural project identified 

insufficient information to present or discuss the impact of these sources 

at various points in the history of the field, although interviews with 

Plural project participants did suggest that non-governmental support 

has played an important role in the growth and development of more 

than a few organizations. We further note that the project identified 

insufficient information to discuss the role of revenue generating/

earned income activities over time. 

Independent from, and at times related to, increased 

governmental support, a wave of ethnocultural arts service organizations 

77
Historical Background

other activities consisted of a three-year research project on the field 

that resulted in the publication in 2012 of Pluralism in the Arts in Canada: A 

Change is Gonna Come, which presents contemporary critical discourse on 

cultural equity in the arts through essays and other materials prepared 

by arts leaders and activists.166

With the advent of more robust support and interest in the 

ethnocultural arts field, research for the Plural project suggests that the 

growth that began during the late 1980s with the official adoption of 

multiculturalism continued strongly into the 2000s, with a number of 

ethnocultural arts organizations founded and/or formalized between 

2000 and 2012. The newer organizations range in arts disciplines and 

pan racial groups and include Obsidian Theatre Company (2000; 

Toronto), Red Sky Performance (2000; Toronto), Raven Spirit Dance 

(2004; Vancouver), the Alianait Arts Festival (2005; Iqaluit), Alameda 

Theatre Company (2006; Toronto), Onelight Theatre Society (2006; 

Halifax), and the Vancouver Latin American Film Festival (2009; 

Vancouver). 

Some of the most groundbreaking work in the field is also 

occurring outside of the nonprofit sector entirely. Acclaimed filmmaker 

Zacharias Kunuk is President of the for-profit company Isuma 

Productions, which is headquartered in Igloolik and operates as the 

country’s first Inuit production company. Incorporated in 1990, Isuma 

Productions released the first Aboriginal-language Canadian feature 

film, Atanarjuat The Fast Runner, in 2001, and the film went on to garner 

the Camera d’Or for Best First Feature Film at the 2001 Cannes 

International Film Festival, six Canadian Genies including Best Picture, 

and numerous other international festival awards.167 With a mandate 

to “produce independent community-based media – films, TV, and 

and related initiatives emerged in the last decade to further strengthen 

the ethnocultural arts field and to address needs unmet by mainstream 

arts service organizations. Among the numerous groups founded in the 

last decade are the National Indigenous Media Arts Coalition (2001), 

the National Aboriginal Network for Arts Administration (early 2000s), 

the Latin American Canadian Art Projects (2003), MT Space (2004), the 

Indigenous Performing Arts Alliance (2004), the Aboriginal Curatorial 

Collective (2005), Diversité Artistique Montréal (2006), the Chinese 

Performing Arts Society of Canada (2006 and then-named the Chen 

Ling Dance Society), and the South Asian Dance Alliance of Canada 

(2008). 

As in previous periods, ethnocultural arts organizations have 

continued to take on the added role of operating their own presenting 

mechanisms and creating their own formal and informal networks as a 

means to further develop their work in the absence of other opportunities 

and combat issues of isolation. In 2000, Hirabayashi and Bourget of 

Kokoro Dance started the Vancouver International Dance Festival 

(VIDF) as a means to help connect and support the struggling dance 

community in the city, which “needed to have a better strategy for...both 

building audiences and for attracting presenters and for getting more 

touring work to come here so that local artists would be stimulated more 

and get exposed to...different kinds of dance.”164 Although not focused 

on ethnocultural arts organizations, VIDF regularly presents these 

arts organizations, in some cases providing them with their first largescale public venue. Similarly, and more specifically, Shahin Sayadi and 

Maggie Stewart, Co-founders of Halifax’s Onelight Theatre, created 

the Prismatic Festival in 2006 in response to the lack of presenting 

opportunities to showcase the work of culturally diverse artists.

Initiated in 2009, Cultural Pluralism in the Arts Movement 

Ontario (CPAMO) is another ethnocultural initiated and led response 

to the need for a more equitable arts ecosystem. A movement focused 

on supporting Aboriginal and ethno-racial artists and arts organizations, 

CPAMO’s work has included the organization of town hall meetings, 

workshops, and other activities directed toward opening opportunities 

for artists and organizations, creating a forum for dialogue on issues of 

diversity and artistic expression, and building constructive relationships 

between artists, presenters, and cultural institutions.165 One of these 

So no money, grassroots...Sylvia [Cloutier] helped 

come up with the name “Alianait,” which is an 

Inuktitut word that means “Hurray” or “Awesome.” 

– Heather Daley, Co-founder & Festival Director of Alianait Arts 

Festival (May 10, 2013)) 

78
Part I

now Internet – to preserve and enhance Inuit culture and language; to 

create jobs and economic development in Igloolik and Nunavut; and to 

tell authentic Inuit stories to Inuit and non-Inuit audiences worldwide,” 

Isuma Productions and its other related ventures such as IsumaTV 

adopt a multiple approach to empowering and fostering communication 

and knowledge exchange among Indigenous and non-Indigenous 

communities around the globe.168

 While each organization is distinct, as with Isuma, visible in the 

work and mandates of many are the numerous roles ethnocultural arts 

organizations assume to support their origin and broader communities 

and to foster excellence and innovation within the arts. Balancing these 

and other roles and responsibilities presents unique challenges for 

organizations that are simultaneously working within an arts environment 

containing deeply entrenched systemic barriers that are only beginning 

to come down.

In the 2011-2012 fiscal year, the Canada Council awarded 

approximately $94.8 million in operating support to 1051 organizations. 

Forty-five, or just under 4.3 percent, of these organizations were 

culturally diverse, and they received approximately $2.8 million, or just 

under 3 percent, of total operating funds, which represents lower levels of 

financial support for these organizations than existed in 2005-2006 and 

2009-2010.169 The total amount of Canada Council support provided 

to culturally diverse artists and arts organizations in that year was just 

under $8.8 million, a figure $1 million lower than the amount provided 

to these artists and arts organizations in the 2001-2002 fiscal year.170

Not coincidentally, in the same year, the Equity Office 

expanded the eligibility criteria for CBI to include deaf and disability 

arts communities, another long underserved member of the greater 

arts community.171 By the beginning of this decade, the Equity Office’s 

multiple responsibilities included:172

• Maintaining a strategic focus on supporting Canadian artists 

of African, Asian, Middle Eastern, Latin American or mixed 

racial heritage, and their artistic practices.

• Working closely with the Aboriginal Arts Office to integrate 

the distinct history, experience and contributions of 

Aboriginal artists into a wider equity framework.

• Promoting integration and access for artists who are Deaf 

or who have disabilities into the Council’s processes and 

programs.

• Contributing to policy development for official language 

minority communities.

Despite the adoption of equity as a Canada Council strategic priority, 

ensuring its implementation has effectively rested with the Equity Office, 

whose limited resources are stretched across an incredibly diverse and 

disparate landscape. This situation has in turn resulted in a structurally 

ghettoized and weak system of support for the many communities that 

have long been effectively locked out of the arts support system. 

Similarly adopting equity objectives but taking a different 

approach from the Canada Council, provincial arts agencies such as 

OAC have made equity concerns the general responsibility of each of its 

discipline offices, which in theory more broadly operationalizes equity as 

an objective. Lacking dedicated oversight, however, this structure leaves 

no clear focus, committed advocacy, or accountability for its enactment.

Work in the Aboriginal arts support environment is instructive as 

another, third path. The result of hard fought battles and deeply needed 

change, encompassed in this component of the ethnocultural arts support 

environment is the emergence of systems offering multiple levels of 

targeted support concurrent with an overarching focus on mainstreaming 

Aboriginal experiences. This doubled approach maximizes the limited 

resources under which these Aboriginal arts offices and programs are 

also operating by, in part, serving to slowly recast the conversation from 

one focused on the needs of a single “equity-seeking group” to one 

focused on supporting the plurality of perspectives that is integral to the 

growth and vibrancy of the arts as a whole.

Canada’s ethnocultural arts field has entered a pivotal period 

where younger organizations are looking to grow and solidify gains and 

more mature organizations are looking to transfer leadership to a new 

generation. Having “grown from a sense of ‘survival’ to one of the most 

innovative, rapidly changing sectors in the cultural landscape of the 

country,”173 developments in the Aboriginal arts field in particular hint 

at the enormous potential and future achievements of all ethnocultural 

artists and arts organizations when the support environment begins to 

evolve in a manner that accounts for the tremendous diversity which is 

the one defining feature of ethnocultural arts organizations and for the 

79
Historical Background

contexts and constraints under which these organizations have evolved.

A Change is Gonna Come stresses a need for continued action and 

meaningful change to achieve true cultural equity. Calling attention 

to the persistent disparity between multiculturalism as a policy and 

as a practice in a manner that applies to the ethnocultural arts field 

as a whole, Onelight Theatre’s Shahin Sayadi warns in this work that

This is about the effect of failing to represent huge 

portions of Canadian society and experiences...Make 

no mistake while some culturally diverse individuals 

will embrace the status quo and integrate into the 

“mainstream” artistic ecology, many will not. In denying 

culturally diverse individuals the basic rights of freedom 

of expression – which encompasses the right to speak 

and to listen – we are perpetuating segregation and 

silence.174

80
Image 19. Volunteering at UIMA, 1977. Left to Right: Steven Colucci, Joshua Kind, Dr. Achilles Chreptowsky, Oleh 

Kowerko, Arnold Moodenbaugh, Andrew Popadiu. Reproduced by permission from Ukrainian Institute of 

Modern Art.

81
Historical Background

United States

While minimal, in comparison to Canada there is substantially 

more literature on ethnocultural arts organizations based in the United 

States. Our research also indicates that there are even more assumptions 

about the field. 

The literature is marked by one major study on ethnocultural 

arts organizations of color conducted 24 years ago followed by a number 

of smaller studies focused on specific disciplines and/or pan racial or 

ethnic groups. Our literature review identified no research on the entire 

field. In contrast to the relative dynamism of Canadian activity, US 

literature and surrounding dialogue contains a mixed sense of field 

fatigue and resurgence, which is tinged by a backdrop of implicit and 

explicit questions concerning the continued relevancy of ethnocultural 

arts organizations and sentiments that support has had no lasting impact 

on a field that is broken. This section generally tracks pre-established 

periods in the history of US ethnocultural arts organizations, with one 

difference: where feasible, our history considers critical moments in the 

development of the field alongside its support system as it existed at the 

time.

1867-1900

For over 140 years, ethnocultural institutions have had a 

presence in the United States. Museums and archives based out of Black 

colleges in the 1860s, intended to serve as repositories of African cultural 

knowledge, may have been among the earliest of such institutions,1

and these were soon followed by the various cultural organizations 

established by the flood of immigrants arriving in the country in the 

late 1800s. In the 1880s, the new Americans consisted of such groups as 

Jewish immigrants from Russia and Eastern Europe who brought along 

their theatrical traditions, which further developed and flourished in 

the United States.2 Similar to their later iterations, many of these early 

organizations emerged out of identified needs to preserve the history 

and culture of ethnic groups that had been marginalized,3 to resist 

assimilationist pressures, and/or as a means of (re)creating community 

in a new environment. 

The ethnocultural arts field also places its roots in the separate 

but related settlement house movement, which began during the same 

period and paralleled this initial wave of community-created arts 

organizations. A part of efforts to bring the arts to communities whose 

residents had little to no access to America’s more established cultural 

institutions and thus were perceived as underserved, the settlement houses 

were founded and supported by private philanthropy and encouraged 

arts education and other artistic activity alongside the provision of social 

services.4

 These houses, which included Hull House in Chicago and 

the Henry Street Settlement in New York’s Lower East Side, began by 

serving poor European immigrants, but expanded over time to include 

many different minority communities.5 Although community-focused, 

unlike the institutions based out of the country’s Black colleges or 

formed by immigrant communities themselves, the settlement houses 

were originally directed more toward assimilating these groups into the 

dominant American culture.6

1900-1960

The first half of the 20th century continued to be a period of 

growth for the budding field. Following the influx of (primarily) European 

1867

1900

1867: First (?) ethnocultural museum 

founded at Howard University

1879: The first of many federally 

endorsed off-reservation boarding schools, 

the Carlisle Indian Industrial School is 

founded on an assimilationist model that 

removes Native children from their 

families and forces them to give up their 

cultures, languages, and religions

1889: Hull House opens

82
Part I

immigrants to the United States prior to World War II,7 these still-young 

communities began to establish local museums and other more formal 

institutions that would serve to preserve and pass on cultural knowledge 

to younger, American-born generations. In some cases, organizations 

also took on the added functions of housing and presenting artwork 

endangered in their home country and brought to the United States 

by refugees or through other means. Founded in 1937 and based in 

Chicago, the Polish Museum of America is one of the country’s oldest 

ethnic museums and one such institution that found itself in possession 

of a large collection of Polish art after the outbreak of war prevented the 

return of exhibits to Poland that were part of the Polish Pavilion at the 

New York World’s Fair of 1939-40. 

A small number of ethnocultural arts organizations of color 

were also founded prior to 1960,8 and among these organizations 

were spaces encouraged and supported in part by the federal and state 

governments. During the 1930s, New Deal programs provided a new 

surge in support for community-oriented arts activity, including those 

with an ethnocultural focus. Arts projects funded under the New Deal 

had three general purposes: (i) to provide employment for artists of all 

ethnic groups; (ii) to increase access to mainstream art in communities 

lacking such access; and (iii) to encourage a range of cultural expression.9

Primarily directed at Black communities, these projects led to the creation 

of the first cultural centers designed specifically for ethnic groups of 

color; Chicago’s South Side Community Art Center is one such New 

Deal-era organization.10

1960-1990

The overwhelming majority of ethnocultural arts organizations 

still in existence today11 were founded after 1960 as artists and social 

activists from diverse ethnic backgrounds were motivated by a new 

urgency to be included in the American cultural narrative and to shape 

their communities’ inclusion therein. Several interrelated factors have 

been attributed to this tremendous organizational growth: 

• An increase in the number of artists of color who possessed 

an understanding of art as business, who had experienced 

persistent rejection, omission from, and misrepresentation by 

established art institutions, and who wanted to explore their 

own cultural roots;

• “[T]he loss in credibility of the melting pot concept, which 

fostered efforts to create a homogenous identity dominated 

by Anglo-American culture”;

• The Civil Rights Movement and its various sub-movements, 

which offered a new era of hope and developed a “pan” 

consciousness; 

• The general cultural upheavals of the 1960s and 1970s, 

which created a dynamic environment of experimentation 

in which to challenge existing cultural models; and

• The availability of funding, especially in the 1960s and 

1970s, to empower (certain of) these efforts.12

As with previous periods, organizational growth generally 

tracked immigration patterns and differed somewhat by ethno-racial 

group, region, and artistic discipline. Research commissioned by the 

NEA in 1990 and focused on arts organizations of color (discussed 

in detail infra) suggests that while a number of organizations were 

1900

1960

1924: Immigration Act of 1924 restricts 

immigration of Southern Europeans, Eastern 

Europeans, Jews, Arabs, East Asians, Indians, and 

other individuals whose national origins make 

them “undesirable” immigrants

1926: WEB DuBois calls for a new Negro 

theater “about us, by us, for us, near us”

1935: Establishment of Works Progress 

Administration’s Federal Project Number I, 

including the Negro Theater Project

83
Historical Background

founded in the 1960s, particularly multiracial and Native American arts 

organizations, the 1970s witnessed a surge in the field more broadly, 

with the number of organizations founded and focusing on communities 

of color doubling for all of these pan racial groups except for Native 

organizations.13 The field experienced similar regional variations in 

growth: New England and the Mid-Atlantic were the first to experience 

a big surge in the 1960s followed by a doubling in the number of 

ethnocultural arts organizations of color founded across all regions in 

the 1970s except for New England.14 Among the many organizations 

founded during this period were the Japanese American Cultural and 

Community Center (1971; Los Angeles), the Carpetbag Theatre (1969; 

Knoxville), Ballet Hispanico (1970; New York), La Raza Galeria Posada 

(1972; Sacramento), the Turkish American Cultural Alliance (1968; 

Chicago), the Zamir Chorale of Boston (1969; Boston), and the Indian 

Pueblo Cultural Center (1976; Albuquerque).

We were unable to identify comparable existing information 

on White ethnocultural arts organizations; however, our own research 

for the Plural project suggests this pattern of field growth may have 

extended to these organizations. Only 16 of the 530 White organizations 

in the project’s US database, or 3 percent, have IRS ruling dates prior to 

1960. Twelve organizations have IRS ruling dates in the 1960s, and this 

number more than triples to 43 organizations, or 8 percent, with IRS 

ruling dates in the 1970s. The project’s survey results, which collected 

information regarding the self-reported/self-defined founding year 

of organizations as opposed to the year in which these organizations 

received tax exempt status (IRS ruling date), identify a greater number 

of organizations operating prior to 1960 (18 percent) but otherwise 

similarly suggest that a small portion of organizations (4 percent) was 

founded in the 1960s followed by an increase in the 1970s (14 percent). 

Among the White arts organizations founded during this period were the 

Irish Arts Center (1972; New York), the Ukrainian Institute of Modern 

Art (1971; Chicago), and the Spanish Dance Theatre (1976; Dorchester, 

Massachusetts). 

This numeric growth only hints at the amount and range 

of ethnocultural arts activity during this period. Formally but more 

commonly informally organized, these new galleries, companies, 

cultural centers, museums, and other groups were simultaneously 

creating and building a new canon of work, training the artists and 

administrators to present and produce it, and developing the audiences, 

art criticism, networks, and other systems to support it. While many of 

these organizations were driven by strong, urgent mandates, however, 

they required capital and other resources to fully realize these visions of 

a vibrant, culturally pluralistic America. 

Accompanying the emergence of this new group of ethnocultural 

arts organizations was an unprecedented increase in financial support 

and attention from outside (non-community) sources, almost all of which 

initially came from the federal government. In the 1960s, this support 

primarily derived from such programs as the Great Society’s antipoverty and community development initiatives.15 With the enactment 

of the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) and new 

focuses for other existing federal programs, the newly-established (1965) 

NEA’s creation of programming directed to ethnic and community arts, 

and the formation of ethnic arts service programs and organizations to 

serve the now rapidly growing ethnocultural arts field, the landscape of 

1960

1990

1962: Establishment of Institute of American Indian Arts

1965: Abolishment of national origin quota system; Luis 

Valdez founds El Teatro Campesino, and group performs 

actos at frontline of United Farmworker’s Union picket line

1968: NYSCA Ghetto Arts Program established

1971: NEA Expansion Arts Program established

1972: EDA’s five-point plan for tribes

1973: CETA signed into law

1975: AHA founded

1977: Atlatl founded

1982: CETA succeeded by Job Training Partnership Act; 

enactment of Indian Tribal Governmental Tax Status Act

1983: A4 founded

1985: TAAC founded

1988: NALAC founded

84
Part I

support broadened considerably in the 1970s. 

Signed into law in 1973 by President Nixon, CETA was an 

umbrella piece of legislation that facilitated job training and employment 

opportunities for economically disadvantaged, unemployed, and 

underemployed individuals.16 Decentralized in design, CETA funds 

were channeled to state and local agencies and programs, which in 

turn coordinated/subcontracted with nonprofit, and a smaller number 

of for-profit, organizations to identify individual participants. Artists 

and arts projects were soon integrated into CETA, and nonprofit arts 

organizations could apply to a CETA program to fund such positions as 

artist residencies, temporary staff, and to provide summer jobs to high 

school students. In 1979 alone, the Department of Labor estimated that 

$200 million, or almost $688.5 million in real dollars, “had been invested 

in CETA arts jobs...a tremendous boon” for community artists.17 For 

growing and emerging ethnocultural arts organizations such as the 

Houston-based Ensemble Theatre, founded in 1976, and Houstonbased MECA, founded in 1977, CETA funding was instrumental in 

the training and hiring of initial staff and in building organizational 

capacity.18

Specific to Native communities, changes in federal Indian policy 

under the Nixon administration created a more fertile environment for 

the emergence of Native cultural organizations. Through the occupation 

of Alcatraz Island in 1969 and more violent protests by groups such 

as the American Indian Movement, Native activists had raised the 

visibility of America’s Native population and brought attention to 

destructive federal policies and programs such as relocation, which 

involved the federally encouraged movement of tens of thousands of 

Native Americans from reservation land to cities for low wage jobs in 

an effort to break up tribal communities and thereby assimilate the 

country’s Native peoples. Following Nixon’s inauguration, the federal 

Indian policy known as termination explicitly shifted to a policy of Native 

self-determination, and this new direction was given force by a series 

of laws and programs aimed at supporting tribal sovereignty, which in 

turn assisted Native activists, including artists, in realizing visions of selfcontrolled, self-designed cultural spaces. 

Possibly most directly relevant to Native arts organizations was the 

Economic Development Administration’s five-point plan, issued in 1972, 

for “tribally controlled economic, educational, and social development 

on reservations.”19 This plan, called a “cultural renaissance throughout 

Indian country,” provided funding for the construction of Nativeoperated cultural organizations, and led to a rapid rise in the number of 

tribal museums and cultural centers.20 According to one source, prior to 

1960 there were 10 such museums; by 1981, this number had increased 

to approximately 40 tribal museums and cultural centers in operation.21

Moreover, other tribes had begun planning for their own cultural spaces. 

The foundation for the Museum at Warm Springs, opened in 1993 and 

the first tribal museum in Oregon, was laid in 1974 with the passing of 

The Museum Project by the Tribal Council for the Confederated Tribes 

of Warm Springs.22

Several NEA programs also bolstered the development of 

ethnocultural arts organizations. Arguably the most impactful and wellknown of these programs was the Expansion Arts Program (1971-1996), 

which, over its 25-year history, offered a range of arts services aimed 

at community-based, and particularly ethnocultural, arts activity.23 In 

addition to providing direct funding to organizations, Expansion Arts 

initiatives such as the Advancement Program, developed in coordination 

with the Challenge Program (see below), focused on stabilizing 

organizations through capacity building and organizational planning. 

What happened was, because the community didn’t have access to really any place to gather...it wasn’t 

just a library. It was where everybody came to gather socially. It was where they had their community 

meetings, where they had their neighborhood meetings, where they had their celebrations. Where they 

mourned their losses, and things of that nature. So it grew out of there. I don’t know that it was ever 

intended – initially – to be a performing arts center. But that’s what it became. 

– Cassandra Parker-Nowicki, Carver Community Cultural Center (June 28, 2013)

85
Historical Background

Expansion Arts was further designed to strengthen the environment in 

which organizations operated, including through such other initiatives 

as the funding of community foundations and of local (and generally 

newly established) arts agencies before federal programs existed to 

directly support these agencies, with a requirement that both types of 

recipient donor organizations match distributed arts funds. Program 

staff additionally served more generally as advocates for the sector. 

Through its diverse programming, Expansion Arts worked to increase 

overall arts funding and support for ethnocultural and other communitybased arts organizations. 

Established in 1977 and not focused on the ethnocultural arts 

sector, the Challenge Program was another NEA program designed 

to strengthen arts organizational capacity through increasing and 

diversifying giving and in building cash reserves, thus building financial 

stability. Other NEA programs created during this period further 

impacted, and continue to impact, ethnocultural arts activity more 

broadly. These programs include the Folk Arts Program (est. 1977) and 

the National Heritage Fellowships (est. 1982).

Cognizant of the changing racial demographics in many cities 

and the rapid rise in the number of ethnocultural arts organizations, 

several state and local arts agencies also developed programs specifically 

focused on existing, or in some cases emerging, underserved racial/ethnic 

communities during this period. Possibly the earliest of such programs, 

and one that preceded Expansion Arts, was New York State’s Council 

on the Arts’ Ghetto Arts Program (later renamed as the “Special Arts 

Services” Program), which was established in 1968 and has continuously 

served as a source of support for ethnocultural arts organizations in the 

state. Arts agencies slowly began to revise funding guidelines as well to 

open access to financial resources that had effectively been limited to 

large budget institutions whose work was situated in a general Western 

European artistic frame. For example, in 1983, the Texas Commission 

on the Arts adopted three strategies to expand the scope of its work 

in response to a needs assessment it had conducted regarding the arts 

in minority communities: (i) the creation of a “Minority Involvement 

Committee”; (ii) a revised voting system in evaluating grant applications; 

and (iii) the “refining of funding criteria to ensure that projects for which 

financial assistance was sought reflected the diverse artistic and cultural 

heritage and geography of Texas.”24

Ethnocultural arts 

organizations found additional 

support with the appearance 

of ethnocultural arts service 

organizations in the 1970s. Founded 

at some point before 1975, the Indian 

Culture Coordinators Program 

(ICCP) was among the earliest 

ethnocultural arts service programs 

in the United States; NEA-funded, 

this program focused on supporting 

culture within Native populations.25

While we were unable to clarify 

how the transition took place, 

ICCP either supported or evolved 

into the Santa Fe-based Atlatl, a 

Native arts service organization 

founded two years later.26 Over its 

approximately 30 years of existence, 

this organization provided a range 

of services to artists and cultural 

organizations, including training 

and leadership development, artist 

grants, networking (e.g., conferences 

and artist registries), and the 

presentation of art (e.g., through 

traveling exhibitions).27 Founded 

the same year as ICCP was the Association of Hispanic Arts (AHA), 

a New York-based nonprofit focused on advancing Latino arts, artists, 

and arts organizations primarily through advocacy and the provision 

of technical assistance.28 Three years later (1978), the by-laws for the 

African American Museums Association (now the Association of African 

American Museums, or AAAM) were ratified in Detroit.29 These larger 

and more formal support groups complemented the already existing 

and then more informally organized support networks and presenting 

organizations such as Ellen Stewart’s La MaMa Experimental Theatre 

Club, founded in 1961, which provided financial and moral support to, 

and otherwise served as an incubator for, emerging ethnocultural arts 

We’re a very traditional hula 

school, meaning my dance 

practices have been passed 

on from generations to 

generations...we did a cultural 

exchange with [the Washington 

Ballet company], they came to 

our studios, our halau and...

during the conversation, their 

dancers asked my dancers when 

we were going to be touring, and 

when we would be performing. 

And Virginia [Paff] and I both 

looked at each other, and a 

little lightbulb went off in our 

heads, and we thought, ‘Why 

not try and create a performing 

company?’ And so that’s how 

it started. That’s how the 

performing company started, 

our touring company.

– Michael Pili Pang, Artistic Director 

and Kumu Hula of Mu’olaulani 

(September 16, 2013)

86
Images 20 and 21. Dakota Hoska. Left, Birch Branch 1 and (right), Birch Branch 2 from the series Consulting the Birch, 2013. Graphite on paper, 15 x 11 in. 

With All My Relations Gallery. Reproduced by permission from Dakota Hoska.

87
Historical Background

Section 7871 Organizations: A Tribal Nonprofit

While its legal basis has existed for over 30 years, the Section 7871 

organization is a generally unknown and misunderstood type of 

nonprofit.* In forming a registered charitable organization, US tribal 

members may choose to incorporate under state or tribal law and then 

seek 501(c)(3) status from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Both of 

these avenues offer the benefit of visibility and familiarity to donors but 

subject the tribal-based organization to regulation by non-tribal entities 

(in the former, the state and federal governments, in the latter, the 

federal government via the IRS). For tribal government leaders, a third 

means of obtaining the benefits of nonprofit status may be available that 

supports a greater degree of tribal sovereignty over charitable activities 

and flexibility with respect to developing culturally appropriate and 

community relevant operational models. 

Established by Congress as part of the Indian Tribal Governmental 

Tax Status Act of 1982 and codified in the Internal Revenue Code, Section 

7871 permits any fund, entity or program of a federally recognized 

tribal government that is an integral part of such government to receive 

tax-deductible donations. If a part of a political subdivision of the 

tribal government with the power to tax, police, or exercise eminent 

domain and designed for exclusively public purposes, these entities 

or programs are likely to qualify as Section 7871, or simply 7871, 

nonprofit organizations. As with 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations, 

donations to Section 7871 organizations are deductible by individual 

donors for income tax purposes and count as qualifying distributions 

for foundations. Unlike 501(c)(3)s, 7871 nonprofit designation does 

not require IRS approval, and there is no readily available means of 

identifying, or finding information regarding, these organizations (e.g., 

through databases such as GuideStar). 

Based on research conducted by the First Nations Development 

Institute (FNDI) through 2009, FNDI estimated that there were at least 

600 of these tribal nonprofits in existence at that time, of which only 

approximately 20 were actively fundraising as nonprofits. Research for 

the Plural project confirmed one 7871 nonprofit arts organization, the 

Maine-based Waponahki Museum & Resource Center, and identified 26 

organizations as probable 7871s; all 27 are included in the project’s US 

ethnocultural arts organization database. 

As discussed in FNDI’s research report, for 7871s seeking 

to increase and/or diversify their funding sources, a key challenge 

particular to these nonprofits is the lack of awareness and comfort nonNative funders and other donors have regarding their tax structure. This 

unfamiliarity is expressed in such features as funder bylaws or granting 

guidelines that conflate nonprofit status with the 501(c)(3) model and 

thus expressly require an organization to be a 501(c)(3) to receive funds. 

The result, intentional or not, is the exclusion of 7871 nonprofits, and 

subsequently Native communities, from granting programs. Additional 

challenges are misconceptions regarding the prevalence and profitability 

of Native gaming enterprises on reservation lands (and thus questions 

regarding other potential income sources) and inconsistent federal 

treatment of 7871 organizations. 

* For an insightful and highly informative report on these organizations, 

see First Nations Development Institute, Charitable and Sovereign: 

Understanding Tribal 7871 Organizations (Longmont, CO: First Nations 

Development Institute, 2009). This profile was informed both by this 

report and a follow-up phone conversation with an FNDI staff member.

88
Part I

organizations, alternative arts spaces, 

and “new work by artists of all nations 

and cultures.”30

The first half of the 1980s 

continued to see an increase in 

the number of ethnocultural arts 

organizations of color, particularly 

within Asian American communities 

and in the West and “Mid-America” 

regions;31 coinciding with the growth 

in Asian arts organizations, the Asian 

American Arts Alliance (A4) was 

founded in 1983. Tribal communities 

nationwide also continued to plan for 

and break ground on the construction 

of tribal museums and cultural 

centers; during the 1980s, the number 

of such cultural spaces nearly tripled, 

and the enactment in 1990 of both the 

Indian Arts and Crafts Act (IACA) and 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) 

created additional incentives for tribal governments to support these 

institutions.32 Based on a list maintained by the Smithsonian’s (then 

named) Office of Museum Programs, by 1993 there were an estimated 

122 tribal museums in existence.33 More broadly, however, fewer 

ethnocultural arts organizations of color were formed in the later half 

of the decade.34

Research for the Plural project suggests there may have been 

similar growth among White ethnocultural arts organizations in 

the 1980s. Twenty-three percent of White arts organization survey 

respondents report founding dates in this decade, which represents a 

nine percent increase from the 1970s before a decrease in the 1990s. 

Among these newly formed organizations was Côr Cymraeg Rehoboth, 

or the Rehoboth Welsh Choir, based in Delta, Pennsylvania, and 

organized in 1984 after the Pendyrus Male Choir, an award-winning 

choir from Wales, inspired members of the bilingual Rehoboth Welsh 

Chapel and other Delta-area residents to form their own concert choir.35

Performing in Welsh and other languages, Côr Cymraeg Rehoboth, 

which now attracts singers from throughout the Mid-Atlantic region and 

has performed and competed in venues both within the United States 

and in Europe, has from its beginning relied primarily on its members’ 

and their families’ donations of time and money to cover organizational 

expenses. Expressing the motivation behind these artists’ deep personal 

commitment to developing and sharing their craft, choir President Karen 

Conley notes,

Welsh, the language, was once...endangered...Because 

the study of Welsh has been resuscitated in the schools 

in Wales, it’s no longer on the critical list, which is a 

good thing. It is a beautiful language, with all sorts of 

mutations, and twists, and turns that make it very fun. 

That, in essence...is what we’re trying to preserve. The 

language, and the music, and our heritage from a 150 

years, 160 years in Delta.

With much of the new wave of ethnocultural arts organizations 

less than 10 years old, busily creating and reviving canons of art and the 

infrastructure to present it, and many operating without funding beyond 

federal or personal sources, or the assistance and attention of mainstream 

arts services, the support environment began to shift. At first gradually, 

federal support for the field began to disappear. In 1982, CETA was 

replaced by the more business-friendly Job Training Partnership Act. 

The loss of this important funding source, along with the new political 

and social environment under the Reagan administration, threatened 

the continued development of the field. Partly in response to the need for 

a more visible and active role in the political landscape, and to maintain 

a focus on inequitable funding policies and practices, The Association 

of American Cultures (TAAC) was founded in 1985. A national 

organization focused on ethnocultural arts organizations of color, its 

purpose is “to provide leadership in achieving equal participation in 

policymaking, equitable funding for all cultural institutions, an elevation 

in multicultural leadership and essential networks that impact cultural 

policies.”36

As the ethnocultural arts field entered the cultural wars of 

the late 1980s and 1990s, it was only loosely and newly organized and 

seeking to consolidate the progress it had made. One of the first reports 

and needs assessments on the field, released in December 1989 by the 

It is the only museum that’s 

completely dedicated to 

Japanese Canadian history 

and culture and art in 

Canada...we were a grassroots 

initiative that grew up from 

the community with the 

idea to preserve Japanese 

Canadian history, and really 

the roots of the organization 

grew out of the centennial 

celebrations in 1977 where 

people said, ‘We’ve been in 

Canada 100 years and nobody 

is saving our stories.’ 

– Beth Carter, Director/Curator 

of the Nikkei National Museum & 

Cultural Centre (April 16, 2013)

89
Historical Background

Ford Foundation and focusing on the 29 Black and Hispanic arts and 

culture museums identified by the study as in existence at the time, 

found that while Black museums had access to the 10-year old AAAM, 

there appeared to be little interaction among Latino museums, and the 

latter possessed no similar organized body to facilitate networking.37

Highlighting the economic fragility of these cultural institutions, which 

subsequent studies were soon to echo, the report recommended support 

that focused on collections care and management, and less specifically 

to their function as museums, institutional development and professional 

training – needs tied to inadequate funding.38

1990 to 2012

In 1990, the NEA commissioned a survey and report regarding 

the history, diversity, contributions, and challenges facing African 

American, Asian American, Latino American, and Native American 

nonprofit arts organizations.39 Entitled Cultural Centers of Color and first 

published in August 1992, this important work was the first, and remains 

the most, comprehensive study on the characteristics of ethnocultural 

arts organizations to date (described, and somewhat differently defined, 

in the report as “ethnically specific arts organizations of color,” or simply 

“ethnically specific organizations”), and provides a basis from which to 

consider organizational change over time. Cultural Centers of Color contains 

a wealth of information on the sector as it existed in the beginning of the 

1990s; we include herein those characteristics and findings most directly 

relevant to our own research findings related infra. 

Overall Age, Size & Income. At the time the survey was conducted, 

ethnocultural arts organizations of color were a median age of 12 years 

old, and their median number of employees was 16, with 20 percent 

reporting 0-5 employees and just over 5 percent reporting over 100 

employees.40 Seventy percent of surveyed organizations relied on a 

median of 6 volunteers to assist with tasks that ranged from “stuffing 

envelopes to fundraising to gift shop management to consultation on 

organizational development.”41

Across artistic, racial, and regional lines, income was the single 

greatest organizational concern.42 The median annual income for 

organizations responding to income questions was $45,250; income 

distribution was as follows:43

• Sixty-eight percent of reporting organizations had annual 

incomes of $100,000 or less

• Fifteen percent had incomes between $100-250,000

• Nine percent between $250-500,000

• Nine percent over $500,000

Confirming the important role the federal government 

had served, and was serving, in the support environment for these 

organizations, Cultural Centers of Color reported that the largest source 

of income (40 percent) was from government agencies, with just under 

half of this income coming directly from federal sources.44 The leaders 

of these organizations were also diversifying organizational revenue, 

having moved from almost complete reliance on federal and personal 

(self-funded) sources to successfully obtaining support from local and 

state agencies, focusing on earned income (22 percent of revenue), 

and building private contributions (21 percent of revenue) from 

1990

2012

1990: NAGPRA and IACA enacted; Philadelphia-based Coalition of 

African American Cultural Organizations inaugurates annual African 

American Cultural Fund to unite fundraising efforts

1992: Publication of Cultural Centers of Color

1995: First Peoples’ Fund founded

1996: Expansion Arts Program ends; NEA funds reduced by 38.7 

percent

2002-04: Nationwide total for state arts agency budgets reduced by 

almost 40 percent

2003: CAC funding reduced by 94 percent; MCAD program 

eliminated

2004: National Museum of the American Indian opens on the 

National Mall

2004-05: FFC launches series of gatherings on the development of 

nationwide support systems for immigrant and refugee arts

2006: Publication of Cultural Heritage Organizations

2006-07: Atlatl closes

2008: AHA closes (?)

2009: FFC suspends operations

2010: Newly incorporated Native Arts and Cultures Foundation 

begins awarding grants

2011: Publication of Fusing Arts, Culture and Social Change

90
Part I

foundations (approximately 9 percent) and corporations (approximately 

7 percent), sources previously and largely disinterested in or arguably 

hostile to this segment of the arts community and their diverse visions 

for America.45 The smallest source of income (5 percent) was from 

individual contributions,46 reflecting the reality that many organizations 

were (and are) situated in and tied to communities with extremely low 

levels of inherited and disposable wealth, no tradition of philanthropic 

giving to the arts, and/or new immigrant communities with other more 

immediate concerns (e.g., employment, housing), and other factors that 

are the legacy of colonialism (discussed in Part II). 

Artistic Discipline. According to the report, the largest percentage 

of surveyed organizations (approximately 28 percent) identified as 

multidisciplinary, with the remaining organizations focused on the 

following artistic disciplines:47

• Dance: approximately 14 percent

• Theater: approximately 13 percent

• Music: approximately 11 percent

• Visual Arts: approximately 11 percent

• Other: approximately 22 percent48

With respect to the large number of multidisciplinary 

organizations, Cultural Centers of Color author Elinor Bowles notes that 

“because many ethnically specific arts organizations grew out of the 

social and civil rights movements of the 1960s, they saw their mandate 

as the transmission of their artistic heritage in all its forms. Over 

time, many organizations that originally focused on a single discipline 

expanded their programming in order to meet expressed community 

needs. A second factor...is that communities of color tend to have a 

holistic world view that does not separate art from other activities, but 

sees art as an integral part of everyday life...”49

Pan racial Distribution. The pan racial profile of organizations was 

as follows:50

• African American: approximately 43 percent of surveyed 

organizations, with the largest concentration (35 percent) in 

the Mid-Atlantic region (Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, 

Pennsylvania, Washington, DC, New York, Virginia, and 

West Virginia) 

• Asian American: approximately 15 percent of surveyed 

organizations and heavily concentrated (68 percent) in the 

West (California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, New 

Mexico, Wyoming, Montana, Oregon, Washington State)

• Latino American: approximately 25 percent of surveyed 

organizations and concentrated (40 percent) in the West

• Native American: approximately 13 percent of surveyed 

organizations and heavily concentrated (58 percent) in the 

West

• Multiethnic: approximately 3 percent of surveyed 

organizations, with half of these located in the West

These pan racial groups differed in a number of areas, including 

decade of founding (discussed previously), artistic discipline, annual 

income amount, and income sources. With respect to artistic discipline, 

while a significant proportion of all groups were multidisciplinary (from a 

low of 21 percent for multiethnic organizations to a high of 35 percent for 

Native American organizations), they diverged in their single discipline 

artistic focus:51

• African American organizations concentrated on theater 

(17 percent of these organizations), followed by dance (16 

percent)

• Asian American organizations concentrated on “Other” (33 

percent, see previous), then music (16 percent)

• Latino American organizations concentrated on “Other” (19 

percent), then dance (17 percent)

• Native American organizations concentrated on “Other” (38 

percent), then the visual arts (21 percent)52

• Multiethnic organizations concentrated on “Other” (29 

percent), then were tied in their focus on dance and the visual 

arts (both 21 percent)

The different artistic concentrations of pan racial groups, 

supported by a later study conducted by Dr. Carole Rosenstein (discussed 

infra) and our own research for the Plural project, had – and has – 

implications for any form of support that focuses more heavily on specific 

artistic areas. 

Regarding organizational income, Asian American arts 

organizations surveyed reported the lowest average and median annual 

incomes ($105,877 and $25,250, respectively), and Native American 

91
Historical Background

arts organizations reported the highest ($414,668 and $74,850, 

respectively).53 As noted by Bowles and in our own discussion of the 

Plural research findings infra, higher income amounts for Native 

organizations are in part due to organizational structure: these arts 

organizations and programs were, and are, predominantly situated in 

multi-purpose cultural centers and other institutions providing a range 

of social services. The annual incomes for the other pan racial groups 

included in Cultural Centers of Color were as follows:54

• African American: $176,833 average, $49,000 median 

• Latino American: $135,623 average, $40,000 median

• Multiethnic: $251,016 average, $85,700 median

• There were also marked differences between pan racial 

groups regarding major sources of organizational revenue:55

• Asian American organizations reported the highest 

percentage of earned income (34 percent), and Native 

American organizations reported the lowest (8 percent)

• African American and Latino American organizations 

reported the highest percentage of overall private funding 

(at 27 percent and 26 percent, respectively), and Native 

American organizations reported the lowest (6 percent)

• With respect to specific types of private funding, Asian 

American organizations reported the highest percentage 

of income from individual contributions (10 percent) with 

Native American organizations reporting the lowest (1 

percent); Latino American organizations reported the 

highest percentage of income from corporate sources 

(12 percent), again with Native American organizations 

reporting the lowest (3 percent); and African American 

organizations reported the highest percentage of income 

from foundations (14 percent), again with Native American 

organizations reporting the lowest (1 percent)

• Native American organizations reported the highest 

percentage of income from public funding sources (61 

percent), with the highest percentage coming from federal 

sources (46 percent), compared to Asian American 

organizations, which reported the lowest percentage of 

overall public funding (23 percent)

While the overwhelming reliance of Native arts organizations on public, 

and especially federal, funding indicated these organizations particular 

sensitivity to the national political climate, the lack of diversification was 

perhaps slightly less concerning than it would have been if it described 

the situation of another pan racial group. The close relationship between 

Native groups and the federal government was – and is - reflective of the 

former’s domestic dependent nation status under US law and the latter’s 

fiduciary obligations with respect to this pan racial group. Notably, by 

1990, federal funding, although still an important source, had dropped 

to 8 to 10 percent of income for non-Native arts organizations of color; 

when excluding earned income, state and local funding had become the 

most important sources of funding for these groups.56

Regional Distribution. Lastly, we highlight certain of Cultural Centers 

of Color’s findings on regional distinctions in the field. Following was the 

regional distribution of the surveyed ethnocultural arts organizations:57

• Thirty-eight percent of organizations, and the largest 

percentage, were located in the West (previously defined)

• Twenty-seven percent of organizations were located in the 

Mid-Atlantic region (previously defined)

• Thirteen percent of organizations were located in the 

Midwest (North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, 

Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio)

• Eleven percent of organizations were located in the MidAmerica region (previously defined)

• Nine percent of organizations were located in the South 

(Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South 

Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Kentucky)

• Two percent of organizations were located in New England 

(Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New 

Hampshire, and Maine)

Organizational distribution loosely correlated with pan racial population 

distributions and broader concentrations of communities of color, with 

one key exception that has been echoed in subsequent research: at the 

time of the 1990 census, the South contained 21 percent of America’s 

population of color but only 9 percent of ethnocultural arts organizations 

of color.58

Surveyed organizations located in the South reported the lowest 

92
Part I

average and median annual incomes ($90,769 and $25,000, respectively), 

and organizations located in the Mid-Atlantic region reported the highest 

($259,252 and $81,300, respectively).59 The annual incomes for the other 

regions were as follows:60

• Mid-America: $133,719 average, $49,055 median

• Midwest: $215,886 average, $35,500 median

• New England: $114,996 average, $59,355 median

• West: $165,437 average, $32,333 median

There were also differences between regions regarding major sources of 

organizational revenue. These differences included the following:61

• Organizations located in the Mid-America region reported 

the highest percentage of earned income (28 percent), and 

Midwestern organizations reported the lowest (12 percent)

• Southern organizations reported the highest percentage 

of overall private funding (32 percent), and organizations 

located in the West and Midwest reported the lowest (16 

percent each)

• With respect to specific types of private funding, MidAmerican organizations reported the highest percentage 

of income from individual contributions (10 percent) with 

New England organizations reporting the lowest (2 percent); 

Southern organizations reported the highest percentage of 

income from corporate sources (25 percent), and Midwestern 

organizations reported the lowest (4 percent); and 

organizations located in the Mid-Atlantic region reported the 

highest percentage of income from foundations (14 percent) 

with Southern organizations reporting the lowest (3 percent)

• New England and Midwestern organizations reported the 

highest percentage of income from public funding sources 

(56 percent and 54 percent, respectively), with Midwestern 

organizations receiving the highest single percentage from 

federal sources (41 percent), compared to Mid-American 

organizations, which reported the lowest percentage of 

overall public funding (29 percent) and federal funding (4 

percent)

• New England organizations received the highest percentage 

of state funding (29 percent), and Mid-American 

organizations the highest percentage of local funding (17 

percent); Midwestern organizations received the lowest 

percentage of state funding (7 percent) and were tied with 

Western organizations in receiving the lowest percentage of 

local funding (6 percent)

When considering the general, artistic, pan racial, and regional profiles 

of ethnocultural arts organizations of color as they appeared in the early 

1990s, the resulting image is of a diverse set of organizations at various 

life cycle stages that had accomplished a tremendous amount, both in 

artistic and administrative terms, in a relatively short span of time. 

Despite their many contributions to their communities and 

American society as a whole, and their vast achievements to date, 

Cultural Centers of Color’s author found that, collectively, ethnocultural 

arts organizations of color were undergoing a crisis.62 Having entered 

the funding arena after funding patterns had already been established in 

favor of support for large, mainstream arts organizations,63 representing 

and/or targeting communities impacted by a host of societal and 

economic issues, and subject to the same concerns of the arts community 

as a whole, these organizations were struggling to achieve stability at a 

time when the support environment was shifting.64

Combining survey responses and discussions with interviewees, 

Bowles identified staffing, organizational structure, collaboration, 

multiculturalism, and income as the most critical concerns of arts 

organizations of color at the time.65 Shaping and impacting the other 

four challenges was the overwhelming issue of income: finding a means 

for organizations to develop a continuing source of revenue.66 As Bowles 

suggests, addressing this overarching issue meant addressing, and in 

turn would substantially address, such other issues as staffing (following 

income as the most serious organizational concern)67 and organizational 

structure. The ability to offer competitive salaries to emerging and 

mid-level leaders, particularly individuals from the (re)presented ethnic 

community, would assist with longer-term concerns of leadership 

transition while providing the human resources to focus on further 

diversifying income, explore earned income opportunities, and build and 

develop an individual donor base. Widening financial and other support 

for flexible and diverse organizational models would encourage deeper 

connections to local communities (audience development) and empower 

93
Historical Background

innovation and experimentation in forms of revenue generation.

Bowles highlights an additional key need of ethnocultural arts 

organizations of color that is of particular relevance to the Plural project 

research findings. Observing that many organizational leaders “wanted 

their communities to become more aware of their own cultural and 

artistic contributions” and “wanted other communities to acknowledge 

and appreciate the country’s cultural pluralism,” she points to the 

potential of the media to assist in these efforts.68 As major, non-ethnically 

specific media generally ignored, misrepresented, misunderstood and/

or exoticized ethnically specific art, Cultural Centers of Color participants 

suggested four strategies for improving this situation: (i) better, more 

diverse education of reviewers; (ii) developing more reviewers of color; 

(iii) encouraging more critical reviews; and (iv) improving documentation 

of ethnocultural artistic work.69 Bowles notes that several ethnocultural 

arts organizations had already begun implementation of these strategies 

through such tasks as preparing special press kits for reviewers and 

organizing to preserve their sector’s work.70 Overall, however, given the 

minimal existing support services for the field, Bowles comments that the 

“foremost challenge now is to help ethnically specific arts organizations 

survive financially and maintain high quality programming.”71

Cultural Centers of Color’s findings regarding the importance of 

federal, state, and local government support as an income source for 

ethnocultural arts organizations of color and the liminal organizational 

states of these organizations repeated and were repeated by similar 

findings that focused more specifically on Black, Latino, and Native arts 

and culture organizations.72 Conceived in 1988 out of a TAAC Open 

Image 22. Longtime students at Los Cenzontles Mexican Arts Center, Marissa Bautista 

and Bianelle Vasquez, participate in a special 

fashion show. April 2011. Reproduced by permission from Los Cenzontles Mexican Arts 

Center.

94
Part I

Dialogue conference, the National Association of Latino Arts and 

Culture (NALAC) was formed to become a service organization to the 

Latino arts field; the new organization held its first general meeting, 

Crossing Borders/Cruzando Fronteras: Los Siguientes 500 Años/The Next 500 

Years, in 1992 at the San Antonio-based Guadalupe Cultural Arts 

Center.73 Three years after Cultural Centers of Color was first published, 

NALAC released a draft report on the history, development, current 

conditions, and future prospects of Latino 

arts organizations based on their own 

research, undertaken between 1992 and 

1995, which included organizations that 

were not part of the former study (the 

NALAC Report).74

The NALAC Report identified the 

need for increased resources as the principal 

issue impacting Latino arts organizations: 

more specifically, obtaining adequate 

financial support and the need to increase, 

maintain, and develop staff.75 Noting the 

changing funding environment, the report’s 

authors observed that organizations would 

need to focus on (further) diversifying 

their sources of income and that many 

organizations had already begun to do so.76

At the same time, however, adapting to 

the new funding environment had “caused 

difficult transitions and retrenchments for 

most Latino arts and culture organizations,” 

which may have been one source for 

the “conflict and misunderstanding” 

the authors noted had at times colored 

organizations’ relationships with their base communities.77

A challenge particular to ethnocultural arts organizations and 

other community-minded and/or social justice directed organizations 

regards an inherent tension between external pressures to implement 

a mainstream Western organizational model and remaining faithful to 

founding missions, which frequently explicitly or implicitly challenge the 

centrality of this model. As organizations focused (and focus) on attaining 

stability and longevity, they were (and are) strongly encouraged to adopt 

the standard development model used by established mainstream arts 

organizations. Treated by many within and outside of the nonprofit 

community as an indication of organizational health, this model includes 

the following: (i) a donor-heavy, fundraising-oriented governing board; (ii) 

a revenue structure that is roughly 50 percent (or more) earned income, 

25 percent individual contributions, and the remaining divided between 

government, foundation, and corporate support; and (iii) specifically for 

individual giving, models that prioritize the cultivation of, and reliance 

on, wealthy donors. Particularly for ethnocultural arts organizations 

that emerged as part of the Civil Rights movements, a move toward 

this “diversified” structure subsequently impacted and transformed 

organizational missions and programming. The much analyzed and 

well-documented evolution of El Museo del Barrio is illustrative here.78

Founded in 1969 in a public school classroom in East Harlem, 

New York, El Museo del Barrio’s original mission was developed “by a 

group of Puerto Rican parents, artists, educators, and activists” and was 

focused on “representing primarily Puerto Ricans – whose struggles for 

greater representation in the late 1960s gave rise to the institution.”79

Beginning in the 1970s, when the museum lost significant initial funding 

from the state government and transitioned its administration from 

community members to a board with art gallery experience, a chain of 

events was initiated where El Museo increasingly adopted a leadership 

structure, philosophy, and purpose more closely resembling that of the 

arts and culture establishment.80 In 1978, El Museo moved to New York’s 

Museum Mile. From the late 1970s to early 1990s, due to a perceived 

need to address changing local demographics81 and to obtain greater 

financial support and institutional legitimacy, the museum broadened 

its mission and programming to encompass art by all Latin American 

artists, with a new preference for “high art.”82 By 1995, it was searching 

for trustees with fundraising potential who could guide the museum 

“beyond the Latino and New York community,” which “could in itself 

help reassure El Barrio and the wider community that El Museo will still 

exist for them in years to come.”83

Encouraged and generally lauded by funders and other Western 

art world institutions, the artistic and administrative transition “allowed 

El Museo to diversify its funding sources, increase its budget to over $3 

million, and expand its staff and programs.”84 The transition was also met, 

When [Co-founders 

Kathryn Haddad and Saleh 

Abudayyeh] came across 

the word “mizna,” this 

idea that it’s a sheltering 

cloud in the desert, it’s a 

welcome relief, it felt like 

it really captured what 

they were trying to do with 

the organization: to have a 

place of respite in a culture 

that is difficult to navigate. 

That Mizna would provide 

this respite, where you feel 

like you can just breathe. 

– Lana Barkawi, Executive 

& Artistic Director of Mizna 

(September 4, 2013)

95
Historical Background

however, with considerable resistance from community stakeholders. 

These stakeholders had generally not been involved or consulted in the 

shift away from supporting local artists, and they were concerned with a 

perceived de-valuing of these artists, as well as the organization’s history 

and original purpose, in favor of art and artists more highly valued (both 

critically and in financial terms) by the “European aesthetic tradition.”85

Their concerns were grounded in developments within the art world: 

since the 1980s, Latin American artists had been receiving a certain 

amount of recognition and acclaim within the mainstream Western art 

world, but “this interest [had] not benefited all [such artists] equally,” 

and this was (and is) especially the case with US Latino artists, who were 

(and are) often absent in exhibitions and art histories regarding Latin 

American or North American art.86

El Museo has revised its mission and programming several more 

times since the mid-1990s, and these revisions have been accompanied 

by community campaigns aimed at ensuring an active New York Puerto 

Rican (Nuyorican) voice in organizational decision making, including a 

community presence on the museum board, and calls for the museum 

to “remain rooted in the socially conscious and working class origins 

upon which the museum was established.”87 The El Museo experience 

demonstrates certain risks and ramifications in applying standardized 

funding models as the solution to negotiating the unstable support 

environment. One of the organizations highlighted in the NALAC 

Report, the museum is a case study of the complex balancing act of 

managing, including financing, an ethnocultural arts organization.

The NALAC Report generally accords with Cultural Centers of 

Color regarding effective means of addressing the field’s financial and 

other needs. Based on the diverse experiences of El Museo and the other 

42 organizations included in the NALAC research, in the NALAC Report 

the authors agree with Bowles regarding the importance of finding and 

implementing innovative organizational management models, also look 

favorably on collaborative approaches to programming and problem 

solving, and similarly stress the need for equitable funding policies that 

took into account the country’s changing demographics and the multiple 

roles undertaken by ethnocultural arts organizations.88 

Emphasizing the tremendous progress of Latino American arts, 

the report’s authors comment, 

Ironically, just as many Latino arts organizations are 

poised for growth, we find that this potential and, in 

some cases, our very existence are being threatened 

by federal and state funding cuts (primarily, but not 

exclusively, linked to the National Endowment for the 

Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities). As 

we have found in this study, there is a funding crisis for the 

entire field of arts organizations; but just as important, 

there is a very real threat of disproportionate funding 

reductions for Latino and other arts organizations of 

color. This is already being reflected in state funding 

decisions in several states. It is not clear how this crisis 

will be met, and the impact may very well affect the very 

existence of many arts organizations and our ability to 

deliver cultural services to our communities.89

At least one other nationwide study, which covered another 

subset of ethnic arts and culture 

organizations, generally agreed with 

the field needs reported by Cultural 

Centers of Color and the NALAC Report. 

Conducted between 1993 and 1997 

and covering organizations largely 

omitted from Cultural Centers of Color, 

research for a master’s dissertation on 

tribal museums and cultural centers (the 

Fye study) indicated that the primary 

challenges faced by these organizations 

were financial resources and leadership.90

As previously noted, the single most 

important source of income for Native 

arts organizations had traditionally been 

government, specifically federal, support, 

and many tribal museums in particular 

had relied on initial funding from 

Economic Development Association 

funds. “The challenge occurred after 

the federal grants had ended and tribal 

leaders were faced with the need to 

The group started in 1960, 

with a group of seven Boise 

Basques who went over to the 

Basque country...they wanted 

basically to learn Basque 

folk dances to bring back 

to Boise so that they could 

start recreating Basque folk 

culture here...They learned 

from [an accomplished dance 

group], studied with them, 

came back and decided to 

name the Boise dance group 

after Oinkari as a gesture of 

thanks for all of those dance 

lessons... 

– Lael Uberuaga-Rodgers, Public 

Relations Officer and former 

President of Oinkari Basque 

Dancers (November 10, 2013)

96
Part I

continue daily operations of the museums.”91 With the reduction in 

federal support, the Fye study found that these tribal museums confronted 

a situation similar, if in some cases more pronounced, to that of other 

ethnocultural arts organizations: “local support (after initial investments) 

now proved to be practically non-existent, especially in rural reservation 

areas.”92 The response of many Native museums and cultural centers 

was to turn to tourism as a source of income and to “model themselves 

after for-profit organizations.”93 In 

addition to receiving tribal funds, 

the Fye study’s author observed that 

these museums were also focused on 

diversifying funding sources, with 

some successful in attracting corporate 

support.94 Uneven funding “was 

additionally exacerbated by frequent 

turnover of tribal government and 

leadership, which hindered stable longrange programming and planning.”95

As anticipated by Cultural 

Centers of Color and the NALAC Report, 

drastic cuts were made to the NEA’s 

budget in 1995. In 1996, with the NEA 

budget reduced by 38.7 percent (which 

had already been gradually decreasing 

from a high of just under $176 million 

in 1992 – $297.4 million in real dollars 

– and which would generally continue 

to decrease through 2000) and a 

reorganization of NEA programs, 

Expansion Arts closed.96 As one of 

the country’s few consistent support 

programs focused on ethnically specific activity, Expansion Arts had 

served an invaluable role in encouraging the growth and organizational 

health of the field. However, although its impact was great, it was also 

limited, for it never possessed the resources necessary to maximize its 

potential, and it closed at a time when much of the field was attempting 

to stabilize the gains it had made over the previous decade.97

A review of existing literature and discussions with individuals 

intimately familiar with the events discussed herein indicate that there 

is widespread agreement and some documentation on the state of 

ethnocultural arts organizations from the 1960s through the mid-1990s; 

there is less agreement and far less documentation regarding the state of 

the field from 1990 to 2012.98 Based on our own research for the Plural 

project, and emphasizing the diverse and complex personal experiences 

of organizations, we believe this recent history may be generally 

characterized by two opposing developments: first, the crisis forecast 

by some within the field did not occur in the sense that “crisis” was 

interpreted to mean the field’s decline and disappearance, and second, 

the shifting support environment, constantly changing with a pattern of 

decreasing support, left an indelible mark on the life cycle trajectory and 

administrative “health” of many organizations. 

 Despite the dissolution of NEA and other federal programs 

important to the field, ethnocultural arts organizations proved to be 

remarkably resilient. Our research strongly suggests that after the 

apparent decrease in the number of organizations founded during the 

latter half of the 1980s, reported by Cultural Centers of Color, the number 

increased in the 1990s. This general pattern of field growth in the 1990s 

does not appear to have applied to all pan racial groups and regions: 

based on Plural project survey responses, which collected information 

regarding respondents’ year of founding, there may have been a decline 

in the number of White, multiracial, and Northeast-based ethnocultural 

arts organizations founded during this decade, especially when 

compared to the (apparently) higher number of these organizations 

founded in the 2000s.99 Taking into account these differences, survey 

responses indicate that members from all other pan racial groups and 

regions mirrored the broader explosive trend of arts organizational field 

growth by founding their own arts organizations. Press coverage in the 

late 1990s and a few scholarly studies in the early 2000s also reported a 

“national boom” in the establishment of ethnocultural spaces.100 Growth 

was not simply in numeric terms; several Plural project ethnocultural 

arts organization interviewees already in existence in the 1990s reported 

experiencing organizational growth (e.g., increased operating budgets 

and programming). 

The new wave of ethnocultural arts organizations that emerged 

Creating something out of 

necessity because it doesn’t 

exist and no one else is doing 

it. Oh! A Latina theater 

company in Santa Ana...As to 

what it was going to look like, 

clearly defining our mission, 

that took some time. I knew I 

wanted to create a space that 

would support Latina theater 

artists, performing artists, but 

I didn’t know what that meant. 

It’s one thing to support 

myself, but how do I then turn 

around and support other 

people? 

– Sara Guerrero, Founding Artistic 

Director of Breath of Fire Latina 

Theater Ensemble (June 21, 2013)

97
Historical Background

in the 1990s and into the 2000s was in some ways more ethnically 

diverse. Research conducted for the Plural project indicates that 

the overwhelming majority of Arab American and Middle Eastern 

American arts organizations were founded within the past two decades. 

Among these organizations were Saint Paul-based Mizna, formed in 

1998 to “bring Arab American arts to life, to support the vision of Arab 

American artists, and to reflect a depth, breadth and humanity of Arabs 

everywhere,”101 San Francisco-based Golden Thread Productions, 

formed in 1996 to “make the Middle East a potent presence on the 

American stage and a treasured cultural experience,”102 the Los 

Angeles-based Levantine Cultural Center, formed in 2001 to champion 

“a greater understanding of the Middle East and North Africa by 

presenting artistic and educational programs that bridge political and 

religious divides,”103 and Chicago-based Silk Road Rising, formed in 

2002 to create “live theatre and online videos that tell stories through 

primarily Asian American and Middle Eastern American lenses. In 

representing communities that intersect and overlap, we advance a 

polycultural worldview.”104

As with organizations founded during previous periods, these new 

spaces had a powerful sense of purpose. Silk Road Rising, then named 

Silk Road Theater Project, was co-founded by Jamil Khoury and Malik 

Gillani in direct response to the attacks and repercussions of September 

11, 2001.105 Directed at the immediate anti-Arab, anti-Muslim backlash 

that ensued, and as a counter to the “clash of civilizations” discourse 

receiving traction within the Bush administration, Khoury and Gillani 

selected the historic silk road trade routes as an alternative model for 

storytelling that highlighted the intersection, merging, and colliding of 

cultures (polyculturalism) and that tackled issues of representation (who 

is representing whom, and what, when, and how) by emphasizing the 

playwright and authorial voice. Khoury explains,

Too often in this representation there is someone who 

is either voiceless and angelic, or downright scary. It’s 

navigating that minefield of a history of representation. 

A history of representation is not just about ‘it’s pretty’ 

or ‘it’s scary,’ but we want to bomb your country, we 

want to conquer your land, we want to exploit your 

resources. So we need an ideology or narrative around 

which to wrap that. And this narrative is essentially that 

you are less human than we are. You don’t feel pain 

the way we do, you don’t mourn for your dead the way 

we do – it serves a much larger ideology, whether it’s 

a colonial or imperial ideology or war strategy. It’s a 

continual dehumanization.

For Silk Road’s founders, there was (and is) nothing abstract 

about their organization’s mandate or the legacy of ethnic and cultural 

distortion that they were (and are) confronting, and challenging. The 

partners were driven by personal experiences as well as the stories of 

family members and friends who saw their “American-ness” called into 

question. Galvanizing factors, they led to Silk Road’s formation, which 

in the beginning was “very hand-to-mouth” and “project to project.” 

Initially entirely funded by Gillani, Khoury, and through the support of 

family and friends as outside donors and supporters were, and remain, 

difficult to attract for projects presenting complicated narratives about 

Arab and Muslim communities, Silk Road persisted. Much like their 

ethnocultural arts organization peers that came before and were to follow 

them, Silk Road’s founders took an environment not designed for them 

and through sheer tenacity, planted roots. Discussing their work within 

the context of its support environment, Khoury stresses, 

I don’t think you can undercount the role of passion. 

I know that word gets thrown around a lot...but it is 

a wonderful fuel to have in one’s “tank,” so to speak. 

When you believe in the politics of your mission, when 

you believe that stories can transform people – all of this 

stuff that becomes funder or grant language, is actually 

really true. 

While the emergence of organizations such as Silk Road brought 

new energy to the ethnocultural arts field and reaffirmed its singular value 

in the arts ecosystem, for existing organizations it also meant increased 

competition for limited resources in a changing, if not (yet widely) 

shrinking, support environment. Around the time federal programs 

important to the ethnocultural arts field were being reduced and cut in 

the 1990s, state and local arts agencies and, later, a few foundations, 

98
Part I

developed and/or expanded 

programming directly targeting 

and/or consciously intended to 

include the ethnocultural segment 

of the arts community. 

Programming created 

during this period (1990-2000s) 

by California’s state and local arts 

agencies, which both in the early 

1990s and today serve a region 

(the West) containing the greatest 

concentration of ethnocultural 

arts organizations,106 were 

arguably the most wide-ranging, 

robust, and innovative. One such 

local arts agency program was 

the San Francisco Arts Commission’s Cultural Equity Grants Program, 

established in 1993 to support more equitable arts funding in the city. 

Still in existence today in modified form, the program provided support 

in four areas: cultural equity initiatives, commissions to individual artists, 

project grants to small and mid-size organizations, and a facilities fund.107

Created in 1987, formalized in 1991, and expanded briefly in the 

2000-2001 fiscal year, the California Arts Council’s (CAC) Multicultural 

Arts Development Program (MCAD) was designed to promote “cultural 

diversity by supporting the development, growth, and stabilization of 

culture-specific and multicultural artists’ groups/collectives and arts 

organizations.”108 MCAD’s programs during its approximately 16-year 

history included the following:109

• a Multicultural Advancement Program (MAP), one of CAC’s 

oldest MCAD programs, designed to assist arts organizations’ 

capacity building and which (i) provided $15,000 (later 

raised to $25,000) to $70,000 per year to small to mid-size 

organizations for at first a two, and then later three, year 

funding cycle and (ii) during the program’s final years, placed 

a monetary value on an organization’s longevity in addition 

to considering an organization’s operating budget when 

determining the maximum grant amount an organization 

could request; in 2000-2001, MAP grantee Radio Bilingüe/

National Latino Public Radio used MAP funds to support 

staff positions, including development positions

• a Multicultural Next Generation Program (NGP), directed 

at younger arts leaders, supported exhibitions, performances, 

marketing and promotion, and had a standing technical 

assistance component that included funds to attend 

conferences held by groups such as NALAC, Atlatl, and 

TAAC; in 2000-2001, NGP grantee Lula Washington Dance 

Theatre, a south central Los Angeles-based dance company 

and school, used NGP funds to provide free professional 

dance and arts administration classes to young artists for a 

year

• a Multicultural Infrastructure Support Program (also 

known as the Statewide Networks Program), directed at arts 

organizations and inviting them to form a statewide network 

of convenings, both physical and online, to share resources 

and best practices and other information, and to strengthen 

arts advocacy among these organizations

• a Multicultural Visibility Program (VP), established to provide 

organizations with one-time marketing support that would 

“allow grantees to promote themselves, communicate more 

effectively, and develop materials to aid in the promotion 

of their services and products”; in 2000-2001, VP grantee 

Asian American Women Artists Association (San Francisco) 

used funds to promote their new website and produce a CD 

catalog of artists’ work to distribute to institutions, businesses, 

and individuals

• a Multicultural Fellows Program, where paid fellows joined 

CAC staff for a period of time (ranging from six months to 

one year) to work in the program of their choice, following 

which a few were later hired at CAC while others brought 

back particular knowledge of the funding process to their 

communities

In addition, CAC’s organization-directed funding was not solely 

linked to 501(c)(3) organizations, and thus included initiatives such as 

the Multicultural Entry Program (MCE), CAC’s oldest MCAD program 

I started to think about ‘first 

voice.’ I think that’s really 

important when you’re defining 

culture because I’m acculturated 

as American. I’m Brenda Jean 

from Salt Lake City, Utah. I’m not 

Japanese. I’m Japanese, Chinese, 

Spanish, and Scot. I’ve got to be 

who I am, and who you are really 

is your experience...The other 

thing was, we wanted to have it 

rooted in something. 

– Brenda Wong Aoki, Co-founder & 

Artistic Director of First Voice (June 24, 

2013)

99
Historical Background

Multiculturalism in the United States

Since its growing popularity in the late 1980s, in the United States 

there has been a wary relationship between multiculturalism and 

ethnocultural arts organizations. An important subject but also one 

that we did not focus on in the Plural project, public agency and private 

sector goals and programs regarding multiculturalism have had both 

a beneficial and detrimental impact on the support environment for 

ethnocultural arts organizations. On the one hand, the increasing ethnic 

and racial diversity of the boards, staff, and audiences of mainstream 

arts organizations, and more culturally diverse arts programming, is 

generally viewed by the ethnocultural arts field as a positive development 

and one that parallels ethnocultural institutional missions of raising 

the visibility of and celebrating America’s many cultures. However, as 

noted by many individuals concerned with issues of cultural equity in 

the arts, multiculturalism often resulted in the direction of additional 

attention and resources to mainstream arts organizations, and instead 

of democratizing the arts community, only served to reinforce these 

organizations’ centrality in the sector:

• “Will cultural diversification result in a ‘brain drain’ 

from the boards and staffs of organizations of color? 

Who will be viewed as the arbiters of aesthetic values 

for communities of color? Is there a danger of creating 

new stereotypes as Eurocentric institutions become 

more involved in presenting or producing art from 

communities of color?”1

• “Now we’ve got this multi-cultural dynamic turning 

around and hitting us from the rear. We have White 

dominant organizations, who are well intentioned 

in most cases, asking for monies for multicultural 

programming, while we’ve got our ethnic organizations 

starving.”2

• “The process of informing, educating, projecting, 

and practicing a culturally diverse perspective that 

we felt would dislocate Eurocentrism has been coopted, redefined, and turned against us by the arts 

and culture Establishment. The popularization and 

commodification of cultural diversity has brought 

forth a recognition of difference, while maintaining 

the paradigm of dominance and control. Within 

this framework, the European American status quo 

continues to disperse the major portions of public 

and private funds to artists and arts organizations 

that they have always validated. These institutions are 

receiving even more funds to reach new audiences (us), 

and to experiment with ‘global’ projects that blur and 

decontextualize the definitions of our cultures, while 

using their criteria for cultural diversity.”3

• “...struggles have intensified in recent years with 

the expansion of multi-cultural initiatives directed 

at mainstream theatres by major funders. This has 

produced what many Black theatre professionals 

describe as a ‘talent drain’ from [B]lack theatres, as 

well as the directing of funds away from Black theatres 

to mainstream theatres producing multi-cultural 

programming.”4

• “During the past twenty years a number of pioneering 

non-white artists, writers and institutions have been 

quietly but tenaciously paving the way towards the 

present multicultural craze. Yet they aren’t getting 

recognition or funding. Some are even giving up for lack 

of support. Meanwhile, monocultural organizations with 

absolutely no track record of multicultural involvement 

have adopted the rhetoric of multiculturalism as a 

strategy to obtain substantial programme funding. They 

often use this funding to commission Anglo-American 

artists who work with appropriated imagery.”5

100
Part I

The concerns raised in the late 1980s and 1990s continue to 

have contemporary validity. Our literature review revealed much 

research on the impact of changing racial demographics on mainstream 

arts institutions and strategies for diversifying their audiences, but scant 

research on ethnocultural arts institutions. The effect of what is now 

more frequently referred to as diversity initiatives is seen in productions 

by mainstream arts institutions that may cast artists of a particular ethnic 

or racial group, but whose artistic vision, determined by individuals 

outside that ethnic or racial group, results in misrepresentations and the 

perpetuation of stereotypes regarding the presented culture.6

Major foundation funds aimed at supporting diversity in the arts 

persistently find their way to well-funded arts institutions. In 2014, the 

Andrew W. Mellon Foundation announced a two million dollar grant 

to “connect college sophomores from marginalized backgrounds with 

curators” at five participating museums with the intention that “[o]ver 

four years, the students will receive professional mentoring and paid 

fellowships in an effort to make art museum curatorial offices as diverse 

as the communities they serve.”7 The five participating museums are the 

Los Angeles County Museum of Art, the Art Institute of Chicago, the 

Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, the Museum of Fine Arts in Houston, 

and the High Museum in Atlanta; criteria used to select participating 

institutions required “encyclopedic art museums in metropolitan 

areas that have diverse communities and strong institutions of higher 

education.”8

Notes

1. Bowles, Cultural Centers of Color: Report on a National Survey, 64.

2. National Association of Latino Arts and Culture 1992 Conference Proceedings; 

Crossing Borders: The Next 500 Years, 179.

3. Marta Moreno Vega, “The Purposeful Underdevelopment of Latino 

and Other Communities of Color,” in Voices from the Battlefront: Achieving Cultural 

Equity, ed. Marta Moreno Vega and Cheryll Y. Greene (Trenton, New Jersey: 

Africa World Press, 1993), 106.

4. New York State Council on the Arts, “Black Theatre’s Next 

Renaissance: A Dialogue Between In-State and Out-of-State Black Theatre 

Professionals” (conference report, New York State Council on the Arts Theatre 

Program, revised December 8, 2002), Executive Summary of Conference 

Report.

5. Guillermo Gómez-Peña, “The Multicultural Paradigm: An Open 

Letter to the National Arts Community,” in Beyond the Fantastic: Contemporary Art 

Criticism from Latin America, ed. Gerardo Mosquera (MIT Press, 1996), 192.

6. See, e.g., Marianne Combs, “New theater coalition wants end to 

racial, ethnic stereotypes,” MPR News, May 12, 2014, http://www.mprnews.

org/story/2014/05/11/theater-coaltion; Jamil Khoury, “The Trouble with 

Mary,” Silk Road Rising: Artistic Ruminations (blog), June 11, 2013, http://www.

silkroadrising.org/news/the-trouble-with-mary.

7. Jillian Steinhauer, “New Fellowship Aims to Diversify Museum 

Curatorial Ranks,” Hyperallergic (blog), January 13, 2014, http://hyperallergic.

com/102968/new-fellowship-aims-to-diversify-museum-curatorial-ranks/.

8. Ibid.

101
Historical Background

along with MAP, which was “designed to give small budget (and 

sometimes newer) arts organizations first-time access to CAC funding 

and technical assistance to effect their development.”110 Directed at 

“traditional folk arts groups or contemporary arts organizations that 

reflect a specific culture and that have been doing arts programming 

for at least one year,” MCE provided a three-year operating grant of 

$2,000 per year (briefly increased to $4,000 per year in 2000) to these 

organizations, permitted artists to use their social security number in 

place of an employer identification number, and had less onerous grant 

administration and application requirements.111 The program also 

provided “a Professional Development component consisting of a series 

of educational training activities, including workshops, conferences and 

training seminars.”112 In 2000-2001, the Pacific Islander Community 

Council (Carson), a nonprofit, community-based organization that 

produced the Pacific Islander Festival, received MCE funds “to 

support artists fees and technical and production costs associated with 

the festival.”113 Confirming the importance of this state and other 

local government programming to California’s ethnocultural arts 

organizations of color, a CAC report released in 1999 found that these 

organizations obtained a range of 61.2 percent (Asian) to 72.5 percent 

(Latino) of total revenue from contributed income, and that much of 

this income derived from local government and foundation sources.114

While California state and local arts agency support of 

ethnocultural arts organizations may have been the most expansive of 

such government programs, they were by no means the only ones. Along 

with the New York State Council on the Arts (NYSCA) Special Arts 

Services Program (previously mentioned), by “the early 1990s...virtually 

every state arts agency had either included issues of access, diversity, 

and multiculturalism in its mission, planning, and implementation, or 

had at least addressed diverse cultural activity through a variety of 

programs.”115 This period of state arts agency support coincided with a 

period of record growth for these agencies’ funding budgets throughout 

the 1990s, which reached a high of $451 million in 2001.116

State and local arts agency support for ethnocultural arts 

organizations was further supplemented to some extent by foundation 

support. Prominent among these was the Lila Wallace-Reader’s Digest 

Fund (now the Wallace Foundation), the Rockefeller Foundation, the 

Ford Foundation, and the Heinz 

Endowments, each of which 

developed initiatives regarding 

and/or directed grant funds to the 

ethnocultural arts organization 

sector at various points during the 

1990s and 2000s.117 Included in 

these initiatives was research on 

the field itself: Ford financed the 

previously referenced report on 

Black and Hispanic art museums 

and both Ford and Rockefeller 

assisted in the funding of the 

NALAC Report. In addition, at 

the end of the next decade (2010), 

following a six-year period of 

grantmaking centered on Native 

American artists and organizations 

(part of its now ended Indigenous 

Knowledge and Expressive Culture 

Initiative), Ford would release a 

report on supporting the field of Native arts and cultures shortly after 

providing funds to start the separately incorporated, Native-led Native 

Arts and Cultures Foundation (NACF) in 2007.118

General foundation-led arts support initiatives also had some 

impact on the ethnocultural arts field. Directed at the arts community as a 

whole, several ethnocultural arts organizations had access to the National 

Arts Stabilization Fund (NASF), which was a financial capacity building 

initiative established in 1983 by Ford, Rockefeller, and the Andrew W. 

Mellon Foundation with participation by other funders such as the Lila 

Wallace-Reader’s Digest Fund.119 From 1983 to 2002, NASF, designed as 

a national network of stabilization programs, provided grants, technical, 

and other assistance to select nonprofit arts organizations.120 NASF 

support was provided to organizations based in certain cities around the 

country where the Fund had been invited by community leaders and the 

community was able to provide matching support.121 Ethnocultural arts 

organizations that received NASF funds include Ballet Hispanico and El 

[Founder Stanley Thurston] saw 

the need to put a professional 

group together. The desire was 

there to sing Negro spirituals. 

The idea is, once you graduate 

from college or high school, and 

you learn Negro spirituals, you 

don’t do those anymore. It’s 

sort of like a dying entity in the 

music world. But there’s such 

a need to sing those spirituals 

that he formed the group in 

2000, and they’ve just prospered 

from 2000 to – We just 

celebrated our 13th anniversary 

this year. 

– Miriam Dixon, General Manager 

of the Heritage Signature Chorale 

(August 6, 2013)

102
Part I

Museo del Barrio, both New York 

City-based organizations. 

Despite initiatives such as 

NASF and the existence of other 

general foundation support for the 

arts, findings from reports such 

as Cultural Centers of Color and the 

NALAC report, as well as more 

recent research released by the 

National Committee for Responsive 

Philanthropy and our own Plural 

project (both discussed infra), 

demonstrate that, for the most 

part, and especially in absolute 

dollars, this general foundation 

arts giving has not found its way to 

ethnocultural arts organizations.122

In addition, with the exception 

of certain individual cases and 

pan racial groups such as Black 

and multiracial arts organizations, 

foundation funding as a whole has 

generally not been a significant source of income for the ethnocultural 

arts field.123 Moreover, while there were (and are) exceptions, targeted 

support programs by state and local government arts agencies and 

foundations were (and are) often more focused on broader issues 

of diversity and multiculturalism, and thus within these programs 

ethnocultural arts organizations have found competition not just with 

one another, but with mainstream arts institutions. 

The past 10 years have continued to be a story of numeric, but 

not necessarily financial, growth for both the arts field as a whole and for 

ethnocultural arts organizations. Between 2000 and 2010, the number 

of new nonprofit arts organizations grew by 49 percent and faster than 

the nonprofit field as a whole, which grew by approximately 32 percent 

during this time.124 However, between 2006 and 2011, total revenue for 

the arts sector fell by 7.2 percent.125 Within this same period, more than 

one third of nonprofit arts organizations also carried operating deficits: 

36 percent of the field in 2007, 45 percent in 2009, and 44.2 percent in 

2011.126

The experiences of ethnocultural arts organizations during this 

time were varied and complex; however, some available literature and 

our own research indicate that the field generally resembled this pattern 

of numeric gain and financial loss. While the Plural project research is 

only suggestive as to field growth, over half of the 2013 organizations 

contained in our US ethnocultural arts organization database have IRS 

ruling dates in 2000 or after, and approximately one-third of Plural 

project survey respondents reported founding dates in 2000 or after. We 

identified no existing information specific to the total field of ethnocultural 

arts organizations in operation over the past 10 to 12 years. However, 

research conducted in 2001 by Carole Rosenstein and Amy Brimer, both 

of whom were then at the Urban Institute, is somewhat suggestive as to 

certain characteristics, including finances, of these organizations during 

the early 2000s as it established baseline data on the overlapping field of 

nonprofit ethnic, cultural, and folk organizations considered by the IRS to 

be active at that time. 127 Expanding on this research, in 2006 Rosenstein 

subsequently published Cultural Heritage Organizations: Nonprofits that Support 

Traditional, Ethnic, Folk, and Noncommercial Popular Culture (Cultural Heritage 

Organizations).128

Among its findings, Cultural Heritage Organizations identified 2,664 

nonprofit cultural heritage organizations in existence in the United States 

in 2001, of which 1,628 were ethnic, cultural, and folk organizations 

(ECF).129 More so than with data from Cultural Centers of Color, differences 

in methodology and research focus make it impossible to directly 

compare Cultural Heritage Organizations’ findings with findings from the 

Plural project or Cultural Centers of Color. For example, this figure included 

a number of organizations, such as Chinese language schools and groups 

sponsoring St. Patrick’s Day parades, not included in either Cultural 

Centers of Color or the Plural project, but excluded “nonprofit ethnic arts 

organizations” such as Latino film festivals that may have been included 

in Cultural Centers of Color and that would have been included in the Plural 

project.130 Referencing the latter omission, Rosenstein estimated that 

approximately 2,800 ethnically or culturally affiliated organizations may 

have been excluded from her analysis.131 In addition, data used in Cultural 

Heritage Organizations omitted organizations reporting under $25,000 a 

The festival was founded 

initially as a representation 

of a cultural revival that had 

been taking place for about 

20 years prior to that, based 

around Yiddish music and 

Yiddish culture, Klezmer music. 

This was something that was 

bubbling up across North 

America and in Europe, and 

it reached a point of maturity 

in the mid-90s where more 

artists and musicians in the 

Toronto area were starting to 

get interested in this, and these 

people got together and said 

we should have a festival to 

celebrate this cultural scene... 

– Eric Stein, Artistic Director of the 

Ashkenaz Foundation (May 16, 2013)

103
Historical Background

year in income.132

With an ethnic arts field estimate of anywhere from both fewer 

and greater than 1,600 organizations plus fewer and greater than 2,800, 

this data provides little insight as to the size of the ethnocultural arts field 

(as we have defined it) at this time aside from suggesting that the field 

may have had far more explosive growth in the 1990s than other existing 

literature and our own research findings suggest, and that the field then 

shrank considerably over the past 10 years. We acknowledge the possibly 

different narrative that the Rosenstein/Brimer data may suggest, but 

our own research findings, which we have considered in light of other 

existing literature both concerning the ethnocultural arts field and 

the arts and nonprofit fields as a whole, has directed us along another 

narrative path. This path is further formed by separate destinations; just 

as it was Rosenstein’s and Brimer’s objective to provide “a framework 

for studying the seriously under-theorized and under-researched culture

component of the arts, culture, and humanities subsector,”133 it is ours to 

provide such a framework for considering the ethnocultural arts organization

subsector. 

Despite its different focus and scope, we reference Cultural 

Heritage Organizations not only due to its influence on researchers of 

the US cultural sector, but because of information it contains on the 

pan racial distribution of ethnically affiliated cultural organizations 

and for its findings regarding the finances of these organizations in 

2001. Rosenstein found that while the revenue of cultural heritage 

organizations was on average much smaller than “the typical arts, culture, 

and humanities organization,” within the cultural heritage subsector, 

ECF organizations tended to be particularly small: almost 60 percent 

of these organizations had budgets less than $100,000 (cf. 68 percent 

of ethnocultural arts organizations of color reported incomes under 

$100,000 in Cultural Centers of Color).134 The report noted, however, that 

most arts, culture, and humanities (ACH) organizations were also “in 

reality...quite small,” and the “distribution of revenue in the entire ACH 

subsector is almost identical to that of cultural heritage organizations.”135

Average revenue figures for the ACH field as a whole were higher 

“because the ACH subsector includes a handful of organizations...that 

operate on very large budgets” that skew the average; cultural heritage 

organizations lacked such very large institutions.136

With respect to the racial distribution of cultural heritage 

organizations, Cultural Heritage Organizations found that a sizable proportion, 

approximately 33 percent, of ECF organizations affiliated with a 

European ethnic or cultural heritage.137 The next largest pan racial group 

was Asian/Pacific Islander affiliated organizations at 27 percent; other 

groups “each represented fewer than 10 percent of the overall total.”138

Accounting for differences in pan racial classifications, this pan racial 

distribution of the cultural 

heritage field loosely resembles 

the pan racial distribution 

of our US ethnocultural 

arts organization database 

(discussed infra), which 

similarly indicates that White 

organizations predominate 

(26 percent), followed closely 

by Asian organizations (24 

percent, and with Native 

Hawaiians and Other Pacific 

Islander groups, 26 percent). 

Somewhat mirroring Cultural 

Centers of Color’s and our own 

findings, Cultural Heritage 

Organizations additionally 

found that the distribution of 

ECF organizations generally 

corresponded with the 

overall distribution of racial 

populations within the United 

States, with two particularly 

notable exceptions: the South 

and West had proportionately 

fewer Hispanic affiliated 

organizations when compared 

to the distribution of the 

country’s Hispanic population 

at that time, and the South 

In 1969, there was a boycott of the 

local school district because they 

weren’t addressing the specific 

needs of Mohawk students. We had 

no representation on the board, 

yet more than half of the students 

in the school district were from 

Akwesasne. During discussions held 

at the time of the boycott, a group 

of community members decided 

that a library was needed to aid 

our students with their studies. 

The drop-out rate among Native 

students was one of the leading 

factors in this decision. In 1971, the 

Akwesasne Library and Cultural 

Center was opened. Cultural classes 

for the community were included 

in programming and, soon after 

opening, the center began receiving 

donations of items that began a 

collection - operating under the title 

of the Akwesasne Museum the next 

year.

– Sue Herne, Program Coordinator for the 

Akwesasne Museum (October 24, 2013) 

104
Part I

was similarly underrepresented in the distribution of Black affiliated 

organizations.139

As previously noted in the discussion of Cultural Centers of Color’s 

findings regarding the uneven distribution of artistic disciplines among 

pan racial groups, Cultural Heritage Organizations paralleled these findings 

with its own findings that ECF organizations varied in their programming 

focus “depending on their specific ethnic/cultural affiliation.”140 It found 

that Black, Hispanic, and multiethnic affiliated organizations were more 

likely to focus on the arts compared to Asian/Pacific Islander affiliated 

(not including South Asian here) organizations, which tended to focus 

on language programming, Middle Eastern, Native American, and 

Other affiliated (including Jewish) organizations, which oriented more 

toward other activities (e.g., history programs), and European affiliated 

organizations, which were “more likely to emphasize festivals, such as 

St. Patrick’s Day parades, Swedish Christmas celebrations, and Scottish 

Highland games.”141

Finally, several, but not all, of Cultural Centers of Color’s findings 

regarding the income sources of ethnocultural arts organizations of 

color are echoed in Cultural Heritage Organizations’ findings regarding 

the income sources of ECF organizations. A few of Cultural Heritage 

Organizations’ findings with respect to income for ECF organizations 

were as follows:142

• Thirty-four percent of the revenue of Asian/Pacific Islander 

affiliated organizations derived from earned income (not 

including South Asian, which was lower at 27 percent), 

which was higher than every other pan racial group except 

for multiethnic groups (35 percent); Other groups were the 

lowest (7 percent)

• Black and Hispanic groups obtained the highest percentage 

of revenue from public (government) sources at 29 and 

26 percent, respectively; South Asian (0 percent), Middle 

Eastern (3 percent), and Asian/Pacific Islander groups (4 

percent) were the lowest, and at 11 percent, multiethnic 

groups were near the average for all groups

• Other groups received the highest percentage of private 

donations (62 percent), multiethnic, European, and Asian/

Pacific Islander (not including South Asian, which at 52 

percent was at the higher end) groups the lowest (37, 38, and 

39 percent, respectively); all other groups obtained between 

42 and 46 percent of revenue from this source

• Thirty-six percent of ECF organizations ended 2001 with 

deficits, which is the same percentage of arts organizations as 

a whole that carried operating deficits in 2007

• There were considerable variations between ECF 

organizations with respect to operating deficits: in 2001 less 

than 30 percent of Middle Eastern (24 percent) and Asian 

(29 percent) organizations had operating deficits compared 

to Black (45 percent), Hispanic (42 percent), and Native (40 

percent), which had the highest

It is important to emphasize that all of the above findings regard 

cultural heritage organizations and not ethnocultural arts organizations, 

and that findings regarding the different programmatic focuses of pan 

racial groups (i.e., Black, Hispanic, and multiethnic groups are far more 

involved in arts programming than all other pan racial groups) are 

likely to explain at least some of the dissimilarities between the revenue 

distributions of ECF cultural heritage organizations and previous 

and subsequent revenue data on ethnocultural arts organizations. 

Nevertheless, just as in some ways Cultural Heritage Organizations’ findings 

reflect certain other data on the ethnocultural arts field, they also suggest 

that there may be additional similarities between ECF cultural heritage 

organizations and ethnocultural arts organizations, which may include a 

more complicated picture of the financial situation of the latter group 

around 2001.

Additional research conducted in the early (and later) 2000s 

provides a sense of the diversity of, and yet similarities between, 

ethnocultural arts organization needs in this decade. In 2001, NYSCA’s 

Theatre Program “embarked upon an initiative focusing upon a crisis in 

New York State’s Black theatres...at a time when other New York State 

ethnic-specific theatres were...‘taking off and experiencing significant 

institutional and artistic growth,’ many of the state’s Black theatres were 

either closing their doors or struggling to survive.”143 This initiative 

included a review of existing literature and press coverage concerning 

Black theaters nationwide, which suggested that many of the challenges 

experienced by New York’s Black theaters were shared by Black theaters 

105
Historical Background

nationwide.144 According to one of these sources, at one time during 

the 1970s and 1980s, there were as many as 200 Black theaters in the 

country, but by 2001 there were fewer than 50, with only a handful of 

those possessing operating budgets over one million dollars.145

The research was then followed by a break-out session at a 

2001 Theatre Communications Group conference with Black theater 

professionals from throughout the country and a similar conference in 

New York engaging the state’s Black theater professionals with a group 

of their out of state peers to discuss the obstacles facing Black theater 

and to form workable strategies.146 The initiative’s work and findings 

were set forth in a conference report (the NYSCA Report).

The top needs/challenges identified in the NYSCA Report 

were the following:147

• Lack of a viable institutional model for Black theater (“The 

mainstream resident theatre with a large subscriber base 

made up of patrons with a long family history of supporting 

the arts is not consistent with the realities of the Black 

theatre-going community”)148

• Channeling of funds away from Black theater toward 

mainstream theaters (“This lack of appreciation for the 

unique ability of ethnic-specific theatres to grapple with the 

issues relevant to their community is crippling from both an 

economic and artistic standpoint”)149

• Insufficient recognition of diversity within the Black 

audience and artistic community (“Younger black artists, 

many of whom are exploring the issues of an increasingly 

multicultural society are feeling locked out of established 

Black theatres”)150

• Decreased rootedness of audiences within the Black 

community (“‘I can tell you that actually none of [certain 

individuals listed on Black Enterprise magazine’s 100 

must affluent Black businesspeople] have any [ongoing] 

philanthropic or leadership relationship with AfricanAmerican cultural organizations. Now that is partly my 

responsibility. But it is also partly theirs because somewhere 

down the line...unlike every other ethnic community we did 

not enforce in them that with their good fortune...they have 

a responsibility to support us”)151

• Dwindling resources for small to midsize Black theater 

companies (“This triggered a discussion of the necessity of 

well-trained management personnel for the shaping and 

execution of an effective strategic plan”)152

• The NYSCA Report identified the following top strategies 

for addressing these needs/challenges:153

• Exploration of new institutional models for Black theaters

• Clarification of the Black theater’s role and mission to funders

• Broadening the scope and definition of Black theater

• Forging a stronger relationship between the Black theater 

and the community it serves

• Greater cooperation and sharing of resources with other 

cultural organizations

As one of its take-away action items for improving support for the state’s 

Black theaters, NYSCA “encourage[d] the [Theatre Program] to use its 

technical assistance funds to address some of these concerns...”154

In 2003, Atlatl conducted 

a national survey155 of Nativecontrolled cultural arts organizations 

to better understand the sector 

and its needs (the Atlatl Report).

156 Observing that a number of 

organizations had closed between 

1998 and 2003, the Atlatl Report’s 

authors noted that this situation 

comported with survey findings 

that these organizations could “be 

considered ‘fragile organizations,’” 

with primary contributing factors 

likely due to “limited budgets and 

weak fundraising capacities.”157

Somewhat conversely, survey findings 

also suggested “that the sector [had] 

experienced a solid rate of growth,” 

and thus was relatively youthful 

at that time: 50 percent of survey 

After teaching in different 

places in St. Louis...I have 

all of these people getting 

better. And then to me, what is 

the next thing for them? And 

people asking us, ‘Oh, you 

guys are great in the dance 

class, are you performing 

somewhere?’ So hearing all 

of [these people] telling me 

what I’ve got to do next, and 

the next thing for me, and for 

the community – those people 

taking classes – the next level 

will be a company. 

– Diadie, Founder & Artistic Director 

of Afriky Lolo (September 5, 2013)

106
Part I

respondents were founded between 1987 

and 2001, which is a finding also reflected 

in the Plural project survey results.158

In terms of structure, the Atlatl 

Report findings indicated that the majority 

of surveyed organizations (59 percent) 

were organized as 501(c)(3) nonprofits as 

opposed to tribal corporations.159 Surveyed 

organizations were mostly small, with 65 

percent reporting fewer than five full-time 

staff members, most of whom were Native; 

approximately the same percentage (63) 

reported annual operating budgets of less 

than $200,000, with the median budget 

at under $150,000.160 Survey findings 

indicated that “no single category of either 

earned or grant/gift income [was] listed by a majority of respondents as 

a ‘major source of funds.’”161

As most respondent organizations self-identified as a cultural 

center, cultural preservation office, gallery, or museum, it is not surprising 

that one common need corresponded with these organizational types, 

with the greatest needs related to collection preservation.162 These needs 

were both related to and could be distinguished from space related 

concerns as 70 percent of respondents either owned their own buildings 

or operated out of donated tribal space, and thus had “fairly secure rights 

to space”; instead, the issue regarded “inadequate storage space.”163 A 

larger key need revolved around the area of development: 58 percent 

of surveyed organizations did not have a fundraising budget, 71 percent 

reported facing the issue of declining funding, and 57 percent reported 

a need for technical assistance with fundraising.164 Development needs, 

and its overarching issue of achieving financial sustainability, was 

connected to another key need for marketing assistance. With respect 

to marketing-related needs, the Atlatl Report’s authors noted that many 

Native-controlled cultural arts organizations were likely to possess 

“exploitable opportunities to increase earned income by scaling up their 

business activities – but they probably need increased direction about 

how to do this.”165

We identified one final report on the related and overlapping 

field of small cultural organizations that may provide some insight as 

to the needs of the smallest of ethnocultural arts organizations during 

the early 2000s. In 2003, the New Mexico-based Fund for Folk Culture 

(FFC), a national organization serving the folk and traditional arts field, 

convened a two-day gathering in Santa Fe to explore the resource needs, 

strategies for assistance, and the support systems required by small 

folk and traditional arts organizations.166 Key conversation topics and 

recommendations were subsequently summarized in a paper published 

by FFC (the FFC-Small Arts Report).

The FFC-Small Arts Report contained several initial 

observations regarding small folk and traditional arts organizations that 

previous literature specific to ethnocultural arts organizations had made, 

and that our own research leads us to believe are crucial to know, when 

considering effective support systems for the range of organizations 

operating within the ethnocultural arts sector. Consistently identified but 

nevertheless absent from the actual design of most support systems, both 

then and now, these observations included the following:167

• “Small organizations need to be understood in their own 

terms, not as ‘not-yet-big’ organizations. Virtually all 

participants have experienced the implicit and widely held 

expectation that getting bigger is better, that the organization 

must apply for grants, that the budget has to grow in order to 

achieve success, that applying for 501(c)(3) status is a given...”

• “Grass-roots cultural organizations often operate outside, 

or in contrast to, the ‘mainstream’ arts and culture world 

of organizations and funders. Many cultural organizations 

come into being specifically because their needs are ignored 

by existing mainstream organizations. Politics and power 

relations play out explicitly or implicitly within these sets 

of relationships. Activities in the informal sector, and folk 

cultural activity specifically, often challenge the dominant 

paradigms and ideas about definitions of art, artistic quality 

and value, and accepted forms of cultural participation.”

• “All organizations experience a life cycle with key transition 

stages; the span of this life cycle may be more pronounced 

or condensed in small organizations. In the time span of 1-2, 

3-5, or 5-10 years, small organizations can mobilize significant 

community support and creativity in dynamic and fluid 

[Co-founder Anita Lee] 

went [to the San Francisco 

International Asian 

American Film Festival] 

and was inspired to bring 

it back here. And that’s 

where it started from, to 

have an Asian community 

specific film festival in 

Toronto. 

– Aram Collier, Director of 

Programming & Education of 

Toronto Reel Asian International 

Film Festival (May 6, 2013)

107
Historical Background

ways, and produce meaningful impact without the benefit 

of a strategic plan or the development of an endowment 

fund. In fact, the formal structures associated with larger 

organizations may well be counter-productive to success...

it may be more fruitful to consider the development of some 

small organizations through the prism of social movements 

rather than business models of organizational development.”

Given their many purposes and experiences, the FFC-Small 

Arts Report recommendations reinforced the notion that appropriate 

strategies for supporting cultural organizations were necessarily varied. 

Suggestions focused on ideas of how to “create access to information, 

expertise, funding and space,” with the goals of creating greater selfsufficiency of organizations and enhancing their efforts to mobilize 

their own social and cultural capital.168 The key strategies identified 

in the report “related to aggregating resources and connecting or 

networking mechanisms,” and included: (i) supporting coalitions to 

share resources and mobilize collective action; (ii) developing incubator 

models; (iii) “developing opportunities for small organizations to 

contribute to the dialogue about defining full and meaningful support”; 

and (iv) developing grant programs directed at small organizations and 

individuals focused on development, capacity, and access to space, and 

guided by such questions as, “What do you need to advance your art 

or organization to the next level?”169 For very small and informally 

organized groups, financial and capacity building support combined 

with strong and knowledgeable assistance from service organizations 

was likely to be much more effective than financial support alone.170

The FFC-Small Arts Report further found that programs of support for 

these organizations needed to address other issues such as knowledge of, 

and access to, existing grant programs, and the strengthening of existing 

dedicated networks and service organizations.171

As the field was continuing to grow in number, and its 

composition continuing to diversify, the support environment for 

ethnocultural arts organizations of all sizes destabilized again in the first 

half of the last decade (2000-2005), and this time in the form of drastic 

cuts to state (and subsequently local) arts agency budgets, which both 

triggered and was followed by a decade of shrinking funding and other 

forms of arts service support. Between 2001 and 2004, state arts agency 

budgets dropped by almost 40 percent;172 from 2003 to 2004 alone, there 

was an average 23 percent reduction in state arts agency allocations, 

with reductions to the arts budgets of California, which housed the 

greatest proportion of the country’s ethnocultural arts organizations, 

Michigan, and Florida representing approximately two-thirds of these 

cuts.173 In California, the slide was as follows: CAC’s budget peaked at 

$31.8 million in the 2000-2001 fiscal year (FY), was reduced to $18.4 

million in FY 2002-2003, and then dropped by more than 90 percent to 

$3.1 million in FY 2003-2004 before rising slightly to $5.6 million in FY 

2008-2009.174 In FY 2000-2001, legislative approval had led to the brief 

expansion of the MCAD Program, which resulted in approximately $2.5 

million dedicated to MCAD grantmaking alone; following the budget 

cuts, MCAD was eliminated along with virtually all other state arts funds 

supporting both the ethnocultural arts field and California’s arts sector 

as a whole.175 Reductions to CAC’s budget had a ripple effect throughout 

California’s arts community, including leading to the closing of local arts 

agencies.176 

The wave of state and local arts agency cuts, while impacting all 

arts organizations, were acutely felt by ethnocultural arts organizations, 

I think you have to realize that a third wave of immigrants after World War II – a lot of them are what 

we would call the ‘intellectuals,’ or people who had a higher education who had a wide grasp of cultural 

issues, and modern art was one of them. They came to the United States, they wanted to grow this 

particular [form] and there was a very fertile ground for it. A lot of people volunteered...We had a whole 

cadre of people that just came in with hammers and just did the work themselves with no pay. We’ve been 

pretty much volunteer until very recently. 

– Orest Hrynewych, Executive Director of the Ukrainian Institute of Modern Art (August 26, 2013)

108
Part I

which had already lost most federal support after the NEA cuts in the 

mid-1990s and which available literature indicates were equally, if not 

more, reliant on state and local government support.177 As previously 

suggested, and based in part on formal and informal interviews for 

the Plural project and a review of the project’s US supports database, 

it appears that state support to ethnocultural arts organizations came 

largely from dedicated funding programs and other programs aimed at 

increasing diversity in the arts;178 when 

arts agency budgets were cut, many 

of these programs were eliminated, 

combined with, or reorganized as 

programs aimed at supporting all 

“underserved” populations, which 

variously included women, rural 

groups, LGBTQ communities, people 

with disabilities, and other groups. 

In more recent years, the latter 

programming has further expanded 

or been replaced by programs 

focused around creative placemaking 

concepts. It is not our intention to 

suggest here or elsewhere that these 

other historically and currently 

neglected communities are not in 

need of targeted support, but rather 

to emphasize the lasting impact of the 

disappearance of dedicated funding 

programs to the ethnocultural arts 

field. Moreover, these cuts occurred 

during a period when both the 

number of ethnocultural and arts 

organizations as a whole were increasing at a rapid rate, and thus meant 

fierce competition for a greatly reduced pool of funds.

Again based on formal and informal interviews for the Plural 

project, it appears that private, particularly foundation, support for 

ethnocultural arts organizations grew during the early 2000s. Whether 

simply coinciding with or in response to reduced state support, for at least 

some members of the field, foundation support helped lessen the impact 

of reduced public support. However, this support was generally even more 

unpredictable and restricted than government funding. Similar to public 

support, foundation support was (and is) primarily short-term and projectbased, which among other issues pushed organizations toward artificial 

growth and entirely failed to address underlying structural issues, both 

within organizations and the support environment itself. Unlike public 

support, foundation grantmaking was (and is) directed by the variable 

interests of a select group of private individuals and, operating outside 

of the democratic process, was (and is) largely immune from appeals for 

cultural equity. 

Although not focused on ethnocultural arts organizations as a 

whole, shortly after this latest shift to the arts support environment, several 

initiatives were launched that had implications for organizations operating 

within the ethnocultural arts field, particularly in the areas of Native arts 

and immigrant arts. We have already mentioned the Ford Foundation’s 

work in the Native arts and culture field, which included a feasibility study 

in 2006 that led to the funding and founding of NACF.179 In 2005, the 

Asia Society released a report, Artistic Production and Cultural Identity in U.S. 

Immigrant and Diasporic Communities, detailing ethnographic research it had 

undertaken in various culturally specific communities across the United 

States to examine evolving trends in arts production and presenting in 

these communities (the Asia Society Report).

180 The eight presented 

case studies in the Asia Society Report included research with Chicagobased Natya Dance Theatre, and investigations of Senegalese dance in 

Washington, DC, corridos in Southern Arizona, and arts and healing 

in the Cambodian American Community in Long Beach, California, 

with an exploration of a wide array of topics related to cultural identity 

and considering the contexts and challenges in sustaining the researched 

art forms and internal and external systems of support for the involved 

groups.181 In its findings, the Asia Society Report repeatedly highlights the 

need for support strategies to recognize and account for the complexity 

within and between ethnic and racial groups, and subsequently the 

“multiplicity of...experiences and art-making practices.”182 It also pointed 

to the highly problematic terminology in the field that 

[Founder Jaishri 

Abichandani] recognized that 

the art world wasn’t really 

paying attention to South 

Asian artists, or taking them 

very seriously. They expected 

a certain type of work when 

they did want to look at your 

work...They were interested 

in artists from India, but they 

weren’t necessarily interested 

in someone from America. 

She started SAWCC just as a 

way to...form this group of 

people to show your work to 

and get feedback. 

– Anjali Goyal, Board Member of 

South Asian Women’s Creative 

Collective (July 30, 2013)

109
Historical Background

Aside from producing misguided thinking about the 

arts and specific art forms...has practical resource 

implications because of funding program categories, 

hierarchies based on these distinctions, and a lack of 

understanding about training outside of academic or 

conservatory settings. Therefore, when designing a 

resource intervention, it is worth examining commonly 

used terminology in the field to see if the language 

may exclude or prioritize certain art forms because of 

encoded class, culture, gender, scale, or genre biases.183

Separately, but related to the Asia Society’s research, in 2004 

the FFC organized a series of gatherings directed toward developing 

nationwide support systems for “heritage-based traditional arts,” 

with a particular focus on fostering the arts in refugee and newcomer 

immigrant communities.184 The final gathering, held in 2005, centered 

around action steps to be taken in five areas, which touched on themes 

also raised in the Asia Society Report: (i) access to space, (ii) resources 

and support, (iii) developing leadership, (iv) language and public 

awareness, and (v) information, research and public policy. Many of 

the observations contained in the subsequent meeting summary (the 

FFC-Immigrant Arts Report) echo those made in previous reports from 

previous periods and regarding other groups within the ethnocultural 

arts field, and included the following:185

• “Flexible-use space is very valuable, must be appropriate for 

community capacity” (access to space) 

• “Not all groups need or want a permanent space” (access to 

space) 

• “People are resourceful about finding space, but that can 

marginalize them, and let public agencies off the hook” 

(access to space) 

• “Funders want accountability, but does that have to mean 

501(c)3 status” (resources and support) 

• “There is too much restricted funding. Arts projects need 

flexible multi-year support, and small grants can often get a 

lot done” (resources and support) 

• “Take culturally specific ideas of leadership into account” 

(developing leadership) 

• “Incubation models” (developing leadership) 

• “Grantmakers, critics and other decision makers lack 

adequate information about immigrant and refugee arts and 

communities” (language and public awareness) 

• “We need a good vehicle to communicate complexity” 

(language and public awareness) 

The FFC-Immigrant Arts Report contains numerous 

recommendations applicable to addressing the needs of immigrant and 

refugee arts organizations, including calls for better research on the 

field, improved information on available opportunities and resources, 

advocacy at the state and federal levels, reconceptualizing standard 

organizational models to remove barriers of access, educating funders 

on the field, and working with “communities to recast the importance 

of arts and culture.”186 The report’s authors also note that participants 

had pointed to the absence of a national service organization for the 

field, and the existence of much work and a number of organizations 

“working in overlapping areas [but] not communicating very well.”187

With its assessments, the FFC-Immigrant Arts Report repeat sentiments 

contained in a number of similar reports on the ethnocultural arts field, 

and as with these prior reports, we found little indication that there 

was any broad change in the support environment to implement these 

consistently identified needs and recommendations.

Instead of stabilizing or improving, the support environment for 

ethnocultural arts organizations appears to have continued to weaken in 

the mid to late 2000s with the closing of several ethnocultural arts service 

organizations and other arts service organizations with programming 

particularly conscious of the needs and challenges of the ethnocultural 

arts sector. Around 2006, Native arts service organization Atlatl ceased 

operations, and the long-standing Latino arts service organization 

AHA closed shortly thereafter. In 2009, FFC suspended operations 

after 18 years of service. In an interview with Amy Kitchener of the 

Alliance for California Traditional Arts (ACTA), former Executive 

Director Betsy Peterson cites “money and lack of operating support” 

as the primary reasons for the organization’s dissolution, a “story [that] 

is fairly common.”188 Among several observations based on years of 

operating FFC’s programs, she emphasizes the importance of longterm commitments to organizations: “...the work of community-based 

110
Image 23. Kenny Endo, Co-founder (with Chizuko Endo) and Artistic Director of Taiko Center of the Pacific. Photograph by Raymond Yuen. Reproduced 

by permission from Kenny Endo.

111
Historical Background

organizations, takes time – years to build relationships and trust. It is 

difficult to do when you are working from project-to-project grants or 

trying to adapt to the agendas of funders.” 189 Further, there is a need for 

a more structural approach to supporting culturally diverse work,

Over the past few decades, public and private 

foundations have developed strategies to feed certain 

art forms, communities, and structures to support them, 

many of them mature, articulated art forms requiring 

big buildings, staff, etc. In many ways, these are the 

forms and structures familiar to a generation of funders 

and a lot of the work has been wildly successful. But 

the landscape is changing. One size does not fit all. 

Different funding approaches, more systemic funding 

is needed...So is building alliances with other fields.190

While keeping their doors open, other ethnocultural arts 

alliances had weakened since previous periods of strength and activity, 

affected by their own challenges with respect to funding, leadership, 

and clarifying organizational purpose; TAAC is one such organization 

that has struggled through periods of decline and renewal. It is notable 

that the general decline in ethnocultural arts service organizations and 

related service organizations was not reflected by the arts service sector 

at large: during the same period, the arts service field as a whole grew 

steadily between 1999 and 2009.191

Then the economy collapsed, and states once again reduced 

their arts-related support. After experiencing a period of slight recovery 

in state arts funding budgets in the mid-2000s, starting in 2007 funding 

amounts began a steady annual drop, with a further 10 percent decline 

in 2011.192 At this time, long-established arts councils such as NYSCA 

ended programming that had survived the previous series of reductions 

in the early 2000s and that were particularly directed at ethnocultural 

arts organizations and other underserved groups.193 Although financial 

support to local arts agencies was steadier than funding provided to state 

arts agencies from 2008 to 2011, the available funding dollars of local 

arts agencies also declined during this period.194 Collectively, private 

giving for the arts (individual, foundation, and corporate) similarly 

declined after 2007, and with respect to corporate and foundation 

support, in some cases froze or disappeared as 

these donors shifted programming priorities 

and/or focused on existing grantees and 

commitments.195

Reflecting this large-scale disruption 

to the arts support environment, which 

continues to this day, Plural project 

ethnocultural arts organization and 

ethnocultural arts service organization 

interviewees reported the reduction or 

complete loss of corporate financial support 

during this time, and noted that some 

foundations, citing the financial crisis, had 

cut or rescinded funds and others were no 

longer accepting new grantees. Summarizing 

a point made by many arts organization interviewees, Chicago-based 

MPAACT’s Managing Producer, Carla Stillwell, notes the increased 

barriers to entry and absence of new funding sources as “funders 

are sticking with the devil that they know, so getting funding now is 

challenging.”196 Comparable to the recession experiences of some 

ethnocultural arts service organizations, New York’s A4, which for over 

15 years was known for a re-granting program that provided $500-

$1500 grants to individual artists and arts organizations, ended this core 

program in 2008 after its corporate and foundation donors shifted away 

from supporting re-granting programs and the provision of small grant 

amounts, both of which donors now viewed as less effective than directly 

supporting larger organizations.197

Several needs assessments and reports released between 

2009 and 2011 provide further insight as to the situation of certain 

ethnocultural arts organizations during and following the recession. 

From 2008 to 2009, A4 undertook research regarding the financial health 

of Asian American artists, arts administrators, and arts organizations 

located in New York City, and the resulting report identified a number 

of arising and longstanding issues impacting this arts community (the 

A4 Report).198 The A4 Report’s findings indicated that more than 50 

percent of these arts organizations had budgets of $100,000 or less and 

approximately 38 percent of the field had founding dates in the 1990s 

We started 11 years ago...

as an organization for the 

community and to really 

make Vancouver residents 

aware of the Latin 

American community 

and the films that were 

coming out of Latin 

America. 

– Lisa Pearlman, Festival 

Manager of the Vancouver 

Latin American Film Festival 

(October 10, 2013)

112
Part I

with approximately 18 percent of the field reporting founding dates 

between 2000 to 2008, meaning that well over half of the field had 

been founded within the past 20 years.199 It further identified obtaining 

funding as overwhelmingly the top challenge facing organizations (74.5 

percent) followed by “finding an audience for the work” (31.9 percent), 

“getting media coverage” (29.8 percent), “lack of staff ” (27.7 percent), 

and “real estate/finding appropriate work space” (25.5 percent).200 With 

respect to funding, a consistent challenge raised by artists interviewed for 

the A4 Report was the “difficulties encountered in motivating individual 

donors from within their ethnic communities to give.”201

Observing that “[m]any of the political and identity issues 

that drove the initial impulse of the Asian American arts movement to 

organize” had changed, and that Asian America was more culturally 

and artistically diverse than ever before, the A4 Report points to longstanding issues that had not changed: 

Asian American arts organizations have...gone through 

major generational shifts in which certain inherent 

issues continue to go unanswered, such as succession to 

a new generation of arts administrators, and the impact 

of systematic cuts in expenditures on the arts across the 

public and private sectors, among others.202

The A4 Report’s findings as to New York City’s Asian American 

arts organization community at the end of the last decade resembled 

findings reported two years later with respect to San Francisco’s Latino 

American arts community. This research, part of preliminary work 

for a deeper study on Latino arts conducted by the San Francisco 

Arts Commission, the Center for Cultural Innovation, and the arts 

research firm Harder+Company, generally agree with observations 

made in previous studies, and pointed especially to (i) the diversity of 

the city’s Latino community and the feeling of many artists that Latino 

art should reflect that diversity, (ii) related, the existence of “tensions...

across generations with respect to the purpose of creating art and the 

obligations of one generation to another,” and (iii) the need for “capacity 

building and capitalization, physical space, opportunities to convene, 

and leadership development.”203 Research regarding the effects of the 

recession on the overlapping group of folk and traditional artists and 

organizations, conducted by ACTA, FFC, and the National Council 

for the Traditional Arts between 2008 and 2009, indicated that overall 

income for many of these organizations (74 percent) had decreased 

for 2008, nonprofit organizations with budgets under $100,000 were 

experiencing the earliest and greatest losses with respect to staff, and 38 

percent of organizations reported having no cash reserves on hand.204

Framing this more recent research on the characteristics and 

experiences of ethnocultural arts organizations is work undertaken 

at the beginning of this decade (2010-2019) examining the private 

philanthropic support environment for arts and culture. In 2011, the 

National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy released Fusing Arts, 

Culture and Social Change: High Impact Strategies for Philanthropy (Fusing Arts), 

a report and essay written by Holly Sidford that provided statistical 

support for what many working with and within the ethnocultural arts 

field had strongly suspected: private foundation arts giving was and is 

largely directed to large, mainstream arts institutions and subsequently 

not reflective of this country’s pluralism.205 According to Fusing Arts, of 

the approximately 11 percent206 of foundation giving awarded each year 

to nonprofit arts and cultural organizations, only 10 percent of giving 

There’s a stigma within the Asian American community that Asian Americans are not visible in media, 

there’s also a stigma for those that come from Asia to America that entertainment and arts is not a 

celebrated industry. So in order to promote that, to allow future generations to see role models and to foster 

the opportunity for those that don’t get the chance, [founder George Lin said to the other founding members] 

‘We need to do something specifically in the arts. And as a filmmaker, my niche is in film. Why don’t I create 

an organization, a nonprofit, APA Film.’ It actually didn’t start out as a nonprofit; the nonprofit came several 

years later in order to get grants...it just started out as ‘We need to be out there...’

– Christine Dela Rosa, Board Member of Asian Pacific American Film (August 8, 2013)

113
Historical Background

by foundations possessing a “primary or secondary purpose of arts 

and culture” could be classified as explicitly benefiting communities of 

color, lower-income groups, rural communities, and other underserved 

populations, with “4 percent...classified as advancing social justice 

goals.”207 Considered alternatively, institutions reporting “budgets greater 

than $5 million represent less than 2 percent of the total population of 

arts and culture groups, yet in 2009, these organizations received 55 

percent of all contributions, gifts and grants.”208 National funding trends 

were repeated at the state level: in 2008, “nearly 30 percent of the arts 

funding by California-based foundations was awarded in just 29 grants 

to large museums, performing arts organizations and media groups” 

and most of these recipients were “encyclopedic institutions that house 

or showcase works from around the world, but none of them is rooted 

primarily in non-European aesthetics, or founded and run by people of 

color.”209

Moreover, most foundation giving directed toward the arts 

and culture activities of underserved populations derived from one 

of two overlapping groups: (i) a small subset of these arts and culture 

oriented foundations and (ii) funders whose main focus lies outside 

of the arts and culture field.210 Describing the former group, the 

researchers behind Fusing Arts calculated that 18 percent of arts and 

culture oriented foundations “directed at least 20 percent of their arts 

funding to benefit marginalized communities,” and “5 percent gave 25 

percent or more to art and social justice programs.”211 Not only were 

less than one-fifth of arts and culture oriented foundations providing the 

bulk of support for culturally diverse activity, but research “suggest[ed] 

that the greater a funder’s commitment to the arts, the less likely it is to 

prioritize marginalized communities or advance social justice in its arts 

grantmaking.”212 This latter point was supported by research that grant 

dollars from funders committing 5 percent to the arts were almost twice 

as likely to be directed toward these communities compared to grant 

dollars by funders who donated a quarter or more of funds to the arts, 

a situation leaving Sidford to conclude that foundations without an arts 

focus “appear to value the catalytic role of the arts in serving social justice 

goals more than funders with larger arts portfolios.”213 While Fusing Arts’ 

analysis was not restricted to funding of ethnocultural arts organizations, 

its findings comport with the general sense of many within the field that 

organizations are competing for a far more limited pool of foundation 

arts dollars than their non-ethnocultural arts organization peers. Thus, 

despite the many achievements of the various movements for political, 

social, and economic equality over the past 50 years, and the explosive 

growth214 and diversification of the ethnocultural arts field during this 

time, issues of access and cultural equity remain prominent in the 21st 

century. 

Throughout this section, we have presented and discussed 

findings from several of the larger reports relevant to ethnocultural arts 

organizations conducted over the years. While these reports provide 

a picture of a field that is complex, possessing different and shared 

challenges both externally with non-ethnocultural arts organizations 

and internally between regions, ethnic groups, artistic disciplines, and 

generations, among other features, the reports also generally emphasize 

the field’s fragility. Our own formal and informal discussions with artists 

and arts administrators within the field, complemented by the more 

quantitative aspects of the Plural project research, present an image of 

fragility and strength, loss and perseverance, just like the experiences 

of more mainstream members of the arts organization community 

and yet without, and at times despite, its support environment. During 

the recession, new ethnocultural arts organizations, finding need and 

purpose within their arts and broader communities, emerged and began 

to formalize, including Santa Ana-based Breath of Fire Latina Theater 

Ensemble (incorporated 2007), the Boston Jewish Music Festival (first 

programming in 2010), and Norcross-based Chai Latte Productions 

(incorporated 2011). Other established organizations expanded 

programming and reaffirmed their commitments to their ethnically 

specific and broader audiences during this time: Chicago’s Black Ensemble 

Theater built a new theater space that would augment its efforts to 

increase earned income, showcase other artistic disciplines and cultures, 

and deepen mentorship of younger artists,215 and the Minneapolis-based 

American Swedish Institute re-conceptualized its mission, space, and 

programming to transform into a platform to explore and act on issues 

It’s the first, and I believe it’s the only, Hmong arts organization in the world. 

– Albra Fres Thao, Executive Director of the Center for Hmong Arts & Talent (July 23, 2013)

114
Part I

relating to tradition, migration, the environment, and arts and culture 

for both its original constituency and the newer immigrants who now 

also form their community.216

There were also losses that followed meteoric accomplishments.

TeatroStageFest

In 2005, Susana Tubert and José W. Fernandez co-founded 

the Latino International Theater Festival of New York, Inc. (LITF/

NY), a nonprofit organization that produced TeatroStageFest, an 

annual two-week festival featuring New York-based Latino artists 

alongside theater companies from Latin America, the Caribbean, and 

Spain.217 In addition, LITF/NY presented year-round performances 

and educational programming throughout New York City. Although 

Tubert had not managed an organization prior to serving as LITF/NY’s 

Executive Director, she possessed a deep and well-rounded career in 

the arts. For 18 years she had worked around the country as a freelance 

theater director, developing and staging plays at major regional theaters 

and in the Off-Broadway commercial and nonprofit circuit. She had 

also directed a soap opera, a short film, and had worked as an actress, 

playwright, composer, and educator; collectively, these and other 

experiences had provided her with a broad understanding of all aspects 

of the theater. 

By 2005, “like so many of us do throughout our careers,” Tubert 

felt that she was ready to be challenged artistically and was looking for 

a means of taking her work to a new level that would serve a larger 

purpose and have greater impact. Then, later that year, the opportunity 

arrived. Tubert was introduced to Fernandez, a corporate lawyer and 

then member of the New York City Latin Media and Entertainment 

Commission (LMEC), who wanted to build a Latino theater festival 

in the city. During their first meeting, when Tubert tried to obtain a 

clearer sense of Fernandez’s plans for the festival, he instead asked her 

to come back in two weeks with a budget and an artistic proposition. 

After working as a director for hire for so many years, Tubert saw this 

sudden freedom of creation as a unique invitation to craft a vision for a 

project that could fill a gaping hole in the artistic and cultural landscape 

of New York City. 

Tubert determined to design a festival that would be guided 

by the following vision and mission: to produce a high profile showcase 

that would promote local companies; to nurture and empower a new 

generation of theater lovers and artists; to give voice and access to New 

York’s diverse Latino communities; and to introduce all New Yorkers 

to great international dramaturgy and theater production. As Tubert 

observes, “We set out to present international works that, oddly enough, 

are rarely seen on the stages of one of the major entertainment capitals 

of the world.”

With respect to the budding organization’s audiences, 

“In addition to providing access to our target Hispanic audience, 

TeatroStageFest aimed to expose non-Latinos, who may have mistakenly 

believed that there is a monolithic ‘Hispanic culture,’ to a diversely rich 

and universal cultural palette,” Tubert explains. For Tubert, “It wasn’t 

just that I wanted [the festival] to be a portal, I mean that was important, 

but it was intended to be more than window dressing. I wanted this 

festival to generate dialogue across cultures.” To that end, participating 

productions were presented in English or in Spanish or Portuguese with 

English supertitles based on the countries of origin. In addition, certain 

productions were bilingual to reflect the linguistic expressions of hybrid 

communities forged by second and third generation Latino Americans.

Tubert also felt that it was important for LITF/NY to have a 

multigenerational scope. One of the first phone calls that she made in 

TeatroStageFest’s initial planning stages was to Young Playwrights Inc., 

a New York-based organization that is the country’s leading professional 

theater dedicated to identifying, developing, and promoting young 

playwrights. Young Playwrights agreed to partner with the festival 

once LITF/NY was able to obtain funding. When the inaugural 

TeatroStageFest was launched in Spring 2007, the two organizations 

partnered to launch the “Young Playwrights Latino Challenge.” This 

educational program included in-school playwriting workshops, a 

citywide competition for high school students, and an awards ceremony 

that took place during the festival and where cash awards were given to the 

top three playwrights, a professional reading was staged of the winning 

play, and dramaturgical notes were provided to every young writer who 

submitted a play to the contest. Through additional partnerships with 

organizations such as Instituto Cervantes and the music venue Joe’s 

Pub, Tubert designed a cross-discipline event featuring artists panels and 

concerts that showcased and introduced the work of a range of artists and 

115
Historical Background

organizations at different stages in their careers and life cycles and with 

contrasting visions of Latino theater and theater at large. “As Artistic 

Director,” states Tubert, “my curatorial compass was always pointing 

in the direction of quality and diversity. ‘Political correctness’ was never 

at the heart of any of my decisions to feature one group over another. 

José and I saw the festival as a huge fan that opened up and revealed a 

broad spectrum of artists: from a first time 15 year old playwright to a 

Pulitzer prize winning author; from a small Off-Off Broadway company 

that toured children’s theater to libraries to a Tony award winning actor 

whose name was over the Broadway theater’s marquee. They all held 

equal value to us.” Partnerships were also crucial to the festival model 

because they allowed LITF/NY to leverage the established programs and 

marketing networks of organizations with deep experience in their own 

fields rather than requiring the small LITF/NY team to singlehandedly 

run these other components of the inaugural festival as well. 

Along with a detailed budget, this was the vision that Tubert 

brought back to Fernandez two weeks after their initial meeting. Tubert 

remembers sitting across the table from Fernandez over lunch while he 

reviewed the proposal she had handed him. “He looked at me with a 

big smile and suddenly banged on the table with his fist, ‘Now we have a 

festival! Let’s go out and look for the money.’”

Corporate funders were early and immediate supporters. Within 

three months, Time Warner joined the festival as founding sponsor with 

significant financial support, and JPMorgan Chase soon followed as lead 

sponsor. The New York Times Company provided the new organization 

with a four page, full color insert in two consecutive New York Times’ 

Arts & Leisure Sunday editions featuring TeatroStageFest’s entire 

programming. Among the other companies offering significant in-kind 

support were American Airlines, which provided a block of airline tickets 

for international guest artists, and Starbucks, which offered in-store 

promotions at its cafes along with financial support. In the year leading 

up to the first festival, Tubert and Fernandez had successfully raised $1.1 

million, of which approximately $500,000 were in-kind contributions 

and $660,000 was cash from the principal line up of sponsors along with 

grants from private and public sources such as the Hispanic Federation, 

HIP Foundation, New York City Department of Cultural Affairs, New 

York City Council, New York State Assembly, New York State Council 

on the Arts, and the Ministries of Culture in Spain, Colombia, and 

Mexico.

 Tubert’s and Fernandez’s success in attracting individuals who 

were drawn to the mission of LITF/NY was facilitated by their ability 

to surmount the obstacle of access that many other organizations 

encounter(ed). For example, at the time the partners approached Time 

Warner, the company’s head of philanthropy was also a member of 

LMEC, and a Broadway producer friend of Tubert’s introduced her to 

his banker at JPMorgan Chase, which led to a subsequent introduction to 

the bank’s foundation. Ultimately, their success in raising funds was due 

to the partners’ total commitment to the project and Tubert’s knowledge 

of the industry. As Tubert notes, “It was as if the funders could smell the 

integrity of the project in the room...None of it was fluff. It was real. I 

was passionately speaking about something that I knew. Those theater 

companies that TeatroStageFest was going to feature? That’s where I had 

gotten my start many years before as a director. Essentially, I had been in 

the trenches for so long that I could speak eloquently about the need to 

feature these artists center stage at the festival.”

The spirit of commitment backed by knowledge were 

fundamental features of LITF/NY’s success. These features also 

shaped decisions made in the festival’s early years that would have later 

implications when combined with the support environment, however. “At 

the beginning,” observes Tubert, “you can imagine...you’re starting with 

an idea, you’re fundraising, you’re curating, you’re doing everything.” 

And yet a festival, like other arts programs, needs one or more venues 

to present its work. As the new organization had no such space of its 

own, in the initial planning phases Tubert and Fernandez met with a 

number of established mainstream institutions that had a history of 

interest in multiculturalism to explore whether it would be possible, 

once the partners had raised the money and identified the line-up of 

shows, to collaborate with these institutions in the presentation of festival 

performances at their venues. However, despite interest in what the 

partners were proposing, and “genuine recognition that a Latino festival 

was of crucial importance to their missions and, most especially, in lieu of 

the changing demographics of the city,” it soon became clear to Tubert 

and Fernandez that “collaboration” had a different implication for these 

larger institutions. The meaning it held for them was that by providing 

access to their venues they would have curatorial control and final say 

over the entire project. 

116
Part I

LITF/NY thus found itself early on at a crossroads. While 

Tubert and Fernandez had no objection to the notion that the 

partnering organization would need to be in agreement regarding the 

works that would be showcased, Tubert objected to a situation where 

she and Fernandez would undertake all of the fundraising and planning 

for the festival so that, “at the end of the day, it could be a non-Latino 

organization that would have ownership of the festival and dictate how 

to define Latino theater and the best interests of its core audiences.” 

Moreover, after years of experience directing in mainstream theater 

companies, and much of it directing plays by groundbreaking Latino 

playwrights, Tubert wanted to finally exercise agency over a project that 

included the freedom to make and learn from her own mistakes. After 

much deliberation between the partners, Tubert describes the decision 

that followed:

José did an extraordinary thing. He supported a 

decision that empowered me and marked the before 

and after of my career. He said, ‘Okay, fine, let’s do this 

ourselves. We’re not going to depend on anyone. It’s 

going to be costlier. We’re going to have to rent theaters 

and rehearsal halls, but nobody is going to tell us what 

to do. I trust you, and I trust your vision. Let’s go for it.’ 

This is the one key decision we made that is perhaps 

the most important piece of the narrative that you are 

constructing: our decision to forge an independent 

organization. Now, this is not any different from 

Pregones [Theater] or [Repertorio Español] obviously 

there are many examples of organizations that have 

gone at it alone. But an event as big as this, with such 

high stakes in its first year, made our decision, and our 

sticking to it, a very bold and very daring move...it was 

like jumping out of a plane without a parachute. We 

didn’t have a fully staffed team to engineer our bilingual 

marketing campaign or community outreach strategies. 

We didn’t have a fundraising department to raise the 

money. We had to do everything ourselves...We had 

to be relentless. It was a lot of work. It was somewhat 

crazy. And it was amazing. 

The inaugural TeatroStageFest (2007) captured the attention 

of Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s office, with the New York City mayor 

announcing the festival’s arrival at an official press conference sponsored 

by the city’s marketing arm NYC & Company. By the second year, the 

festival more than doubled the size of its audience from 3,000 to 7,000, 

with significant support from 15 media sponsors, and expanded its 

geographic scope into Queens and the Bronx, becoming an official event 

of LMEC and the City of New York. Again, the LITF/NY team, now 

consisting of four full-time, year-round members, employed a model built 

around partnerships to help them get their work out to the community, 

and thus joined forces with organizations such as the Queens Theatre in 

the Park, the Bronx-based Hostos Center for the Arts & Culture, and the 

New York City Department of Parks & Recreation. 

With the collapse of the economy following the second festival, 

however, financial support for the third edition of TeatroStageFest changed 

as its original major sponsors, consisting primarily of corporate donors, 

reduced and eventually cut all support. Sustaining the organization with 

its spirit of independence became a serious issue, and the organization, 

still in its early, start-up phase, had yet to develop the infrastructure to 

assist it in navigating the dramatic change to its support environment. 

The initial explosive growth of LITF/NY combined with its packed 

programming had not kept pace with administrative growth: as soon as a 

festival ended, Tubert and her small team would spend months working 

on the heavy funding reporting requirements, and as soon as the reports 

were complete, they immediately began the fundraising and planning 

for the next festival. Thus the decision to present an annual festival was 

another choice that carried ramifications. At the same time, Tubert points 

to an observation that addresses the real issue of sustainability in the 

nonprofit sector and that is repeatedly made by her peers at ethnocultural 

and non-ethnocultural arts organizations: insufficient operating support, 

the availability of which permits organizations of all types and missions 

“to pay for the day to day running of the organization so that we may 

surround ourselves with a team of professional experts in their field.” 

The reduction in operating support forced Tubert to deconstruct the 

bilingual, bicultural team she and Fernandez had carefully built and 

switch to increased reliance on seasonal staff, consultants, and college 

interns. 

As LITF/NY was shedding its small staff, demand for its 

programming grew. Some of these requests may be attributed to other 

changes in the support environment for Latino arts: for example, with 

117
Historical Background

the closure of AHA, Tubert found herself fielding calls from parents 

and teachers seeking additional resources and opportunities for 

children and students. TeatroStageFest’s raised profile led to requests 

from organizations like the Hispanic Organization of Latino Actors to 

provide training workshops for performers in such areas as directing 

and producing theater. In its third and fourth years, LITF/NY began 

to expand beyond programming directly related to TeatroStageFest and 

offer greatly needed services for the arts community.

The need to secure different sources of income both fueled 

and was fueled by these expansions to the organization’s programming. 

With new requests to partner on initiatives, the festival found (some) 

alternative support in the form of media sponsors. Another motivator 

of growth, however, was a project-based system of funding and the 

shifting priorities of foundation funders, which required LITF/NY to 

develop new programming to keep its doors open, but provided little 

to no support for the individuals running the programs. Thus, the 

organization fell into a strenuous cycle of a growing workload carried 

out by a staff consisting of Tubert, an assistant, a part-time company 

manager, a few seasonal consultants, and dedicated volunteers. Among 

the programming spearheaded during this time was the development of 

an overseas cultural engagement program that brought New York and 

Mexican theater, dance, and music artists to leading centers of culture 

in Brazil, Colombia, and Argentina to perform and lead master classes 

and talks and a national tour across the United States. 

By the end of 2012, while LITF/NY publicly celebrated 

the culmination of its first year of year-round programming, the 

organization had reached a breaking point. Over the past two years, 

Tubert had been increasingly reconsidering the organization’s 

independent structure, and now she began to explore entering into a 

strategic alliance with a larger theater company or higher educational 

institution as an alternative means to keep the LITF/NY mission and 

work alive. However, although larger institutions had co-presented 

Latino programming in partnership with LITF/NY or featured at 

their venues theater companies that had their New York premieres at 

TeatroStageFest, at this point these larger institutions were struggling 

themselves and focused on their own sustainability concerns. The depth 

and variety of LITF/NY’s programming further presented an issue for 

them. Carried out by a passionate and skilled, but tiny, team capable 

of developing finely tuned trilingual marketing strategies for each of the 

many audiences represented in LITF/NY’s diverse set of projects (e.g., 

Colombian, Puerto Rican, Brazilian, Iberian, adults, children), these 

other institutions regarded this same programming as too diverse and 

too expensive, requiring far more staff and resources to maintain. Tubert 

struck out at finding a partner: “While TeatroStageFest became a vital 

and impactful ‘little/huge festival,’ the economic crisis turned its assets 

into vulnerabilities.” 

Unable to find a home for the organization, lacking significant 

and diverse forms of contributed operating support, philosophically 

unwilling to increase the costs of programming as she was committed to 

making the organization’s offerings accessible to a community generally 

lacking in financial resources, and unwilling to compromise on the 

quality or impact of LITF/NY’s work, Tubert and the board of directors 

entered into discussions to close the organization. In August 2013, 

LITF/NY ceased all operations, and its archives found a permanent 

home at the University of Miami’s Cuban Heritage Collection, which 

also documents the history of US Latino theater. 

 * * *

The experiences of LITF/NY, along with those of the sample 

of organizations we reference and discuss in this Historical Background 

and elsewhere, demonstrate the unique situation of each organization 

operating within the ethnocultural arts sector, therefore problematizing 

any summary characterization of these organizations. Their experiences 

also, we think, demonstrate certain shared challenges in the particular 

complex mix of issues ethnocultural arts organizations face, and shed 

some light on the organizational models they have adapted to survive 

in an arts ecosystem designed to support another kind of organization. 

During interviews for the Plural project, several ethnocultural arts 

organizations reported feeling that public and private donors had now 

shifted their lens to focus more on social service initiatives, yet one more 

frustrating shift in the support environment for many organizations 

whose work naturally connects the arts and culture and community 

development fields, and who were for years forced to articulate their 

value in a “quality”/aesthetics paradigm. Thus one theme throughout 

this book is the overwhelming sentiment of individuals and organizations 

118
Part I

located in Canada and the United States of the long overdue need to 

produce and adopt new thinking and new models within the philanthropic, 

organizational management, and arts and culture fields that reflect our 

countries’ cultural pluralism, with the full realization of that reality.

As voter turnout and voting patterns during the 2012 presidential 

election demonstrated, the United States is more racially and ethnically 

diverse than ever, and this growing diversity is shaping a world we are 

only beginning to imagine, and far less to understand. It also carries 

current and future implications for our interactions with one another 

as citizens, coworkers, neighbors, friends, and family. It is therefore 

not surprising that ethnocultural arts organizations find renewed 

importance and urgency in celebrating, interpreting, communicating, 

and negotiating the complexity that lies within and before us. As Tisa 

Chang, Founder and Artistic Producing Director of New York-based 

Pan Asian Repertory Theatre observes, “No matter how global, biracial, 

or multiracial we become, it’s about promoting perspectives. This kind 

of contribution needs to continue to happen.”218

Notes

 Canada

1. Harold Troper, “Canada’s Immigration Policy since 1945,” in 

“Migrants & Refugees,” special issue, International Journal 48, no. 2 (Spring, 

1993), 255-265, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40202881.

2. Monica Boyd and Michael Vickers, “100 Years of Immigration in 

Canada,” Canadian Social Trends (Autumn 2000), 4.

3. Ibid.

4. Boyd and Vickers, “100 Years of Immigration in Canada,” 5; Collections Canada, “ARCHIVED - The Early Chinese Canadians 1858-1947,” 

Library and Archives Canada, last modified January 16, 2009, http://www.

collectionscanada.gc.ca/canadiens-chinois/021022-1400-e.html. When head 

taxes were first enacted in 1885, the tax was $50. By 1903 the tax had grown 

to $500. For more information on head taxes, see Collections Canada, “ARCHIVED - The Early Chinese Canadians 1858-1947.”

5. Boyd and Vickers, “100 Years of Immigration in Canada,” 5; Collections Canada, “ARCHIVED - The Early Chinese Canadians 1858-1947.” 

6. Troper, “Canada’s Immigration Policy since 1945,” 260. 

7. Ibid.

8. “About Us,” Trail Pipe Band, last modified November 21, 2011, 

http://members.shaw.ca/trailpipeband/about_us.htm.

9. Rod Watson, “Charity and the Canadian Income Tax: An Erratic 

History,” The Philanthropist V, no. 1 (Winter 1985), 11.

10. Of the seven organizations listed with an effective date of status of 

1967, the precise founding dates for two of the organizations were unclear. For 

example, information listed on the website for the Jewish Community Centre of 

Greater Vancouver states that the organization has been active for more than 

65 years (with an approximate founding date of 1949). Lack of readily available 

information on organizations makes it difficult to determine the actual oldest 

organization in the database.

11. Susanna Biro (Artistic Director, Canadian Hungarian Cultural Society of Edmonton), phone interview conducted by Mina Matlon, April 18, 

2013, audio recording on file with Plural project co-leads.

12. Ibid.; Troper, “Canada’s Immigration Policy since 1945,” 265.

13. Biro, interview.

14. Executive Director & Chief of Collections, interview conducted 

by Mina Matlon at the Ukrainian Cultural and Educational Centre, April 25, 

2013, audio recording on file with Plural project co-leads. Interviewee name is 

withheld according to terms of consent agreement.

15. Lubomyr Y. Luciuk, “Unintended Consequences in Refugee Resettlement: Post-War Ukrainian Refugee Immigration to Canada,” in “Refugees: Issues and Directions,” special issue, International Migration Review 20, no. 2 

(Summer 1986), 469, doi:10.2307/2546044.

119
Historical Background 120

16. Ibid., 477.

17. Executive Director & Chief of Collections, interview.

18. Ibid. 

19. Submissions were made in writing and are available at UCEC archives.

20. Executive Director & Chief of Collections, interview.

21. Ibid. During the 1950s and 1960s, a curator from UCEC, along 

with a student, interviewed Ukrainian immigrants and their children and collected the materials and stories they brought with them to Canada. 

22. Triadafilos Triadafilopoulos, “Dismantling White Canada: Race, 

Rights, and the Origins of the Points System,” in Wanted and Welcome? Policies for 

Highly Skilled Immigrants in Comparative Perspective, vol. 8, Immigrants and Minorities, 

Politics and Policy (New York: Springer New York, 2013), 15-37, doi:10.1007/978-

1-4614-0082-0_2. 

23. Ibid., 21.

24. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, “Attacks on Traditional 

Culture,” in Looking forward, looking back, vol. 1, Report of the Royal Commission on 

Aboriginal Peoples (Ottawa: Canada Communication Group, 1996), 291-293; 

Shirley Joseph, “Assimilation Tools: Then and Now,” BC Studies 89 (Spring 

1991): 65-80, http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/bcstudies/issue/view/208.

25. Upper Canada is now part of Ontario.

26. E. Brian Titley, “Schooling and Civilization,” in A Narrow Vision: 

Duncan Campbell Scott and the Administration of Indian Affairs in Canada, (Vancouver: 

University of British Columbia Press, 1986), 76.

27. Titley, “Schooling and Civilization,” 76.

28.The government stopped funding the residential schools in 1986. 

John Milloy, Indian Act Colonialism: A Century of Dishonour, 1869-1969 (Ottawa: National Centre for First Nations Governance, 2008), 6. 

29. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, “Residential Schools,” 

in Looking forward, looking back, vol. 1, Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal 

Peoples (Ottawa: Canada Communication Group, 1996), 335.

30. Titley, “Schooling and Civilization,” 77.

31. Shirley Joseph, “Assimilation Tools: Then and Now,” BC Studies

89 (Spring 1991): 68, http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/bcstudies/issue/

view/208; Titley, “Schooling and Civilization,” 78.

32. J.R. Miller, “Residential Schools,” The Canadian Encyclopedia, 

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/en/article/residential-schools/. 

The high of 80 residential schools came in 1931, see Royal Commission on 

Aboriginal Peoples, “Residential Schools,” 349.

33. Titley, “Schooling and Civilization,” 77; Royal Commission on 

Aboriginal Peoples, “Residential Schools,” 335, 342.

34. Titley, “Schooling and Civilization,” 78.

35. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, “Residential Schools,” 

340.

36. Ibid., 339-340.

37. Titley, “Schooling and Civilization,” 79; Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, “Residential Schools,” 333-376.

38. Ibid; Tina Loo, “Dan Cranmer’s Potlatch: Law as Coercion, Symbol, and Rhetoric in British Columbia, 1884–1951,” Canadian Historical Review

73, no. 2 (1992), 125-65, doi:10.3138/CHR-073-02-01; Royal Commission on 

Aboriginal Peoples, “Attacks on Traditional Culture,” 291-293. 

39. Loo, “Dan Cranmer’’s Potlatch: Law as Coercion, Symbol, and 

Rhetoric in British Columbia,” 142-143.

40. Ibid., 128; Marie Mauzé, “Two Kwakwaka’wakw Museums: 

Heritage and Politics,” Ethnohistory 50, no. 3 (Summer 2003), 503-506, doi: 

10.1215/00141801-50-3-503.

41. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, “Residential Schools,” 

344-353.

42. France Trépanier and Chris Creighton-Kelly, Understanding Aboriginal Arts in Canada Today: A Knowledge and Literature Review (Ottawa: Canada Council 

for the Arts, December 2011), 55.

43. Canada, Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters, and 

Sciences (Ottawa, ON: King’s Printer, 1951), 11-18, 438. A total of $1,355,612 

was granted by the Carnegie Corporation to Canadian organizations between 

1911 and 1949. Institutions that received grants from the Carnegie Corporation 

included the Calgary Public Museum, Canadian Bureau for the Advancement 

of Music, Canadian Citizenship Council, Canadian Institute of International 

Affairs, Canadian Museum Development, Grants-in-Aid for Canadian Museum 

Workers, Committee on Cultural Relations in Canada, Edmonton Museum, Art 

Association of Montreal, National Gallery of Canada, Art Gallery of Toronto, 

Vancouver Art Gallery, and Winnipeg Art Gallery. 

44. “The Evolution of the Canada Council’s Support of the Arts,” 

Canada Council for the Arts, last modified August 2007, http://canadacouncil.

ca/en/council/about-the-council/the-evolution.

45. France Trépanier, Aboriginal Arts Research Initiative: Report on Consultations (Ottawa: Canada Council for the Arts, June 2008), 9.

46. Trépanier and Creighton-Kelly, Understanding Aboriginal Arts in Canada Today: A Knowledge and Literature Review, 55.

47. Canada, Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters, and 

Sciences, 242. 

48. Ibid.

49. Sara Roque, “Aboriginal Arts Projects Programs Report,” 

(unpublished report, Ontario Arts Council, May 29, 2012), 4.

50. Mauzé, “Two Kwakwaka’wakw Museums: Heritage and Politics,” 

505.
Part I

51. Canada Council for the Arts Research Office, Contemporary 

Aboriginal Arts in Canada; Arts & Culture in Canada: Fact Sheet (Ottawa: Canada 

Council for the Arts, August 2008), 7, http://canadacouncil.ca/~/media/files/

research%20-%20en/contemporary%20aboriginal%20art%20in%20canada/

factsheetaboriginaleng.pdf.

52. Bob MacGregor, Jim Robertson, and Velma Robinson, “Exposition: 

Expo 67’s Indians of Canada,” audio file, 10:56, CBC Digital Archives, August 

4, 1967, http://www.cbc.ca/archives/discover/programs/e/expodition/

expodition-july-7-1967.html. The political nature of the exhibition was noted 

in the Expo 67 coverage and can be heard in the audio clip. Millions attended 

Expo 67, including Queen Elizabeth.

53. Trépanier and Creighton-Kelly, Understanding Aboriginal Arts 

in Canada Today: A Knowledge and Literature Review, 55-56. In writing about the 

question of ownership, Trépanier notes the importance of Expo 67 and cites 

Marie Clements who refers to the 1968 production of The Ecstasy of Rita Joe as 

a “watershed” moment. Marie Clements, The Developmental Support to Aboriginal 

Theatre Organizations (Canada Council for the Arts, 2005), 9.

54. Trépanier and Creighton-Kelly, Understanding Aboriginal Arts in 

Canada Today: A Knowledge and Literature Review, 55-56.

55. Triadafilopoulos, “Dismantling White Canada: Race, Rights, and 

the Origins of the Points System,” 23-28.

56. Ibid., 31. The point system scored potential immigrants in the 

following categories: age, education, training, occupational skill in demand, 

personal qualities, knowledge of English or French, having relatives in Canada, 

pre-arranged employment, and employment opportunities in destination 

location.

57. Triadafilopoulos, “Dismantling White Canada: Race, Rights, and 

the Origins of the Points System,” 23-28.

58. “Our Work,” Dancers of Damelahamid, accessed June 20, 2014, 

http://damelahamid.ca/our-work.

59. Michael Dewing, Canadian Multiculturalism (Ottawa: Library of 

Parliament, 2009), 3.

60. Ibid., 3-6. 

61. Ibid., 4.

62. Ibid.; “About,” Canadian Ethnocultural Council, last accessed July 

25, 2014, http://www.ethnocultural.ca/about.

63. Boyd and Vickers, “100 Years of Immigration in Canada,” 9-10.

64. Troper, “Canada’s Immigration Policy since 1945,” 277-279. 

Immigration reform enacted in 1976 brought forth a quota system. Rather than 

setting a strict limit, however, the federal government defined a target number 

of immigrants for each immigration category on a yearly basis. Additionally, 

while the 1976 immigration reform tightened up family reunification, Troper 

reports that this move was done “gently.” 

65. Statistics Canada, Ethnocultural Mosaic, 2006 Census, catalogue no. 

97-562-X (2008), 12-13.

66. All information regarding Leung, the Lorita Leung Dance Academy, 

the Lorita Leung Dance Company, and the Lorita Leung Dance Association is 

based on an interview with Lorita Leung (Founder/Executive Director of the 

Lorita Leung Dance Company) conducted by Mina Matlon at the Lorita Leung 

Dance Company, April 14, 2013, audio recording on file with Plural project 

co-leads, and on Lorita Leung Dance Academy, History of the Lorita Leung Dance 

Academy (Vancouver: Lorita Leung Dance Academy), http://www.chinesedance.

ca/attachments/102_brochure%20history%20in%20English%20for%20

website%20pdf.

67. Lorita Leung Dance Academy, History of the Lorita Leung Dance 

Academy, 3.

68. Roque, Aboriginal Arts Projects Programs Report, 1.

69. Information concerning ANDPVA is based in part on multiple 

discussions with Millie Knapp (Executive Director, the Association for Native 

Development in the Performing and Visual Arts), notes on file with Plural 

project co-leads, and on the ANDPVA website, last accessed June 23, 2014, 

http://www.andpva.com.

70. “About CIT,” Centre for Indigenous Theatre, last accessed June 23, 

2014, http://www.indigenoustheatre.com/aboutus.html.

71. Mauzé, “Two Kwakwaka’wakw Museums: Heritage and Politics,” 

504.

72. Marie Clements, The Developmental Support to Aboriginal Theatre 

Organizations (Canada Council for the Arts, December 2005),10. Clements 

mistakenly provides a date of 1982 for The Rez Sisters.

73. Ibid. The date listed by Clements is 1968; however, other sources 

indicate that the Vancouver Playhouse production took place in 1967.

74. Ibid. 

75. Clements, The Developmental Support to Aboriginal Theatre Organizations, 

12.

76. Unless otherwise indicated, all information regarding Kokoro 

Dance is based on an interview with Jay Hirabayashi (Co-founder & Co-Artistic 

Director, Kokoro Dance Theatre Society) conducted by Mina Matlon at Kokoro 

Dance, April 13, 2013, audio recording on file with Plural project co-leads, 

and on the following section of the Kokoro Dance website: “History,” Kokoro 

Dance, last modified 2014, http://www.kokoro.ca/about.php.

77. Based on a review of all research for the Plural project, especially 

information relating to the Canada Council’s Capacity Building Initiative, 

discussed in detail infra.

78. Paul Carvalho, “Barricade goes up at Kanesatake,” CBC Digital 

archives video, 1:53, from news report televised by CBC Television News, April 

27, 1990, http://www.cbc.ca/archives/categories/politics/civil-unrest/theoka-crisis-1/bubbling-frustration-and-anger.html.

121
Historical Background 122

79. Neil MacDonald, “Canadian Army Intervenes at Oka,” CBC 

Digital archives video, 3:10, from news report televised by The National, 

September 1, 1990, http://www.cbc.ca/archives/categories/politics/civilunrest/the-oka-crisis-1/dramatic-showdown.html.

80. “The evolution of the Canada Council’s support of the arts,” 

Canada Council for the Arts, last modified August 2007, http://canadacouncil.

ca/council/about-the-council/the-evolution.

81. Ibid.

82. Louise Profeit-LeBlanc (Coordinator of Aboriginal Arts Office, 

Canada Council for the Arts), phone interview conducted by Ingrid Van 

Haastrecht, July 23, 2012, audio recording on file with Plural project co-leads.

83. Executive Director & Chief of Collections, interview.

84. BC Laws, First Peoples’ Heritage, Language and Culture Act [RSBC 1996] 

Chapter 147, accessed June 13, 2014, http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/

ID/freeside/00_96147_01.

85. Roque, “Aboriginal Arts Projects Programs Report,” 1.

86. Kirsty Robertson and J. Keri Cronin, “Crisis of Representation: 

Multiculturalism, Minquon Panchyat, and the ‘Lands Within Me,’” in Imagining 

Resistance: Visual Culture and Activism in Canada, ed. J. Keri Cronin and Kirsty 

Robertson (Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2011), 141-146.

87. Ibid., 143.

88. Ibid.

89. Ibid.

90. Ibid.

91. Felicia Mings, “Black Canadian Visual Arts: 1990s to Today,” 

(unpublished presentation notes), on file with Plural project co-leads. Mings 

is an MA Candidate ‘15 in Visual Critical Studies at the School of the Art 

Institute of Chicago.

92. Canada Council for the Arts, Annual Report 2001-2002 (Ottawa: 

Canada Council for the Arts, 2002), 48, http://canadacouncil.ca/~/media/

files/annual%20reports/2002/areport-2002-e.pdf.

93. Unless otherwise indicated, all information regarding CBI’s history, 

programming, grant recipients/program participants, and grant amounts is 

based on comprehensive, unpublished research conducted by a third-party 

and presented in a report dated October 2010. During the research phase of 

this project, we received generous assistance from a number of individuals 

and organizations, which included the sharing of information not otherwise 

publicly available. As is the case with certain of the interviews we conducted, 

we have not been granted permission to identify the source(s) of some of the 

documentation we received. As such, we have withheld the title and author(s) 

of the referenced report. 

94. EMC Corporation, The Canada Council for the Arts: Improving 

the Effectiveness and Efficiency of Documents and Records Access and Management

(Pleasanton, CA: EMC Corporation, 2005) (italics added), http://canada.

emc.com/collateral/customer-profiles/council-of-arts.pdf. We were unable 

to find further information for the year identifying the ratio of artists to arts 

organization grants or project to operating grants.

95. Canada Council for the Arts, Annual Report 2001-2002, 31. The 

report indicates that 52 organizations, and not 51, received CBI grants in the 

first year. We were unable to determine the reason for the discrepancy and 

opted to use the other information we have regarding CBI that is far more 

comprehensive.

96. Ibid., 48. The 6,300 grant figure is from the report’s executive 

summary; we note that the information provided on “The Council Guide to 

Key Arts Indicators” states that 1,969 arts organizations were funded and 2,304 

artists received grants. Presumably, the disparity is due to arts organizations 

and/or artists receiving more than one grant from the Canada Council.

97. Information reported in the Annual Report 2001-2002 states that 9.8 

million is the “support ($) to...culturally diverse artists and arts organizations (all 

programs).” Ibid., 49. Without a more precise accounting with respect to these 

figures (e.g., the names of organizational recipients, the ratio of support between 

culturally diverse artists and arts organizations), the total support for culturally 

diverse arts organizations in 2001-2002 is unclear. 

98. Louise Poulin, “Stories from the Field”: Perspectives on Innovative 

Management Practices for Aboriginal and Culturally Diverse Arts Organizations (Canada 

Council for the Arts/Canadian Heritage, November 2004), 7.

99. Eligibility criteria were later refined to require that an organization 

devote a minimum of 51 percent of resources to cultural diversity.

100. Poulin, “Stories from the Field”: Perspectives on Innovative Management 

Practices for Aboriginal and Culturally Diverse Arts Organizations, 7.

101. Poirier Communications, Findings from the Survey with Aboriginal Dance 

Groups and Artists in Canada (Canada Council for the Arts, 2003). Research for the 

Dance Report involved the distribution of surveys to 257 dancers and dance 

groups, including more than 150 dancers and groups that had never previously 

sought funding from the Canada Council, identified through a database 

maintained by the Canada Council, preexisting information maintained by an 

Aboriginal communications firm hired to implement the survey, and through 

additional research. Findings are based on information obtained from the 26 

dancers and 50 groups that returned completed surveys. Ibid., 1-8.

102. Ibid. (introductory section; no page number listed). Between 2000 

and 2003, 109 Aboriginal arts organizations received Canada Council support 

through its various existing programs. Poulin, “Stories from the Field”: Perspectives on 

Innovative Management Practices for Aboriginal and Culturally Diverse Arts Organizations, 

7.

103. Poirier Communications, Findings from the Survey with Aboriginal 

Dance Groups and Artists in Canada, 14, 17, 19, 40, 47.
Part I

104. Ibid., 15.

105. Ibid.

106. Ibid., 1.

107. Ibid.

108. Ibid., 56.

109. Ibid., 57.

110. Ibid., 58

111. Ibid.

112. Ibid., 26-27. Groups had sought Canada Council support, 

particularly its Aboriginal specific support. Sixty-three percent of groups had 

applied to the Dance Section’s Aboriginal programs, with only 5.7 percent 

applying to the non-specific dance programs. Ibid., 53. Forty percent of groups 

had also sought support from the Canada Council’s other sections. Ibid.

113. Ibid., 58.

114. For full citations, see the Selected Bibliography.

115. Poulin, “Stories from the Field”: Perspectives on Innovative Management 

Practices for Aboriginal and Culturally Diverse Arts Organizations. Research for the 

study took place in two phases. The first phase involved telephone interviews 

with nine organizations chosen to participate based on their representativeness 

across regions, size (a maximum of seven employees), disciplines, and cultures. 

The nine organizations were BANNS-Black Artists Network of Nova Scotia, 

Battery Opera Performing Arts Society, Boca del Lupo, Centre International de 

Documentation et d’Information Haïtienne, Caribéenne et Afro-Canadienne 

(CIDIHCA), Gabriel Dumont Institute of Native Studies, Publishing 

Department, Red Sky Performance, Reel Asian Film Festival, the Society of 

Yukon Artists of Native Ancestry (SYANA), and Terres en Vues. The second 

phase involved six roundtable discussions with 55 professionals representing 

a larger group of Aboriginal and culturally diverse arts organizations, and 

separate discussions with individuals unable to participate in the roundtables. 

In addition, researchers reviewed other supplementary materials, such as grant 

proposals, on participating organizations.

116. Ibid., 7.

117. Ibid., 3.

118. Ibid.

119. Ibid., 3-4.

120. Ibid., 4. 

121. Ibid.

122. Ibid., 4-5.

123. Ibid.

124. Ibid., 12, 16.

125. Canada Council for the Arts, Annual Report 04-05 (Ottawa: 

Canada Council for the Arts, 2005), 21, http://canadacouncil.ca/~/media/

files/annual%20reports/2005/ar_2005.pdf.

126. The consolidation of grants enabled access to higher levels 

of operating support over the long term. For example, among other factors, 

awarded grant amounts under the Canada Council’s discipline section annual 

and multi-year operating grants were (and are) dependent on the availability 

of funds and number of applicants competing for funds, and therefore could 

be adjusted in any given year. However, according to the Canada Council’s 

Regular Adjustments Policy, any decrease in an annual or multi-year award that 

was part of a regular peer assessment process could (and can) not exceed 20 

percent. As such, an organization receiving $100,000 in the previous year could 

not, under such circumstances, have its annual or multi-year award reduced 

below $80,000. Barring an increase in a discipline section’s overall grantmaking 

budget, this 20 percent policy also served (and serves) to greatly limit the amount 

of operating funding available to new entrants. 

127. Canada Council for the Arts, Moving Forward: Strategic Plan 2008-

11 Values and Directions (Ottawa: Canada Council for the Arts, October 2007), 

9, 12-13, http://canadacouncil.ca/~/media/files/governance%20-%20en/

movingforwardstrategicplan200811.pdf.

128. Ibid., 3, 13; Canada Council for the Arts, Annual Report 2008/09

(Ottawa: Canada Council for the Arts, 2009), 14, http://canadacouncil.ca/~/

media/files/annual%20reports/2009/canadacouncilannualreport08_09.

pdf ?mw=1382

129. Ibid., 14.

130. Ibid.; Canada Council for the Arts, Moving Forward: Strategic Plan 

2008-11 Values and Directions, 13.

131. Canada Council for the Arts, Annual Report 2009-10 (Ottawa: 

Canada Council for the Arts, 2010), 11, http://canadacouncil.ca/~/media/

files/annual%20reports/2010/canadacouncilannualreport09_10.pdf.

132. Profeit-LeBlanc, interview. Unless otherwise indicated, 

information concerning the organizational structure of the Aboriginal Arts 

Secretariat and Aboriginal Arts Office, and its relationship with other Canada 

Council offices, is based on the Profeit-LeBlanc interview.

133. Canada Council for the Arts, Annual Report 05-06 (Ottawa: 

Canada Council for the Arts, 2006), 16, http://canadacouncil.ca/~/media/

files/annual%20reports/2006/annual_report_canada_council_200506.

pdf ?mw=1382; Profeit-LeBlanc, interview.

134. More formally stated, the mandate of the Aboriginal office is as 

follows: “The Aboriginal Arts Office is committed to ensuring that the Canada 

Council’s services and programs best meet the needs of First Nations, Inuit and 

Métis arts communities in Canada. The Office continually consults with the 

Aboriginal arts community to learn about current artistic practices, trends 

and issues and shares this knowledge with the Canada Council and its various 

networks (agencies, organizations, government departments). It also collaborates 

with all divisions of the Council to ensure Aboriginal history, knowledge, perspectives and 

123
Historical Background 124

experience become a part of the organization’s understanding and commitment to equity. 

“About the Aboriginal Arts Office,” Canada Council for the Arts (italics added), 

last accessed June 27, 2014, http://canadacouncil.ca/aboriginal-arts-office/

about-the-aao.

135. Under the “Program Description” and “Program Objectives” 

sections of each listed grant. “Find Aboriginal Arts Grants,” Canada Council 

for the Arts, last accessed June 27, 2014, http://canadacouncil.ca/en/

aboriginal-arts-office/find-grants-and-prizes.

136. Profeit-LeBlanc, interview.

137. Ibid.; “Find Aboriginal Arts Grants,” Canada Council for the 

Arts; Canada Council for the Arts, Annual Report 05-06, 12.

138. “Find Aboriginal Arts Grants,” Canada Council for the Arts. 

139. Information provided in the Canada Council’s annual reports 

varies from year to year, sometimes markedly so, making it difficult to determine 

how funding is distributed over a multi-year period. We had access to other 

sources of information regarding CBI, which is why this Historical Background 

provided more detailed information regarding this Equity Office initiative. 

140. Canada Council for the Arts, Annual Report 2001-2002, 49; 

Canada Council for the Arts, Annual Report 2008/09, 12-14; Canada Council 

for the Arts, Annual Report 2011-12 (Ottawa: Canada Council for the Arts, 2012), 

15-16, http://canadacouncil.ca/~/media/files/annual%20reports/2012/

canadacouncilannualreport2012_complete.pdf ?mw=1382.

141. Canada Council for the Arts, Annual Report 2011-12, 15-16.

142. This downward trend echoed the trend seen by the Aboriginal 

Arts Office; however, the causal factors are likely different. With the Aboriginal 

arts programming, it appears that at least some applicants were operating under 

a belief that they were only eligible to apply for one grant at a time and/or 

during a given period. By contrast, in consultation with the discipline sections, 

the Equity Office implemented tighter eligibility requirements for programming 

that had grown in popularity, thus resulting in a smaller applicant pool.

143. It is unclear how many of these organizations were recipients of 

CBI consolidation grants.

144. Information regarding the median operating support for arts 

organizations as a whole in the 2009-2010 fiscal year was unavailable.

145. Alberta Foundation for the Arts, Aboriginal Arts Programming: A 

Synopsis (Edmonton: Alberta Foundation for the Arts, June 2005), 1; Alberta 

Foundation for the Arts, Aboriginal Arts Programming: Consultations with Service 

Providers (Edmonton: Alberta Foundation for the Arts, October 2005), 2; Four 

Winds & Associates, Listening to Aboriginal Artists in Alberta: Results from Nine Focus 

Groups (Alberta Foundation for the Arts, April 2006), 1; Alberta Foundation for 

the Arts, Aboriginal Arts Research Recommendations (Edmonton: Alberta Foundation 

for the Arts, April 2006). Interviews with service providers consisted of a total 

of 12 discussions completed with 17 representatives from 9 governmental and 

non-governmental organizations and a meeting with representatives from a few 

additional organizations; most of these representatives were from Alberta-based 

groups. AFA staff and agents for the AFA study also attended other national 

events to learn more about Aboriginal arts funding and best practices. For the 

third phase of the AFA study, a series of nine focus groups were held across the 

province and organized by consultants hired to implement this phase. 

146. Alberta Foundation for the Arts, Aboriginal Arts Programming: A 

Synopsis, 2.

147. Ibid., 2-10.

148. Ibid., 2.

149. Alberta Foundation for the Arts, Aboriginal Arts Programming: 

Consultations with Service Providers, 3-6.

150. Ibid., 6-11.

151. Four Winds & Associates, Listening to Aboriginal Artists in Alberta: 

Results from Nine Focus Groups, 6-7.

152. Ibid., 7-11; Alberta Foundation for the Arts, Aboriginal Arts Research 

Recommendations

153. Alberta Foundation for the Arts, Aboriginal Arts Programming: A 

Synopsis, 2.

154. Alberta Foundation for the Arts, Annual Report 2006/07 (Edmonton: 

Alberta Foundation for the Arts, 2007), 1, http://www.affta.ab.ca/Arts-InAlberta/Publications/Annual-Reports

155. Ibid.; Alberta Foundation for the Arts, Aboriginal Arts Programming: A 

Synopsis, 1. AFA supported 12 Aboriginal arts groups and/or artists in 2004-2005 

through approximately $53,000 in grant awards.

156. DeCode, “Ontario Arts Council: Strategic Planning Consultation 

Sessions” (unpublished report, Ontario Arts Council, Fall/ Winter 2007); 

Equinox, “Final Report: Consultations with the Franco-Ontarian arts and 

culture community” (unpublished report, Ontario Arts Council, February 2008); 

Nanibush Innovations, “Ontario Arts Council Strategic Planning; Community 

Consultations Report” (unpublished report, Ontario Arts Council, February 

11, 2008). With respect to the involvement of culturally diverse communities, 

OAC and OAC consultant Decode organized a number of sessions across the 

province with a variety of audiences, including culturally diverse artists and arts 

organizations. Separately, OAC consultations with the province’s Aboriginal 

communities involved meetings in five areas (Six Nations of the Grand River 

Territory, Manitoulin Island, Sioux Lookout, Thunder Bay, and Toronto) with 

artists, representatives of Aboriginal arts organizations, and representatives of 

non-arts organizations. A few consultations also took place via phone.

157. DeCode, “Ontario Arts Council: Strategic Planning Consultation 

Sessions,” 4-18.

158. Ibid., 12.

159. Ibid., 5.
Part I

160. Nanibush Innovations, “Ontario Arts Council Strategic Planning; 

Community Consultations Report,” 3-4.

161. Ibid., 3.

162. Ontario Arts Council, Ontario Arts Council: Performance Measures 

October 2011 (Ontario Arts Council, 2011), 2. 

163. Ibid., 20. OAC uses data from the 2006 census regarding the 

province’s population of artists as a benchmark for gauging progress with respect 

to its support of priority groups. In the 2006 census, Aboriginal artists were 

listed as representing 1 percent of Ontario’s artist population and culturally 

diverse artists were listed as representing 14 percent of artists. A comment in 

the OAC document notes that census figures likely undercount the number of 

Aboriginal artists in the province.

164. Hirabayashi, interview.

165. Information regarding CPAMO is based on multiple 

communications with CPAMO Project Co-Lead Charles C. Smith, as well as 

written materials provided by Smith and a review of the CPAMO website at 

http://cpamo.wordpress.com. Smith serves on the Advisory Committee for the 

Plural project.

166. Charles C. Smith, ed., Pluralism in the Arts in Canada: A Change is 

Gonna Come (Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, 2012).

167. “About Us,” Isuma Productions, last accessed June 23, 2014, 

http://www.isuma.tv/isuma-productions/about.

168. Ibid.; “About us,” IsumaTV, last accessed June 23, 2014, http://

www.isuma.tv/about-us.

169. Canada Council for the Arts, Annual Report 2011-12, 15-16.

170. Ibid.; Canada Council for the Arts, Annual Report 2001-2002, 49.

171. Canada Council for the Arts, Annual Report 2011-12, 16.

172. “About the Equity Office,” Canada Council for the Arts, last 

accessed June 27, 2014, http://canadacouncil.ca/equity-office/about-theequity-office.

173. Roque, “Aboriginal Arts Projects Programs Report,” 1.

174. Smith, ed., Pluralism in the Arts in Canada: A Change is Gonna Come, 

94. 

United States

1. Fath David Ruffins, “Culture Wars Won and Lost, Part II: The 

National African-American Museum Project,” Radical History Review 70 (Winter 

1998): 78-101, 78 (noting that the first operating African American museum 

was founded at Hampton University in 1868).

2. An Ideal Theater: Founding Visions for a New American Art, ed. Todd 

London (New York: Theatre Communications Group, 2013), 87-88 (noting the 

existence of more than 200 Yiddish theaters and theater troupes in the United 

States during the following 50 year period).

3. Diaz, “On Modeling Civic Engagement: Case Studies of Culturally 

Specific Museums and Latino Constituencies,” 34-35.

4. Bowles, Cultural Centers of Color: Report on a National Survey, 17.

5. Ibid.,17-18. 

6. Arlene Goldbard, New Creative Community: The Art of Cultural 

Development (Oakland, CA: New Village Press, 2006), 108.

7. The Immigration Act of 1924 effectively restricted immigration of 

Southern Europeans, Eastern Europeans, Jews, Arabs, East Asians, Indians, and 

other individuals whose national origins made them “undesirable” immigrants. 

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 abolished this national origins 

quota system. 

8. Bowles, Cultural Centers of Color: Report on a National Survey, 26. 

9. Ibid., 18.

10. Ibid.

11. Based on Plural project research and discussed in Part II.

12. Bowles, Cultural Centers of Color: Report on a National Survey, 18-19; 

Rosa M. Cabrera, “Beyond Dust, Memories and Preservation: Roles of Ethnic 

Museums in Shaping Community Ethnic Identities,” (PhD diss., University of 

Illinois at Chicago, 2008), 28, 44-50.

13. Bowles, Cultural Centers of Color: Report on a National Survey, 41. 

Our literature review located no comparable existing information on the 

characteristics, needs, or supports of White ethnocultural arts organizations (as 

opposed to “folk” or “small” organizations). As such, unless otherwise clear from 

context, information in this Historical Background covering the period from 

1960 to 2012 specifically relates to ethnocultural arts organizations of color. 

14. Ibid., 55. 

15. Ibid., 19-20.

16. For a detailed look at CETA and its impact on the arts community, 

see Linda Frye Burnham and Steven Durland, eds., CETA and the Arts: Analyzing 

the Results of a Groundbreaking Federal Job Program (2011).

17. Goldbard, New Creative Community: The Art of Cultural Development, 

123-24.

18. Eileen Morris (Artistic Director, Ensemble Theater), interview 

conducted by Patricia Morris Alava at the Ensemble Theatre, June 26, 2013, 

audio recording on file with Plural project co-leads; Alice E. Valdez (Founder/

Executive Director, Multicultural Education and Counseling through the Arts), 

interview conducted by Patricia Morris Alava at MECA, June 26, 2013, audio 

recording on file with Plural project co-leads.

19. RebeCanada Council L. Fye, “Native American Tribal Museums, 

Cultural Centers and Heritage Centers and Their Communities,” (master’s 

thesis, State University of New York College at Oneonta, 1998), 6.

20. Ibid.

21. Ibid., 4.

125
Historical Background 126

22. “The Museum Story,” The Museum At Warm Springs, accessed 

May 20, 2014, http://www.museumatwarmsprings.org/museum/About_Us/

The_Museum_Story/.

23. Information regarding the Expansion Arts program is based in 

part on a conversation between A.B. Spellman (former Director, Expansion 

Arts) and Plural project co-leads Mina Matlon and Ingrid Van Haastrecht held 

on March 26, 2013. Notes are on file with Matlon and Van Haastrecht. 

24. Email exchange with Jim Bob McMillan (Deputy Director, Texas 

Commission on the Arts) on October 9, 2012, regarding TCA meeting minutes 

from March 1983.

25. National Association of Latino Arts and Culture 1992 Conference Proceedings; 

Crossing Borders: The Next 500 Years, ed. Pedro A. Rodriguez (San Antonio, TX: 

National Association of Latino Arts and Culture, 1994), 178.

26. Ibid.

27. Carla Roberts (former Executive Director, Atlatl), phone interview 

conducted by Ingrid Van Haastrecht, March 10, 2014, audio recording on file 

with Plural project co-leads; Atlatl, Programs & Services (organizational brochure, 

date unknown).

28. National Association of Latino Arts and Culture 1992 Conference Proceedings; 

Crossing Borders: The Next 500 Years, 176.

29. “History,” Association of African American Museums, accessed 

May 21, 2014, http://www.blackmuseums.org/about/history.htm.

30. “About,” La MaMa, accessed June 6, 2014, http://lamama.org/

about/; Tisa Chang (Artistic Producing Director, Pan Asian Repertory Theatre), 

phone interview conducted by Mina Matlon, September 25, 2013, notes on file 

with Plural project co-leads; HT Chen (Artistic Director, Chen Dance Center) 

and Dian Dong (Associate Director, Chen Dance Center), interview conducted 

by Mina Matlon at the Chen Dance Center, July 31, 2013, audio recording on 

file with Plural project co-leads.

31. Bowles, Cultural Centers of Color: Report on a National Survey, 41, 

55. Mid-America is defined as encompassing Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, 

Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas.

32. Fye, “Native American Tribal Museums, Cultural Centers and 

Heritage Centers and Their Communities,” 2-5, 18. NAGPRA provides a 

framework in which tribes can recover Indian human remains and four types 

of cultural objects: (1) associated funerary objects; (2) unassociated funerary 

objects; (3) sacred objects; (4) objects of cultural patrimony.

33. Ibid., 2-3. Not all of these ethnocultural institutions would 

necessarily consider themselves to be arts institutions.

34. Bowles, Cultural Centers of Color: Report on a National Survey, 41, 55.

35. Information regarding Côr Cymraeg Rehoboth is based on a 

phone interview conducted by Mina Matlon with Karen Conley (President, 

Côr Cymraeg Rehoboth), September 19, 2013, audio recording on file with 

Plural project co-leads.

36. “About,” The Association of American Cultures, accessed May 17, 

2014, http://www.taac.com/about.

37. Azade Ardali, Black & Hispanic Art Museums: A Vibrant Cultural 

Resource (New York: Ford Foundation, December 1989), 7.

38. Ibid., 39. 

39. Bowles, Cultural Centers of Color: Report on a National Survey. The report 

focused on the survey results of 543 organizations that reported more than 50 

percent of their participants (board, staff, artists, and audience) as coming from 

one or more of these pan racial groups. Findings were further supplemented 

by interviews conducted by Bowles with organizational staff, staff of city, state, 

and national arts agencies, and other leaders in the field. We note that as the 

report provided minimal information with respect to methodology, particularly 

regarding how organizations were initially identified for participation in the 

survey, it is unclear to what extent its findings may be considered as representative 

of ethnocultural arts organizations of color as a whole at that time. 

In addition, although the Plural project took a similar research 

approach to Cultural Centers of Color (identifying organizations, implementing 

a survey, and conducting a diverse range of interviews), we note that findings 

between the two projects should not be directly compared and are at best 

suggestive of change over time. One key distinction between the projects, which 

necessarily impacts findings, is our different definitions of ethnocultural, or 

ethnically specific, arts organizations. As discussed in Terminology, the Plural 

project’s definition and identification of the ethnocultural arts organization 

is mission-focused. Cultural Centers of Color’s focus on the ethnic composition 

of board/staff/artist/audience emphasizes the community-based nature of 

organizations but also disproportionately impacts (excludes) ethnocultural 

arts organizations more focused on the role of cultural interpreter/facilitator 

of cross cultural understanding and that seek long-term stability through 

the diversification of their boards, administrative staff, and audiences. Thus, 

even when only considering ethnocultural arts organizations of color, this 

fundamental difference in approach translates into overlapping but not identical 

types of organizations included in each study. With this caveat, we have devoted 

significant space herein to the findings of Cultural Centers of Color not only due 

to its suggestive nature but also given the singular importance of this work to 

the arts field more generally and the consciousness that many working outside 

of the ethnocultural art organizational subsector, and younger generations, are 

unlikely to be familiar with it. 

40. Ibid., 26-27.

41. Ibid., 27.

42. Ibid., 32. Seventy-three percent of surveyed organizations listed 

this item as “their most pressing problem.” 

43. Ibid., 32-33.
Part I

44. Ibid., 33.

45. Ibid.

46. Ibid.

47. Ibid., 25.

48. “Other” artistic disciplines were Folk Arts, Humanities, Media Arts, 

Opera/Music Theater, Literature, Nonarts/Nonhumanities, Interdisciplinary, 

Crafts, and Design Arts. 

49. Bowles, Cultural Centers of Color: Report on a National Survey, 25 (italics 

added).

50. Ibid., 40-41. 

51. Ibid., 42. 

52. A limited number of the approximately 122 tribal museums then 

in existence (see Fye, “Native American Tribal Museums, Cultural Centers and 

Heritage Centers and Their Communities”) participated in the survey/were 

included in the final report, and thus it is likely that the percentage of visual arts 

and multidisciplinary focused Native organizations in the field more generally 

was higher than is suggested by the findings presented in Cultural Centers of Color.

53. Bowles, Cultural Centers of Color: Report on a National Survey, 46.

54. Ibid.

55. Ibid., 47.

56. Ibid.

57. Ibid., 52.

58. Ibid., 53-54.

59. Ibid., 59.

60. Ibid.

61. Ibid.

62. Ibid., 61.

63. Established mainstream arts organizations did (and do) not simply 

benefit from their long-term access to donors, and donors reciprocal familiarity 

with these organizations, although these are important differences between the 

support environment of these organizations and that of ethnocultural (and 

other younger and alternative) arts organizations. The funding system itself 

was (and for the most part still is) structured in a manner that maintains the 

existing size of organizations. This system based, and subsequently limited, the 

allowable grant request amount to organizations’ average operating budget. 

Thus, large organizations continue to be large, and small organizations 

continue to be small, unless the latter could find and increase the amount of 

other sources of income.

64. Bowles, Cultural Centers of Color: Report on a National Survey, 61.

65. Ibid., 61-67. In descending order of importance, survey respondents 

ranked the following organizational needs as follows: funding, space, staff, 

memberships and volunteers, leadership training, marketing and public 

relations, community support and audience development, technical assistance, 

increased tour bookings, continued growth, and program development.

66. Ibid., 64-65.

67. Ibid., 62.

68. Ibid., 48.

69. Ibid. 

70. Ibid., 48-49.

71. Ibid., 27-28.

72. Ardali, Black & Hispanic Art Museums: A Vibrant Cultural Resource, 11 

(reporting that on average 51 percent of funding for Black and Hispanic artrelated museums derived from government sources); National Association of 

Latino Arts and Culture, Latino arts and cultural organizations in the United States: a 

historical survey and current assessment, ed. Pedro A. Rodriguez (San Antonio, TX: 

National Association of Latino Arts and Culture, 1998), x (reporting that the 

“primary source of funding for 61 percent of Southwestern and West Coast 

organizations surveyed was from either local, state or federal government” 

but reporting that this funding was the primary source of income for only 25 

percent of East Coast, Chicago, and Puerto Rican organizations); Fye, “Native 

American Tribal Museums, Cultural Centers and Heritage Centers and Their 

Communities.” 

73. National Association of Latino Arts and Culture 1992 Conference Proceedings; 

Crossing Borders: The Next 500 Years, 7-11. This period also witnessed the birth of 

the short-lived Texas Association of American Cultures, the New York-based 

Network of Cultural Centers of Color (formed in 1989 and focused on creating 

a network of presenting organizations to facilitate the presentation of culturally 

diverse works), and the related Global Network of Cultural Centers of Color. In 

1997, writer and arts consultant Roberto Bedoya founded The Peer Arts Service 

Organization Partnership Project (PASO), which was a project that brought 

together “artist-centered and ethnic-specific arts service organizations...to 

identify common core values and shared issues, explore collective problemsolving strategies, and organize a consortium of action.” Roberto Bedoya, 

U.S. Cultural Policy: Its Politics of Participation, Its Creative Potential (New Orleans: 

National Performance Network, 2004), 12.

74. National Association of Latino Arts and Culture, Latino arts and 

cultural organizations in the United States: a historical survey and current assessment, viii. 

The NALAC report was based on information obtained from a survey and 

in-person interviews with 43 Latino arts organizations located throughout 

the United States, including Puerto Rico. As part of the research process, the 

country was divided into two regions – the Southwest/West Coast Region and 

the East Coast/Chicago Region – and separate research teams spearheaded 

research in each region. Report findings were similarly divided bi-regionally 

and covered the history, mission, social/political/economic conditions of the 

contextual environment, development, current status, funding, management, 

programming and audiences of organizations, organizational challenges over 

time, and NALAC’s role in serving the Latino arts field. 

127
Historical Background 128

75. Ibid., ix, 11, 38-39. With respect to staff, the NALAC Report 

suggested that Latino organizations were run by even fewer individuals than 

indicated by Cultural Centers of Color: 80 percent of Latino organizations located 

in the Southwest and West Coast, and 51 percent of organizations located 

in the East Coast, Chicago, and Puerto Rico, reported having 1 to 10 fulltime employees compared to 39 percent of Latino organizations reporting 0 

to 10 employees in Cultural Centers of Color. Ibid., x; Bowles, Cultural Centers of 

Color: Report on a National Survey, 42. It is unclear if figures on the number of 

employees in Cultural Centers of Color included full and part-time employees, or 

was limited to full-time employees. The NALAC Report found that 87 percent 

of Southwest and West Coast organizations had 1 to 10 part-time employees, 

and 51 percent of East Coast, Chicago, and Puerto Rican organizations had 

this number of part-time employees; thus if the Cultural Centers of Color figure 

included part-time staff, its figures (63 percent having between 0-20 employees) 

would be closer to those contained in the NALAC Report.

76. Ibid., ix.

77. Ibid., x.

78. See, e.g., Diaz, “On Modeling Civic Engagement: Case Studies 

of Culturally Specific Museums and Latino Constituencies,” 44-48; Arlene 

Davila, “El Barrio’s ‘We Are Watching You’ Campaign: On the Politics of 

Inclusion in a Latinized Museum,” Aztlán 30 (Spring 2005), 153-178; María-José 

Moreno, “Art Museums and Socioeconomic Forces: The Case of a Community 

Museum,” Review of Radical Political Economics 36, no. 4 (Fall 2004): 506-527. As 

with the larger history of Canadian and US ethnocultural arts organizations, 

El Museo del Barrio’s history is a complicated one that we broadly summarize 

herein; in doing so, we are conscious of the many perspectives involved in the 

recollection and retelling of this history and of the risk of doing it a disservice 

through a truncated presentation. We have decided to discuss El Museo 

because it is not simply part of the field’s history, but because we hope that 

this brief overview of the El Museo experience will, for those unfamiliar with 

the field, render less abstract references to the need for different organizational 

models and the “difficult transitions” brought about by a changing support 

environment in reports such as Cultural Centers of Color and the NALAC Report. 

Further, as is our general objective for this book, we hope that the history will 

inspire audiences to delve deeper.

79. Davila, “El Barrio’s ‘We Are Watching You’ Campaign: On the 

Politics of Inclusion in a Latinized Museum,” 153-154; National Association 

of Latino Arts and Culture, Latino arts and cultural organizations in the United States: 

a historical survey and current assessment, 120. 

80. Diaz, “On Modeling Civic Engagement: Case Studies of Culturally 

Specific Museums and Latino Constituencies,” 44, 48; Moreno, “Art Museums 

and Socioeconomic Forces: The Case of a Community Museum,” 507, 509 

(“I argue that economic and institutional pressures have played a major role 

in the evolution of this museum from a community-based (New York-Puerto 

Rican) organization to a more conventional Latin American art museum...

three historical stages can be distinguished: a ‘community-educational’ phase 

(1969-1976), a ‘museum-gallery’ phase (1977-1987), and a ‘professionalization’ 

phase (1987-2002).”).

81. Over the past several decades, the composition of New York’s 

Latino population has shifted from one that was heavily Puerto Rican to one 

that includes a greater number of Mexican and Central American immigrants.

82. Diaz, “On Modeling Civic Engagement: Case Studies of 

Culturally Specific Museums and Latino Constituencies,” 44-48; Davila, “El 

Barrio’s ‘We Are Watching You’ Campaign: On the Politics of Inclusion in a 

Latinized Museum,” 155, 158; National Association of Latino Arts and Culture, 

Latino arts and cultural organizations in the United States: a historical survey and current 

assessment, 120 (“[El Museo del Barrio’s] first major issue is funding. Despite 

having developed and flourished for 25 years, the Museo is still scrambling to 

survive. Although there is a long range plan with projections for ten years of 

budgets, it is not a financial plan based on the realities of funding. Therefore, a 

more specific strategy is needed so as to avoid being caught up in the reactive 

crises mode so many other Latino institutions face...The second major issue 

addresses the community and audience. The founding Puerto Rican community 

must be reassured that they will always play a special role for the Museo, but the 

Museo must and is expanding its programs to include more Latin American and 

Latino arts and culture. This is in response to the changing demographics of 

the New York barrios which are becoming more diverse with other Caribbean, 

Central and even South American residents.”); Moreno, “Art Museums and 

Socioeconomic Forces: The Case of a Community Museum,” 515-520.

83. National Association of Latino Arts and Culture, Latino arts and 

cultural organizations in the United States: a historical survey and current assessment, 

120. The entire passage is as follows: “These issues of community are also 

closely related to broader issues. Future trustees must not only be experienced 

administratively and have the potential to bring in money, but must also have 

a real sense of the soul for the entire community which El Museo serves. El 

Museo will seek perhaps six or seven more trustees for the purpose of guiding 

it as it goes beyond the Latino and New York community and establishes a 

more national agenda. This could in itself help reassure El Barrio and the wider 

community that El Museo will still exist for them in years to come.” Ibid.

84. Davila, “El Barrio’s ‘We Are Watching You’ Campaign: On the 

Politics of Inclusion in a Latinized Museum,” 155; Moreno, “Art Museums 

and Socioeconomic Forces: The Case of a Community Museum,” 522 (“...the 

expansion of the Museo to the larger Latino community has been an attempt 

to make this organization ‘more marketable to corporative [sic] sponsors, 

art collectors, and private foundations’ [citing press coverage]. For instance, 

during the 1990s, the Museo received a substantial amount of funding support 
Part I

from private foundations...By 2002, the financial resources of the Museo 

were ‘equally divided between private sources, corporations, individuals and 

foundations, and the government sector,’ a picture that contrasts with the 75 

percent dependence of the Museo on government funding in 1993.”).

85. Davila, “El Barrio’s ‘We Are Watching You’ Campaign: On the 

Politics of Inclusion in a Latinized Museum,” 155-157.

86. Ibid., 156.

87. Diaz, “On Modeling Civic Engagement: Case Studies of 

Culturally Specific Museums and Latino Constituencies,” 45-47; Moreno, “Art 

Museums and Socioeconomic Forces: The Case of a Community Museum,” 

523. The museum’s current (2014) mission is “to present and preserve the art 

and culture of Puerto Ricans and all Latin Americans in the United States. 

Through its extensive collections, varied exhibitions and publications, bilingual 

public programs, educational activities, festivals and special events, El Museo 

educates its diverse public in the richness of Caribbean and Latin American 

arts and cultural history. By introducing young people to this cultural heritage, 

El Museo is creating the next generation of museum-goers, while satisfying 

the growing interest in Caribbean and Latin American art of a broad national 

and international audience.” “About: History + Mission,” El Museo del Barrio, 

accessed June 5, 2014, http://www.elmuseo.org/about-el-museo/#Mission.

88. National Association of Latino Arts and Culture, Latino arts and 

cultural organizations in the United States: a historical survey and current assessment, 14-19, 

23-26, 49-54.

89. Ibid., 1.

90. Fye, “Native American Tribal Museums, Cultural Centers and 

Heritage Centers and Their Communities,” 11. Fye’s research approach 

involved the following: (i) in January 1993, obtaining a list of tribal museums and 

cultural centers compiled by the Smithsonian’s (then named) Office of Museum 

Programs); (ii) in April 1993, mailing a form letter to the 122 organizations on 

the list and asking that they respond to 4 questions; (iii) conducting in-person 

interviews and site visits between May and November 1993 with 12 of the 34 

museums that had responded to her questionnaire via mail and telephone (a 28 

percent response rate). Ibid., 2-3. In addition, 18 museums that were not part 

of the site visits sent Fye informational materials, 4 provided her information 

via telephone, and she consulted available literature on other museums. Ibid., 

3. Not intended to be a needs assessment, her focus was on the reasons for the 

growth in Native museums, cultural centers, and heritage centers, especially 

over the past 30 years, and was an examination of the interaction between 

these spaces and their respective communities; however, during the course of 

her research, issues related to funding, governance, and other needs were raised 

by participants. Ibid., 1, 4. 

91. Ibid., 12.

92. Ibid., 12-13.

93. Ibid., 13.

94. Ibid., 14.

95. Ibid., 12.

96. “National Endowment for the Arts Appropriation History,” 

National Endowment for the Arts, accessed May 21, 2014, http://arts.gov/

open-government/nea-budget-planning-information/national-endowmentarts-appropriations-history.

97. As previously noted, information regarding Expansion Arts is based 

in part on a conversation between A.B. Spellman (former Director, Expansion 

Arts) and Plural project co-leads Mina Matlon and Ingrid Van Haastrecht 

held on March 26, 2013. Notes are on file with Matlon and Van Haastrecht. 

Press coverage during this time also reported on the undercapitalization of 

Expansion Arts, especially in comparison to other NEA Programs. See, e.g., 

Zan Dubin, “NEA Funds Don’t Reach Minorities: Arts: Analysis by UC Irvine 

sociology professor Samuel Gilmore shows that the distribution of money is 

‘significantly’ inequitable,” Los Angeles Times, August 4, 1992, http://articles.

latimes.com/1992-08-04/entertainment/ca-5187_1_minority-arts (“More 

than 75% of all minority-run arts organizations seeking funds in 1990 applied 

to the NEA’s Expansion Arts program...[b]ut no Expansion Arts grant exceeds 

$50,000...compared to the top NEA Challenge grant of $1 million.”).

98. As discussed in Methodology, research for the Plural project began 

in 2012, and our focus is on the current state of the field, or the period 2012 to 

2014.

99. Measuring field growth is problematic as it requires at least two 

data points that, ideally, were calculated in the same manner. We have already 

discussed the difference in methodologies used in Cultural Centers of Color and in 

the Plural project, and we have no previous data points for White ethnocultural 

arts organizations. We analyzed the field’s age spread for organizations in 

existence today (looking at IRS ruling date and self-reported year of founding), 

and this spread is uneven when broken down by pan racial group and region. 

By itself, this information is highly limited in what it can reveal regarding growth 

and does not capture, for example, explosive growth and decline within previous 

decades. However, as discussed more fully in the Characteristics sections, infra, 

the Cultural Centers of Color data provides us with at least one account of the 

number of ethnically specific arts organizations of color in existence in 1990 

(543), and as the Plural project database has approximately triple this number of 

active ethnocultural arts organizations of color in existence as of 2013, we have 

a sense of field growth, especially when considering Cultural Centers of Color’s 

age spread of these organizations and our own such spread. Nevertheless, our 

information as it pertains to field growth is suggestive at best. 

100. See, e.g., Larry Gordon, “As Minorities Thrive, So Do Ethnic 

Museums,” Los Angeles Times, May 4, 1998; Loukaitou-Sideris and Grodach, 

“Displaying and Celebrating the ‘Other’: A Study of the Mission, Scope, 

129
Historical Background 130

and Roles of Ethnic Museums in Los Angeles,” 51 (“According to a research 

report published by the American Association of Museums, 26 percent of the 

new museums scheduled to open between 1998 and 2000 were museums on 

specialized topics such as ethnic or cultural themes.”). 

101. “About: Introducing Mizna,” Mizna, accessed May 24, 2014, 

http://mizna.org/articles/about/16.shtml.

102. “Mission,” Golden Thread Productions, accessed May 24, 2014, 

http://www.goldenthread.org/about/mission/.

103. “About Us: Mission Statement,” Levantine Cultural Center, 

accessed May 24, 2014, http://www.levantinecenter.org/center/missionstatement.

104. “About: Mission,” Silk Road Rising, accessed May 24, 2014, 

http://www.silkroadrising.org/about.

105. All information herein regarding Silk Road’s formational years 

is based on an interview at Silk Road’s offices conducted by Mina Matlon with 

Jamil Khoury (Artistic Director, Silk Road Rising), August 26, 2013, notes on 

file with Plural project co-leads.

106. Bowles, Cultural Centers of Color: Report on a National Survey, 52 

(finding 38 percent of ethnically specific arts organizations were located in the 

West); see also Plural project research findings in the Characteristics sections, 

infra (34 percent of the field is located in the West, with 19.6 percent, or 1/5th, 

of organizations located in the State of California alone).

107. Angela Johnson, “Cultural Diversity and the Local Arts Agency – 

Serving the Entire Community,” Monographs (National Assembly of Local Arts 

Agencies) 5, no. 3 (April 1996), 6. 

108. California Arts Council, 2000-2001 Annual Report (Sacramento, 

CA: California Arts Council, 2001) 37, http://arts.ca.gov/aboutus/files/

AR00-01.pdf; Lucero Arellano (former Arts Specialist for Multicultural 

and Rural Affairs, California Arts Council), phone interview conducted by 

Ingrid Van Haastrecht, January 23, 2014, audio recording on file with Plural 

project co-leads. MCAD was part of a shift in CAC’s approach to supporting 

ethnocultural (or here, “minority”) arts organizations. “During the early 1980’s 

[sic] it was believed that ‘minority’ arts organizations would be better served if 

they were integrated into existing support programs. No particular attention 

was paid to any unique needs or historical patterns of development. Little 

effort was made to track their funding relationship and history to the CAC. 

Beginning in the 1984-85 fiscal year following legislative action that placed 

special funds in the CAC budget for ‘minority arts’, the role of the CAC visà-vis these organizations was more sharply defined (At that time about 100 

multi-cultural arts organizations were being funded within the Organizational 

Support Program). A Multi-Cultural Advisory Body was established and, with 

increasing funding, a new program, the Multi-Cultural Arts Development 

Program came into being.” Juan M. Carrillo, The California Arts Council and 

Cultural Diversity: A Review of 1998-99 Funding to Arts Organizations Within the CAC’s 

Organizational Support and Multi-Cultural Entry Programs (California Arts Council, 

1999), 1.

109. Lucero Arellano (former Arts Specialist for Multicultural and 

Rural Affairs, California Arts Council), phone conversation with Mina Matlon, 

September 20, 2012, notes on file with Plural project co-leads; Arellano/Van 

Haastrecht, interview; California Arts Council, 2000-2001 Annual Report, 37-40.

110. Carrillo, The California Arts Council and Cultural Diversity: A Review 

of 1998-99 Funding to Arts Organizations Within the CAC’s Organizational Support and 

Multi-Cultural Entry Programs, 2.

111. Arellano/Van Haastrecht, interview; Arellano/Matlon, 

conversation; California Arts Council, 2000-2001 Annual Report, 38.

112. California Arts Council, 2000-2001 Annual Report, 38.

113. Ibid.

114. Carrillo, The California Arts Council and Cultural Diversity: A Review 

of 1998-99 Funding to Arts Organizations Within the CAC’s Organizational Support and 

Multi-Cultural Entry Programs, 4-5.

115. Whang, “Arts Funding and Cultural Diversity in the United 

States,” 10.

116. Roland J. Kushner and Randy Cohen, National Arts Index 2013: 

An Annual Measure of the Vitality of Arts and Culture in the United States: 2000-2011 

(Washington, DC: Americans for the Arts, 2013), 28.

117. At least one of these foundations, the Ford Foundation, had a 

deeper history of supporting ethnocultural arts organizations. See, e.g., Bowles, 

Cultural Centers of Color: Report on a National Survey, 20; Scott Walters, “About + 

For + By + Near = Diversity (Part 2),” Clyde Fitch Report (blog), November 5, 

2013, http://www.clydefitchreport.com/2013/11/about-by-for-near-diversitypart-2/.

118. Ardali, Black & Hispanic Art Museums: A Vibrant Cultural Resource; 

National Association of Latino Arts and Culture, Latino arts and cultural organizations 

in the United States: a historical survey and current assessment, i; Ford Foundation, Native 

Arts and Cultures: Research, Growth and Opportunities for Philanthropic Support (New York: 

Ford Foundation, 2010), 2; “About the Foundation,” Native Arts and Cultures 

Foundation, accessed May 25, 2014, http://www.nativeartsandcultures.org/

about-foundation.

119. Kathleen Teltsch, “Fund to Stabilize Arts is Organized,” New 

York Times, July 25, 1983, http://www.nytimes.com/1983/07/25/arts/fund-tostabilize-arts-is-organized.html.

120. “About Us,” National Arts Strategies, accessed May 26, 2014, 

http://www.artstrategies.org/about/index.php.

121. Zan Dubin, “O.C. Arts Groups Petition National Fund,” Los Angeles 

Times, March 2, 1990, http://articles.latimes.com/1990-03-02/entertainment/

ca-1875_1_stabilization-fund.
Part I

122. Bowles, Cultural Centers of Color: Report on a National Survey, 47, 59; 

National Association of Latino Arts and Culture, Latino arts and cultural organizations 

in the United States: a historical survey and current assessment, x, 15-16, 42-43; Holly 

Sidford, Fusing Arts, Culture and Social Change: High Impact Strategies for Philanthropy

(Washington, DC: National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, October 

2011), http://www.ncrp.org/paib/arts-culture-philanthropy. See Part II for the 

Plural project findings.

123. Ibid.

124. Kushner and Cohen, National Arts Index 2013: An Annual Measure 

of the Vitality of Arts and Culture in the United States: 2000-2011, 1; Sarah L. 

Pettijohn, The Nonprofit Sector in Brief: Public Charities, Giving, and Volunteering, 

2013 (Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2013), 1-2, http://www.urban.org/

UploadedPDF/412923-The-Nonprofit-Sector-in-Brief.pdf (reporting that in 

2011 there were approximately 1.58 million nonprofits registered with the IRS, 

an increase of 21.5 percent from 2001, and just under 1 million public charities 

(501(c)(3)s) that grew at a faster rate of 34.3 percent).

125. Pettijohn, The Nonprofit Sector in Brief: Public Charities, Giving, and 

Volunteering, 2013, 6.

126. Kushner and Cohen, National Arts Index 2013: An Annual Measure of 

the Vitality of Arts and Culture in the United States: 2000-2011, 1.

127. Carole Rosenstein and Amy Brimer, “Nonprofit Ethnic, Cultural, 

and Folk Organizations: Baseline Data from the National Center for Charitable 

Statistics,” Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society 35, no. 3 (Fall 2005): 189-

203. Including regional, linguistic, religious, and general cultural heritage 

groups, but omitting “nonprofit ethnic arts organizations – organizations that 

work in a single artistic discipline associated with a contemporary ethnic or nonWestern classical form (such as Chinese opera)...unless community promotion 

or preservation [was] explicitly part of their mission,” Rosenstein’s and Brimer’s 

research focus was simultaneously broader and narrower than our focus on 

ethnocultural arts organizations. Ibid., 190; Carole Rosenstein, Cultural Heritage 

Organizations: Nonprofits that Support Traditional, Ethnic, Folk, and Noncommercial 

Popular Culture (Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, March 2006), 16. For 

their methodology, the researchers used the NCCS data files that relied on IRS 

Form 990 data, sorted these files by focusing on NTEE codes A20, A23, A24, 

A53, A27, A84, and N52, ran additional searches by looking specifically for 

certain ethnic, cultural, and language group names, and then further cleaned 

and coded this data. Rosenstein and Brimer, “Nonprofit Ethnic, Cultural, and 

Folk Organizations: Baseline Data from the National Center for Charitable 

Statistics,” 190-191; Carole Rosenstein, Cultural Heritage Organizations: Nonprofits 

that Support Traditional, Ethnic, Folk, and Noncommercial Popular Culture, 22-24. Findings 

were based on analysis of the resultant database of organizations. Ibid. We note 

that our Methodology provides some information regarding the limitations of 

using NCCS data, and that the methodology used by Rosenstein and Brimer 

influenced our own approach to building the Plural project databases. We also 

note that we conducted our research after the IRS removed more than 272,000 

organizations from its list of registered public charities (501(c)(3)) in 2011 (a 

decrease in field size of about 15 percent) for failure to file annual returns for 

at least three consecutive years and thus considered defunct. Internal Revenue 

Service, “IRS Identifies Organizations that Have Lost Tax-Exempt Status; 

Announces Special Steps to Help Revoked Organizations,” news release, 

June 9, 2011, http://www.irs.gov/uac/IRS-Identifies-Organizations-thatHave-Lost-Tax-Exempt-Status;-Announces-Special-Steps-to-Help-RevokedOrganizations; “Scope of the Nonprofit Sector,” Independent Sector, accessed 

May 27, 2014, http://www.independentsector.org/scope_of_the_sector; Mark 

Hrywna, “Number of Nonprofits Down, Filing With IRS Up,” NonProfit Times, 

March 27, 2012, http://www.thenonprofittimes.com/news-articles/numberof-nonprofits-down-filing-with-irs-up/.

128. Rosenstein, Cultural Heritage Organizations: Nonprofits that Support 

Traditional, Ethnic, Folk, and Noncommercial Popular Culture. 

129. Ibid., 2. 

130. Ibid., 2, 16.

131. Based on the following: “As a result of this coding strategy, 

some ethnic-/culturally affiliated groups are omitted from the analysis. To 

get a sense of how much activity is left out, two analyses of the ethnic and 

cultural affiliations of nonprofit arts organizations were undertaken. Dance 

organizations were identified and coded as either ‘Classical/Modern’ or 

‘Ethnic-/Culturally affiliated.’ Approximately 13 percent of the dance 

organizations affiliate with an ethnic or cultural heritage or practice a nonWestern classical form. Then, a representative sample of all performing arts 

organizations was similarly coded, showing that approximately 10 percent of 

performing arts organizations have an explicit ethnic or cultural affiliation. 

While the results vary from discipline to discipline, the ethnic arts appear to make up 

around 10 percent of nonprofit arts organizations. Assuming a 10 percent undercount, 

approximately 2,800 organizations are excluded from this analysis.” Ibid., 16 

(italics added). Ten percent of arts, culture, and humanities organizations listed 

in the BMF used for this project would be approximately 9,700 organizations; 

however, we note that Rosenstein and Brimer appeared to have used a NCCS 

data file that was less comprehensive than the BMF we used, but would have 

been more comprehensive than a second NCCS data file we purchased for this 

project, the 2010 Core-PC for arts organizations. The 2010 Core-PC file, which 

appears to have been closest to the file used by Rosenstein and Brimer except 

that, due to previously referenced changes in IRS filing requirements, it omitted 

organizations reporting $50,000 or less a year in annual gross income, contains 

40,739 organizations. Ten percent of these organizations would be 4,739 ethnic 

arts organizations. 

131
Historical Background 132

132. Rosenstein, Cultural Heritage Organizations: Nonprofits that Support 

Traditional, Ethnic, Folk, and Noncommercial Popular Culture, 1.

133. Ibid., Abstract (italics in the original); Rosenstein and Brimer, 

“Nonprofit Ethnic, Cultural, and Folk Organizations: Baseline Data from the 

National Center for Charitable Statistics,” 191.

134. Rosenstein, Cultural Heritage Organizations: Nonprofits that Support 

Traditional, Ethnic, Folk, and Noncommercial Popular Culture, 3.

135. Ibid., 4.

136. Ibid.

137. Ibid., 12.

138. Ibid.

139. Ibid., 14. Percentage breakdowns between Cultural Heritage 

Organizations’ findings and our US ethnocultural arts organization database 

is virtually identical with respect to Black organizations located in the South: 

39 percent (for us, 38 percent) of Black organizations were (are) located in the 

South compared to 55 percent of the country’s Black population residing in the 

South (the latter statistic based on 2000 and 2010 US census data). Rosenstein 

notes that Cultural Heritage Organizations’ findings “may be influenced, in part, by 

the completeness of the IRS database,” for “[m]any expressive activities among 

Hispanic and African-American communities are held in churches, and by 

small community groups or businesses, which are not required to register with 

the IRS as 501(c)(3) organizations.” Ibid. 

140. Ibid., 16.

141. Ibid.

142. Ibid., 16-18.

143. New York State Council on the Arts, “Black Theatre’s Next 

Renaissance: A Dialogue Between In-State and Out-of-State Black Theatre 

Professionals” (conference report, New York State Council on the Arts Theatre 

Program, revised December 8, 2002), Executive Summary of Conference 

Report.

144. Ibid.

145. Ibid., 1.

146. Ibid., Executive Summary of Conference Report.

147. Ibid. The NYSCA Report specifically cautioned that not all of 

New York’s Black theaters were “plagued by the problems that we have set 

forth here,” and that not “every institution will benefit and eventually thrive by 

putting the discussed strategies into practice.” Ibid.

148. Ibid., 4.

149. Ibid., 5. 

150. Ibid.

151. Ibid., 6.

152. Ibid.

153. Ibid., Executive Summary of Conference Report.

154. Ibid.

155. Atlatl conducted a previous survey in 1998, but we were unable to 

find published results associated with this first survey. 

156. Miriam Jorgensen, Manley Begay, Nathan Pryor, Alyce Sadongei, 

Julius Snell, Rachel Starks, and Joan Timeche, Native Cultural Arts Organizations: 

What They Are and What They Need; An Analytic Summary of Atlatl’s National Survey of 

Native American Controlled Cultural Arts Organizations (The Native Nations Institute 

for Leadership, Management and Policy at the Udall Center for Studies in 

Public Policy, The University of Arizona, October 2005), 1. Native-controlled 

cultural arts organization was defined as referring to “a broad range of artsrelated entities, including (among others) tribal museums, tribal cultural centers, 

cultural programs in urban Indian centers, galleries that curate shows from the 

Native perspective, and multiple service organizations that might offer a retail 

outlet, space for artists to work and perform, and educational programs for both 

artists and the larger community.” Ibid. The Atlatl Report findings were based 

on the following methodology: in the fall of 2003, Atlatl, working in conjunction 

with another Phoenix-based organization, designed and implemented a mail 

survey directed at Native-controlled cultural arts organizations that was based in 

part on Atlatl’s 1998 survey. Ibid. Of the 180 organizations identified by Atlatl 

as qualified for the study (compared to 335 in 1998), 43 completed the survey, 

resulting in a 24 percent response rate. Ibid., 1-2.

157. Ibid., 2, 12.

158. Ibid., 2-3. See Part II for Plural project findings.

159. Ibid., 2-3.

160. Ibid., 5. Even when part-time staff was counted, for survey 

purposes, as full-time staff, this number only decreased by two percent; findings 

suggested that responding organizations were relying heavily on volunteers as 

substitutes for paid staff. Ibid.

161. Ibid., 6.

162. Ibid., 4.

163. Ibid.

164. Ibid., 6.

165. Ibid., 13. The report found that, while 68 percent of respondents 

received funds from the sale of art/art products, for only 37 percent of 

organizations was this a major source of income. Ibid.

166. Shalom Staub, Small Organizations in the Folk and Traditional Arts: 

Strategies for Support (Santa Fe, NM: Fund for Folk Culture, 2003), https://

scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/handle/2022/3851. Participants in the gathering 

“included representatives from small cultural organizations working in 

various cultural traditions, professionally-staffed non-profits, urban and rural 

arts/culture initiatives, state and national funding agencies, individual arts 

consultants, private foundations, and researchers affiliated with national projects 

on arts/culture.” Ibid., 3.
Part I

167. Ibid., 5-7 (bolding removed).

168. Ibid., 7.

169. Ibid., 7-10.

170. Ibid., 10.

171. Ibid., 11-15. 

172. Roland J. Kushner and Randy Cohen, National Arts Index 2013: 

An Annual Measure of the Vitality of Arts and Culture in the United States: 2000-2011 

(Washington, DC: Americans for the Arts, 2013), 28.

173. Whang, “Arts Funding and Cultural Diversity in the United 

States,” 13; Stephen Kinzer, “Many State Arts Councils Make Their Case and 

Survive Budget Cuts,” New York Times, January 8, 2004, http://www.nytimes.

com/2004/01/08/arts/many-state-arts-councils-make-their-case-and-survivebudget-cuts.html.

174. California Arts Advocates, “California Arts Council Funding” 

(handout for Americans for the Arts 2008 National Convention, Philadelphia, 

PA, June 22, 2008), http://www.californiaartsadvocates.org/Tapping_New_

State_Funding_Sources_-_CAA_Handout.pdf; California Arts Council, 

The Arts: A Competitive Advantage for California II (Sacramento, CA: California 

Arts Council, 2004), i, http://www.cac.ca.gov/artsinfo/files/Economic%20

Impact%20%5BFull%5D.pdf; Mike Boehm, “Dim picture painted for arts 

funding,” Los Angeles Times, January 14, 2004, http://articles.latimes.com/2004/

jan/14/entertainment/et-boehm14; Mike Boehm, “California is last in arts 

funding – as usual,” Culture Monster, Los Angeles Times, February 12, 2009, 

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2009/02/california-last.

html. We note that we identified varying information regarding CAC’s budget 

over the referenced period and selected the more conservative budgetary figures 

(e.g., $3.1 million as opposed to other reports that the budget was reduced to 

just over $1 million), which include all CAC revenue sources. The different 

figures depend on how the CAC’s budget is calculated, with the $3.1 million 

figure including an NEA matching grant and revenues deriving from sales of 

the California Arts Plate. 

175. Arellano/Matlon, conversation; California Arts Council, 2000-

2001 Annual Report, 6, 37-40.

176. “Time to Turn the Tide,” blog entry by the Arts Council Santa 

Cruz County, February 15, 2014, http://www.artscouncilsc.org/time-to-turnthe-tide/.

177. See, e.g., Bowles, Cultural Centers of Color: Report on a National 

Survey, 51; Carrillo, The California Arts Council and Cultural Diversity: A Review of 

1998-99 Funding to Arts Organizations Within the CAC’s Organizational Support and 

Multi-Cultural Entry Programs, 4-5; Ardali, Black & Hispanic Art Museums: A Vibrant 

Cultural Resource, 11; National Association of Latino Arts and Culture, Latino arts 

and cultural organizations in the United States: a historical survey and current assessment, 

ed. Pedro A. Rodriguez, x; Fye, “Native American Tribal Museums, Cultural 

Centers and Heritage Centers and Their Communities.”

178. Carrillo, The California Arts Council and Cultural Diversity: A Review 

of 1998-99 Funding to Arts Organizations Within the CAC’s Organizational Support and 

Multi-Cultural Entry Programs, 3.

179. “Current Cases & Projects: National Native Arts and Cultures 

Foundation; Case Update,” Native American Rights Fund, accessed May 30, 

2014, http://www.narf.org/cases/museum.htm.

180. Asia Society, Artistic Production and Cultural Identity in U.S. Immigrant 

and Diasporic Communities (New York: Asia Society, December 2005), 14, http://

asiasociety.org/files/pdf/Artistic_Production.pdf).

181. Ibid. The other case studies looked at performing identity in 

a trans-local Andean immigrant community, South Asian performing arts 

organizations in New York City, cultural intersections in Seattle, and US Taiko.

182. Ibid., 7 (“For example: Rigorous arts activities can exist as part 

of a broader cultural practice or can be found in organizations that embrace a 

variety of purposes because of community needs, so limiting funding eligibility 

to those typically thought of as arts organizations may disqualify vital locations 

of artistic activity; Cultural transmission is not necessarily just about preservation 

of tradition and may involve generational issues that include how art forms 

evolve within new contexts and the value of innovation in keeping traditional 

forms alive; Performance can have different purposes if those witnessing it are 

of or outside of a particular community, so a presenter or cultural facilitator 

may be appropriate for one context, but not another.”)

183. Ibid., 8.

184. Andrea Graham, “Meeting Summary: A National Gathering 

Focusing on the Development of Support Systems for Immigrant and Refugee 

Arts in the United States” (meeting notes, Wheelwright Museum, Santa Fe, 

NM, June 3-4, 2005), 2. Betsy Peterson, Executive Director of FFC, wrote an 

essay for the Asia Society Report. The gathering consisted of artists, cultural 

practitioners, cultural activists, representatives of social service and cultural 

agencies, funders, and policy researchers/scholars from diverse cultural 

backgrounds. It is unclear how individuals/organizations were identified to 

participate. The meeting agenda was determined by FFC staff and a team 

involving Lucero Arellano, Melanie Beene, Eduardo Diaz, Kurt Dewhurst, Bau 

Graves, Maria Rosario Jackson, Chike Nwoffiah, Ratna Roy, Ann Rynearson, 

Amy Skillman, and San San Wong. Ibid., 3.

185. Ibid., 5-6.

186. Ibid., 9-11, 16-19, 21. 

187. Ibid., 23.

188. Amy Kitchener, “Learning and Legacy at the Fund for Folk 

Culture: An Interview with Betsy Peterson,” by Amy Kitchener, GIA Reader 21, 

no. 1 (Spring 2010), 1-2, http://www.giarts.org/article/learning-and-legacyfund-folk-culture.

189. Ibid., 3.

190. Ibid., 4.

133
Historical Background 134

191. Kushner and Cohen, National Arts Index 2013: An Annual Measure of 

the Vitality of Arts and Culture in the United States: 2000-2011, 44. As is the case with 

other patterns related in this Historical Background, there are exceptions. While 

overall the ethnocultural arts service field appears to have weakened during this 

time, new initiatives also emerged. For example, New York’s Cultural Equity 

Group, an “advocacy group of cultural institutions serving primarily black, 

Latino, and Asian communities...to demand fair and equitable funding” in the 

arts was founded in 2007. Arlene Davila, Culture Works: Space, Value, and Mobility 

across the Neoliberal Americas (New York: New York University Press, 2012), 84.

192. Kushner and Cohen, National Arts Index 2013: An Annual Measure of 

the Vitality of Arts and Culture in the United States: 2000-2011, 28; Robin Pogrebin, 

“Arts Outposts Stung by Cuts in State Aid,” New York Times, August 1, 2011, 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/02/arts/kansas-and-other-states-cut-artsfunds.html?pagewanted=all (“Across the country, this is a tough time for small 

arts groups, because state grants have largely shriveled up. Thirty-one states, 

still staggered by the recession, cut their arts budgets for the 2012 fiscal year...

continuing a downturn that has seen such financial aid drop 42 percent over 

the last decade...”).

193. NYSCA provided technical assistance to Special Arts Services 

groups for many years until the program was ended around 2009/2010. Susan 

E. Peirez (Director of Special Arts Services, New York State Council on the 

Arts), email message to Mina Matlon, September 25, 2012, email on file with 

Plural project co-leads.

194. Kushner and Cohen, National Arts Index 2013: An Annual Measure of 

the Vitality of Arts and Culture in the United States: 2000-2011, 29.

195. “Private Giving to Arts, Culture & Humanities: 1998-2012,” 

Americans for the Arts, http://www.americansforthearts.org/sites/default/

files/pdf/get_involved/advocacy/research/2014/private_giving14.PDF; 

Michael Stroik, “Corporate Funding Came Back After the Recession, But Did 

it Leave the Arts Behind?” The Partnership Movement (blog), Americans for the 

Arts, October 4, 2013, http://blog.artsusa.org/tag/corporate-philanthropy/ 

(referencing a 2013 report on corporate giving: “Companies decreased arts 

funding annually in each year from 2007 to 2012”); Holly Sidford and Marcy 

Hinand Cady, “Arts Funders and the Recession: A Year Later,” GIA Reader 21, 

no. 3 (Fall 2010), http://www.giarts.org/article/arts-funders-and-recessionyear-later.

196. Carla Stillwell (Managing Producer, MPAACT), phone interview 

conducted by Mina Matlon, August 18, 2013, notes on file with Plural project 

co-leads.

197. Andrea Louie (Executive Director, Asian American Arts Alliance), 

phone interview conducted by Ingrid Van Haastrecht, January 17, 2014, audio 

on file with Plural project co-leads.

198. Asian American Arts Alliance, Asian American Arts in NYC: A 

Snapshot of Current Trends and Issues (New York: Asian American Arts Alliance, 

September 2009), 2. There were 3 principal components to A4’s research: (i) an 

electronic survey administered by Survey Monkey and distributed to A4’s email 

subscription list of 5,222, of which 1,127 opened the email and 304 individuals/

organizations completed the survey for a response rate of 5.8 percent based on 

the total list and 27 percent from those who opened the email; (ii) organizational 

analysis, which focused on 86 organizations that had filed Form 990s for three 

consecutive years at the time of research (2004-2006) and that A4 staff had 

identified as meeting the definition of “Arts and cultural organizations in the 

New York City area active in the last three years and that create, reflect, and/

or intersect with an Asian American experience, as expressed in their title, 

their mission statement, and/or evidenced by the content of their regular arts 

programming”; and (iii) interviews conducted by A4 staff with artists, arts 

administrators, funders, civic leaders, and city officials. Ibid., 23. Survey data 

included responses from organizations that did not identify their organization as 

part of the Asian American community but which A4 “included in the analysis, 

considering all respondents to be part of the community.” Ibid., 2.

199. Ibid., 3, 7.

200. Ibid., 14. Other identified challenges were “finding appropriate 

venues to share artwork with the public” (23.4 percent), “health insurance costs” 

(8.5 percent), “insurance costs (not including health)” (6.4 percent), “visa and 

travel regulations” (6.4 percent), “legal issues” (2.1 percent), and “other” (27.7 

percent). Other included such issues as finding rehearsal space and renovation 

costs. 

201. Ibid., 17. 

202. Ibid., 5.

203. Harder+Company Community Research, Issue Brief: Latino Arts 

in San Francisco (Harder+Company Community Research, November 2011), 

1, http://harderco.com/wp-content/uploads/SFAC-Latino-Arts-IssueBrief-2011.pdf. Preliminary findings were based on conversations with more 

than 25 artists, leaders of arts and cultural organizations, funders, and other 

stakeholders in San Francisco and across the country who were “intimately 

familiar with this community’s strengths and needs.” 

204. Amy Kitchener and Betsy Peterson, “Survey Results about the 

Effects of the Economic Recession on the Folk and Traditional Arts: 2008-2009” 

(report prepared for the Alliance for California Traditional Arts, the Fund for 

Folk Culture, and the National Council for the Traditional Arts, 2009), 3-4, 

http://www.actaonline.org/sites/default/files/images/docs/effects_recession_

national_8_2009.pdf. The research consisted of a survey, principally developed 

by a task force led by ACTA, FFC, and the National Council for the Traditional 

Arts, distributed electronically through Survey Monkey to the following 

individuals and organizations identified in part through targeted email lists and 
Part I

lists of state arts agency grantees: (i) individual traditional artists and ensembles; 

(ii) nonprofit organizations providing folk/traditional arts programs or services; 

(iii) local, state, and federal government agencies providing dedicated services 

and grants to the field; (iii) private foundations with dedicated folk/traditional 

arts grantmaking programs; and (v) independent folklorists and consultants 

working in the field. Ibid., 1-2. There were a total of 487 respondents, with 

almost half (48.9 percent) of respondents consisting of nonprofit organizations, 

and over half (51.6 percent) of organization respondents reporting budgets 

under $100,000. Ibid.

205. Sidford, Fusing Arts, Culture and Social Change: High Impact Strategies for 

Philanthropy, 1-3. The methodology behind Fusing Arts was not clearly provided 

in the report, but it appears that at least some of its findings were based on a 

review of the grantmaking of 880 larger foundations between 2007 and 2009, 

which included classifying foundations by the extent to which supporting arts 

and culture formed a principal or secondary purpose of their grantmaking 

and any explicitly designated beneficiary populations for grants. Ibid., 9. 

Sidford notes that the figures provided in Fusing Arts may not “capture some 

grants whose purpose is to broaden and diversify audiences for mainstream 

cultural organizations” and do not “include data about grants under $10,000, 

which, if included, might shift the percentages.” Ibid., 10. We further note 

that Fusing Arts does not employ terms such as “ethnic,” “culturally specific,” 

or “ethnocultural,” and instead references dedicated artistic traditions from 

different ethnic communities around the world, including and as well as rural 

and other underserved populations. Ibid., 8.

206. Arts, culture, and humanities organizations generally receive 

around four percent of total charitable donations. See, e.g., Mark Hrywna, 

“2011 Giving Estimated at $2.98.42B,” NonProfit Times, June 19, 2012, http://

www.thenonprofittimes.com/news-articles/2011-giving-estimated-at-298-

42b/.

207. Sidford, Fusing Arts, Culture and Social Change: High Impact Strategies 

for Philanthropy, 4-5, 8-9.

208. Ibid., 8.

209. Ibid.

210. Ibid., 9-10.

211. Ibid., 9.

212. Ibid., 9-11 (italics in the original).

213. Ibid., 10.

214. Data cited in Fusing Arts hints at suggestions in Cultural Heritage 

Organizations that the ethnocultural arts sector may make up a far larger 

proportion of the arts organization community than is suggested by the Plural 

project findings. According to one study of cultural groups in the Silicon Valley, 

70 percent of the region’s 659 groups were less than 20 years old, and 30 

percent of these new organizations were ethnic specific. Ibid., 13. As detailed 

in Part II, our figures indicate that ethnocultural arts organizations comprise a 

far smaller percentage of the arts and culture nonprofit field; however, we refer 

back to our Methodology for limitations and omissions in building the Plural 

project databases.

215. Paul Kartcheske (General Manager, Black Ensemble Theater), 

interview conducted by Mina Matlon at the Black Ensemble Theater, July 17, 

2013, audio recording on file with Plural project co-leads.

216. Peggy Korsmo-Kennon (Chief Operating Officer, American 

Swedish Institute), Ingrid Nyholm-Lange (Youth & Family Programs 

Coordinator), and Christy Stolpestad (Director of Development & 

Membership), interview conducted by Mina Matlon at the American Swedish 

Institute, July 24, 2013, audio recording on file with Plural project co-leads; 

Scott Pollock (Director of Exhibitions, Collections and Programs, American 

Swedish Institute), email message to Mina Matlon, July 24, 2013, email on file 

with Plural project co-leads.

217. Information herein regarding LITF/NY is based on a review of 

the LITF/NY website (http://www.teatrostagefest.org/home.html), a phone 

interview conducted by Mina Matlon with Susana Tubert (Co-founder/

Executive Director, Latino International Theater Festival of New York), 

September 29, 2013, notes on file with Plural project co-leads, and several 

follow-up email and phone conversations regarding the same.

218. Chang, interview.

135
Part II: Current Ethnocultural Arts 

Organizations (2013-2014)
Image 24. Reproduced by permission from the Sâkêwêwak Artists Collective Inc.

137
Indigenous Techne: Native New Media in North America 

Indigenous Techne: Native New Media in North America

by Leena Minifie

Aboriginal new media did not emerge as a singular and 

isolated practice. The history of Aboriginal art presents 

many instances of disconnection and renegotiation...

The overall production of Aboriginal artists 

demonstrates a vision that has not been constrained by 

divisions of pre-existing and predetermining individual 

arts disciplines, but one that honors story and strives to 

make the best match with production methodology – 

whatever that may require. New media was taken up 

for expression, when appropriate, by artists working 

in various other disciplines, but primarily the already 

interdisciplinary media arts. – Ahasiw MaskegonIskwew1

Within a decade of the initial appearance of media art and video art 

in the late 1970s, Indigenous artists2

 were merging these new methods 

into their practices.3 Soon, Indigenous artists collectives and their media 

artists were pushing the envelope of accepted art techniques, challenging 

mainstream definitions of art, and countering the dominant narrative of 

mainstream contemporary art while using media in unique ways. Today, 

there are numerous Indigenous media artists creating, exhibiting, and 

touring work across North America. In addition to their own practices, 

these artists prepared the way for artists working more specifically in 

“new media.” 

Evolving out of “regular” media arts such as film, video, graphic 

design, and digital photography where media is used as a means of 

transmission and is more static in form, “new media,” as interpreted 

in this essay, describes technologies that are changeable, interactive, 

connect/respond to other technologies, and/or are computable (e.g., 

web-based works, interactive works, works using 3D animations, and 

works that change depending on the user or computer programming).4

This area of the arts has cracked open a space where aesthetics, 

protocols, storytelling, philosophy, cultural knowledge, language, and the 

many incantations of Native art can be shared in the multiple ways that 

new media allows everyone to share – the realms of sound, video, voice, 

image, persona, music, and dance. Artist Dana Claxton describes the 

fluid crossover of knowledge that can happen through the use of new 

media by Indigenous artists:

Aboriginal New Media is connected in context and 

cultural practice as a result of shared socio-cultural 

experiences. Together, these works bring forth significant 

accounts that are embodied in our ancient ways, places 

out identities and concerns in the immediate, while 

linking us to the future. To a broader audience, this 

expression conveys an Aboriginal worldview, revealing 

the Aboriginal experience in all its complexities.5

Compared to the more siloed nature of other Western arts disciplines, 

new media possesses great potential as a medium in which to realize 

the multidimensionality and interconnectedness of Indigenous cultural 

forms, for it allows for an amalgamation of forms and aesthetics into 

one genre of expression that is both highly flexible and mutable. For 

Indigenous artists, the combination of new technology with traditional 

world-view (ontology) brings about a cultural translation.6

Many of the earliest and most influential new media works 

created by Indigenous artists were developed in large part through 

the support of Canadian artist-run centers and the Canadian funding 

system.7 While Native artists based in the United States have also 

produced important pieces of new media work, this art production 

is more recent, with some of it also receiving support from Canadian 

sources. To provide a sense of Native new media as it exists today – 

past and present influences, new developments, particular challenges, 

and its various sources of support – I conducted a series of interviews 

with Indigenous artists working in the United States and Canada. Two 

of the artists who took part in these conversations were affiliated with 

artists collectives: Kevin Lee Burton (Cree) of ITWÉ Collective,8 a transdisciplinary artist collective in the field of Indigenous digital culture 

138
139 Part II

based in Manitoba, and Cristóbal Martínez (Mexica) of Postcommodity,9

an interdisciplinary artist collective based in New Mexico and Arizona. 

Five additional artists participated in conversations concerning their 

independent practices and thoughts on the new media field: Jolene 

Rickard (Tuscarora),10 Archer Pechawis (Cree),11 Cheryl L’Hirondelle 

(Métis/Cree),12 Skawennati a.k.a. Tricia Fragnito (Mohawk/Italian),13

and Jason Baerg (Cree/Métis).14 Rickard is based in the United 

States, Pechawis, L’Hirondelle, and Skawennati are based in Canada, 

and Baerg is Canadian but also produces work in the United States.

LM: What is it about your piece that requires an audience 

engagement?

Skawennati: The idea behind CyberPowWow (CPW) was to foster 

a community of people who wanted to talk about Aboriginal issues 

in art and technology. Before this, there were very few ways that we, 

Native artists, were able to connect and discuss these things. There 

were no annual conferences – no [Aboriginal Curatorial Collective], no 

imagineNATIVE [Film + Media Arts] festivals – to bring us together 

to “network” or discuss ideas or best practices. I wanted CPW to be a 

place where we could meet relatively easily, fairly regularly, and with little 

cost...so that we could talk, dream, plan!

Cheryl L’Hirondelle: I’ve long been interested in web design 

capabilities that allow a user to not only scroll through a site, but to also 

have their very presence capable of amending and changing the site and 

in doing so, give a forum/venue for their own expression, to leave a trace 

of themselves there. It’s like virtual tagging.

Archer Pechawis: My work is almost always performance-based, using 

digital technologies. I examine the idea of “traditional” native culture as 

refracted through a lens of technology. So my work isn’t “interactive” in 

the sense that the audience does A and the piece does B, but rather the 

audience engages as folks taking part in an ancient community ritual 

(being part of a performance), and as a group of people engaging in a 

dialogue about culture, tradition and transition.

Jason Baerg: There Was No End utilizes motion sensors and when people 

are in the immersive installation, it triggers locative color response in the 

work. It is also sensitive to how many people are in the space and reacts 

accordingly.

Cristóbal Martínez (on behalf of Postcommodity Collective):

We are creating experiences by providing immersive environments 

or “embodied interaction.” That kind of interaction is non-didactic, 

meaning that we are not [proselytizing], not preaching, nor are we 

trying to assert an activist position, we are trying to create the kinds of 

provocative spaces that support a dialogue with our audience. I think 

there is an expectation, it is almost an indication of a contract in a way. 

So the reason why experiential media is important to us is because we 

believe in this idea of embodied interaction, that it is an Indigenous way 

of being. You know we interact with our environment, that has always 

been a way of investigating and researching and being in the world. So 

we don’t want to just create these pieces where the audience has to feel, 

like it’s looking in on a piece. We want to make these pieces where the 

audience is part of it...[t]he audience experience is part of the work. 

Our work is multi modal or multi sensory, so we generate feedback that 

is visual, sonic and haptic.

Jolene Rickard: The Corn Blue Room was an early attempt at creating 

a relationship between technology and self. You touch the screen of the 

computer and you directly change the projected image. But, then each 

projected “group” of images tiles through and creates a narrative. The 

overt use of the juxtaposition of straight photography with Photoshop 

manipulated images sets up an intended dichotomy problematizing our 

relationship to technology, yet still interconnected.

LM: How are any of the following – language, culture, 

Indigenous knowledge, philosophy – transmitted through 

your piece?

Skawennati: We commissioned artwork and articles specifically for 

CyberPowWow. The artwork included performance, music, still images, 

video, QTVR, animated gifs, flash and various types of code and 
Indigenous Techne: Native New Media in North America 140

programming. All those things transmit our cultures, philosophies, 

knowledges and languages; on top of that, CyberPowWow truly came alive 

when people met in the space to talk. That’s oral tradition, too, right?

L’Hirondelle: Spider language, both the original and my version, is also 

a very important project in that it was structured based on extensive 

research on Nahkawê (Saulteaux) cosmology by [former director of the 

Sâkêwêwak Artists’ Collective] Lynn Acoose, and [artist/writer/curator] 

Ahasiw [Maskegon-Iskwew] was making the linguistic connection of 

Cree language’s extensive use of metaphor and metonymy in naming 

the site about ‘speaking the language of spiders’ to intimate this ever 

burgeoning network the Internet is.

Pechawis: Memory_V2 is entirely concerned with traditional culture, 

and what is considered traditional culture, and whether my playing a 

digital drum that fires video samples of elders speaking is “traditional” 

drumming, or not. Of course my position is clear from what I’m doing. 

What I love is having discussions after these performances to get peoples’ 

feedback on what they think. I typically point out that a wood, sinew and 

moosehide drum is as much a technological artifact as my MacBook Pro.

Kevin Lee Burton (on behalf of ITWÉ Collective): I believe 

our work has full intention of communicating/engaging all of the 

above. We tackle all of [our work] from our own perspective, in order 

to submit our voices to the issues/topics being engaged. We make sure 

that we are true to ourselves, and that our voices are true to ourselves. 

We are ‘contemporary’ individuals, which means we have ‘urbanized’ 

perspectives, so to speak. We understand that we are considered 

‘contemporary,’ but truly believe we are our own ‘traditional’ selves/

Collective.

Baerg: The title, There Was No End, offers challenges of tense as it 

concurrently speaks to past and future while conjuring notions of 

circular time. Indigenous numbers (values and symbolisms) offer a 

unique sacred geometry, and the architecture in the piece. Abstraction 

is Indigenous and the foundation of all languages; before we had letters 

we had pictograms and petroglyphs. These initial drawings continue to 

resonate purpose because humanity appointed meaning to them.

Martínez (on behalf of Postcommodity Collective): We try to 

create provocative experiences to spaces. We do work in the expanded 

field. One of the things that happens within our work is this phenomena 

of convergence media; this is a place where all these different forms of 

media collide and co-exist and [are] cross cultural as well. Our work is 

grounded in Indigenous knowledge systems and...allows for Indigenous 

knowledge systems to circulate. We use a lot of noise, a lot of confusion, 

a lot of coyote, we sow the seeds of confusion and create confusion to 

highlight complexity, and it is through complexity that we are able to 

encourage dialogue that is trying to discourse, discourse away from 

binaries, which is often what we observe – break all of that up (everything 

from identity, spaces, policy whatever we are engaging). Moving away 

from the Cartesian forms (which is often observed) that converts to 

Indigenous knowledge system, the idea that we are moving away from 

these forms of Cartesian argument. Things are either this way or that 

way. 

We are interested in “how do these artifacts and technologies that have 

emerged within the D.I.Y space, how viable are they for containing and 

transmitting Indigenous story work?” That is what we are really trying to 

figure out: can these things tell a story in a native way? Can they embody 

a story? Can they tell a story? Can they connect to all these relationships 

that have traditionally sustained these value systems (our relationships) 

that have traditionally sustained our peoples for a millennia. Those are 

the questions we are asking. 

Rickard: [Regarding The Blue Corn Room] Haudenosaunee social deer 

horn rattle punctuated the change of each image, the entire piece is about 

a specific history that irrevocably changed the Tuscarora Nation located 

in western New York, but the history of dispossessing Native peoples 

of their land to build hypo-electric projects is not unique to Tuscarora, 

thereby the images and ideas transcend a specific history. It covers or 

can be read through the lens of multiple perspectives on sovereignty, 

including political, governance, nationhood, food and ecology. 

LM: What kind of support (if any support) have you received 

for the piece(and/or pieces)?
141 Part II

Skawennati: The first three iterations of CyberPowWow were mainly 

funded by the Canada Council. [It was also] supported by the Gathering 

Sites (artist-run centers and galleries, all listed on the website) who 

contributed computers, Internet connection, technical support and 

snacks.

L’Hirondelle: Spiderlanguage.net was commissioned by Malcolm Levy 

and Glenn Alteen of grunt Gallery in conjunction with their Activating the 

Archives project and Ghostkeeper exhibition that honored the work of the 

late Ahasiw Maskegon-Iskwew.

Pechawis: I was strongly supported by Cheryl L’Hirondelle, the show’s 

curator, and from A Space. I also had strong support from friends and 

family. But support is where you find it, and that is wherever you have 

created it, which is sometimes an unconscious process. Over time, 

without necessarily intending to, I created a community of like-minded 

folks. Community support is critical when you are creating something 

hitherto unseen.

Burton (on behalf of ITWÉ Collective): This [project] was a 

proposal put forth for an imagineNATIVE and NFB collaboration for 

their Interactive Initiative. This project reached a dead end in funding 

and is no longer in action, sadly. ITWÉ is still trying to figure out how to 

keep the assets and make something out of it.

Baerg: None. [He received no financial support for There Was No 

End, which was the first interactive piece he created at the Institute of 

American Indian Arts’ Digital Dome.]

Martínez (on behalf of Postcommodity Collective): We received 

a lot of financial support to create our art. [Also] a lot of support from 

Canada, a lot of invitations from Canada. The majority of our works 

have been funded by Canadian sources. But that is going to change very 

quickly now because of new funding sources coming online.

Rickard: The Corn Blue Room was created in 1998. I was invited to 

submit a proposal to Gerald McMaster for the exhibition at the CMC 

Canadian Museum of Civilization, which subsequently became the 

exhibition, Reservation X. Each artist in the exhibition received financial 

support for the production of the piece.

LM: What kind of support, if any, have you had for becoming 

a new media artist?

Skawennati: While in university, I took a course called “Computer as 

a Design Tool” (this was when we still used rapidographs and rubber 

cement as design tools). After that I learned on my own but with support 

from people around me. For example, I used the computers at Oboro, 

where I worked, to access the Internet. A visit to a Wired Women event 

by Studio XX introduced me to the Palace. I read a lot of manuals. 

That’s how I learned HTML.

L’Hirondelle: I was encouraged as a youth to play with technology 

to figure out what it could do. I was also part of the beginnings of 

the Indigenous new media presence as a participant of the think-tank 

entitled “Drum Beat to Drum Bytes” (1994) at the Banff Center...Sara 

Diamond and Susan Kennard, past directors of the Banff New Media 

Institute, were both always extremely generous with me, allowing me 

to attend and participate in many of their international symposia...

this allowed me to start regularly visiting Cube Microplex, a Bristol 

UK media lab and center where I continued to expand this part of my 

interdisciplinary practice. Funding for artist travel was thanks to various 

provincial funders as I’ve moved around every couple of years or via 

the Canada Council. I’ve also had many commissioning and project 

development opportunities via the various excellent artist-run centers 

and public galleries all across this land [e.g., Grunt gallery, Walter Phillips 

gallery, Urban Shaman, Artengine, Tribe Inc., etcetera].

Pechawis: Initially being an aboriginal new media artist was a lonely 

road: there were very few of us, and the traditional media artists, (and 

here I’m talking about painters, filmmakers, installation artists etc) 

generally didn’t know what to make of us and what we were doing, or 

give us much cred as making “real” art. At worst we would get this kind 

of pat-on-the-head “oh that’s cute” response. It was the same old re-run 
Indigenous Techne: Native New Media in North America 142

of the colonial process, where the colonized do the colonizing for the 

colonizers, very frustrating. But by the same token, I always knew that 

we would be vindicated in time (now there is a favourite Native fantasy!). 

Now here we are, being quoted in publications.

Burton (on behalf of ITWÉ Collective): The Arts Councils have 

been fantastic and receptive to the work that I do personally, and the 

work that we do as a Collective. I/We have received numerous grants 

from the Winnipeg Arts Council, Manitoba Arts Council, and the 

[Canada Council].

Baerg: [Through various] commissions, grants, project invitations, 

exhibitions.

Martínez (on behalf of Postcommodity Collective): We do not 

consider ourselves new media artists, we refer to convergence media. 

This is a place where all media and mediums collide/convolve – old/

new and cross-cultural collective. We bring the cross-cultural nature of 

the collective, we as a collective we embody (different) nations. We have 

different ways of being and thinking, and we are all together. In the past, 

we have received no academic support for our vision of convergence 

media, particularly speaking about the computational aspects of our 

work (AME is an example of this), however, we have recently found 

support at ASU’s Center for Games and Impact. Our support, as a 

collective, it is very much internal. This aligns well with visions of red 

pedagogy, Indigenous pedagogy, in our case, we as a collective...are 

trans-disciplinary and contain well acquired technical skill sets that allow 

us a great deal of ability to imagine and solve technical problems, as well 

as to mentor each other. You can think of us as an art collective, but we 

are also a learning community.

Rickard: There is financial, skill building and conceptual support that 

inform each piece. I received four key opportunities that pushed my 

work, all were framed as residencies but supported me in all three areas. 

[These areas] include residencies from Light Work [in] Syracuse, NY, the 

Center for Conceptual Photography [in] Buffalo, NY, CyberPowWow, 

The Banff Center for the Arts [in] Alberta, Canada.

LM: What are the main challenges of being a new media 

artist in Canada and/or the United States?

Skawennati: [Technologies] are constantly evolving, often making 

it necessary to upgrade your skills...it is very difficult to master any 

new technology. I think what makes an artist great is mastering their 

medium, as then what you want to say with it can be done clearly and 

eloquently. It is challenging to exhibit work if the venue does not have 

the technical skills to do so; sometimes they don’t have the hardware, 

either. It is challenging to sell work: will it still be viewable in 5 years’ 

time, or will the ever-evolving nature of technology render the format 

obsolete? This is getting better, though. I would say it is difficult to get 

training as many artists are working in such new ways that there are no 

experts, as was the case with my machinima project. 

L’Hirondelle: [The] lack of understanding about what a new media 

(and in my case interdisciplinary) artist is probably the biggest challenge. 

Because of the impact and history that single and multiple channel video 

has made, many can’t move beyond and think of other technology as 

art. Other challenges specifically for net.art continually having to rent 

the title (URL) of your work...and of course there’s always maintenance 

regarding coding language upgrades and making the work accessible 

to those with narrow and limited bandwidth, and most importantly 

accessibility issues...

Pechawis: The same (challenges) as being a painter or dancer; money 

and venues. But our arts council model is an amazing thing. We really 

need to protect and nurture those systems, imperfect as they are. And 

we must continue to amaze and edify our own communities, so they feel 

strongly moved to support us.

Burton (on behalf of ITWÉ Collective): Funding is always the 

obvious challenge, however, if you have a decent (relevant, current, etc.) 

idea and are able to pitch it adequately to the right sources of funding, 

it doesn’t have to be an obstacle. We have been very fortunate to have a 

decent success rate in this matter, which is great validation (because juries 

are peer reviewed) that we are doing something that is resonating with 
143 Part II

people. There are only challenges...if you limit your ideas/creativity/

abilities. 

Baerg: Securing experimental financial investment/support. It is up to 

the artists to develop the audiences as well as transform art experiences.

Martínez (on behalf of Postcommodity Collective): I think here 

(in the USA) there is not as much funding for the arts, I think it’s really 

competitive, I don’t think we have aggressively gone out to procure funds 

(that’s part of the issue). (More) support and invitations from Canada, 

not as many invitations from the USA. Some of this might have to do 

with issues of colonization, might have to do with issues of erasure, 

some people might have trouble with our discourse. Maybe people don’t 

want to confront the dialogues that we would like to introduce to public 

discourse within the context of the art world. The art world has kind of, we 

have been very consistently funded for several years now, it’s been really 

great, we are able to make what we feel is this cutting edge-convergence 

(work) and we are able to advanced this cutting edge convergence media 

and practice in this expanded field. But our funders are not always aware 

of the computational work. That is not something we showcase because 

we are concerned with the experience, the aesthetic, the discourse...So 

people don’t always know what they are funding, they are getting all that. 

We are kind of out there on our own in a lot of ways.

Rickard: Keeping up with the technology and finding support for 

experimentation. (USA)

LM: What would you like to see happen with support for 

Native new media arts in the future?

L’Hirondelle: Maybe more funds to projects that engage and 

empower community. But as far as new media practice in general, I’ve 

actually started re-looking at my level of engagement in all things virtual, 

technological and requiring electricity and hope that Native new media 

will seriously get back to the land. Let’s use our ingenious indigeneity to 

get more connected to our source!

Pechawis: Much, much more of it. 

Burton (on behalf of ITWÉ Collective): In terms of public support 

(non financial), there is great support for ‘new media,’ as long as it is 

current, relevant, etcetera. The public has the capacity to feel a project 

if it has something – something that could be called the ‘spirit’ of an idea 

– or in common understanding, ‘voice.’ When projects have this, there is 

support. An obvious answer to this question is that more funding ought 

to be put into the Arts in general, with specific allotments to ‘new media.’ 

However, to demand this based on a general desire to see more ‘new 

media’ works is sort of (backwards). Building capacity for ‘new media’ 

works comes from the creation of great projects that creates demand for 

more.

Baerg: More experimental financial investment/support.

Martínez (on behalf of Postcommodity Collective): Solving this 

issue requires capacity building, we all agree in Postcommodity that that 

has to happen at the level of education. We need Indigenous media labs 

(culturally-responsive education) labs that happen under the principles 

of Indigenous research methodologies and that are culturally responsive. 

And that promote multiple visions for Indigenous media. And this will 

take lots of time, money, energy, and will have to be included as part 

of the overall vision of self-determination for Indigenous media and 

this would be by Indigenous peoples. The social, political, economic, 

and cultural issues associated with this kind of capacity building are 

extremely complex and really controversial within many contexts. [For 

example,] telling a traditional story through a video game.

Rickard: Something like the mentorship process that the Canadians 

have established with imagineNative. A new media program in a 

collegiate program that focuses conceptually on Indigenous ideas, 

history, philosophy but negotiated through a rigorous critique of media, 

at large.

 * * *
Indigenous Techne: Native New Media in North America 144

The Canadian and US artists interviewed for this essay each 

describe an arts production process influenced by their respective 

country’s markedly different systems of support. L’Hirondelle and Burton 

are among the many Canadian Native new media artists that found 

early support for their work in the artist-run centers and specific funding 

initiatives for Indigenous arts and artists that took root in the country 

during the mid-1990s. The new centers were particularly instrumental in 

advocating for the distinct voices of Indigenous artists to be recognized 

in the media arts and more broadly within the art world. Indigenous 

arts centers, targeted (grant and other) programs that generally did not 

limit the materials or forms used by Indigenous artists in their work, and 

related organizations and events collectively also served to encourage the 

entry of Indigenous new media into new territories and to encourage the 

experimentation of Indigenous artists. As a result of long fought battles 

and a robust support system, Canada’s Indigenous artists continue to 

break down barriers and conceptions of Indigenous forms of expression, 

with many artists drawn to new media techniques in particular. Alluding 

to the success of these artists, Greg Younging writes in his essay Indigenous 

Traditions: New Technology Interface:

Predominant Western perspectives have tended to view 

the Indigenous traditional culture and the modern 

technology interface as paradox. However, Indigenous 

peoples have shown through their adaptation of 

technology that their dynamic cultures do not remain 

encapsulated in the past, static and resistant to 

development.15

In comparison, broad-based support for Native art within 

the United States has largely revolved around legal protections for art 

designated as Native made (e.g., the 1990 Indian Arts and Crafts Act) and 

related concerns and initiatives focused on maintaining the authenticity 

of Native art (directed as much, if not more, at the art consuming public 

than in supporting Native artists). With understandings of Native art more 

strongly tied to traditional arts, few Indigenous run-artist centers/spaces, 

and the exhibition and sale of Native art more commonly occurring in 

the country’s several Indian art markets than in the “white cubes” of the 

country’s contemporary art spaces, US-based Native artists, including 

media artists, have fought hard, and continue to fight, for visibility and 

recognition as contemporary artists equal to non-Native artists. The 

relatively small philanthropic support for US-based Native arts and 

culture as a whole16 is another significant challenge for Native artists as 

they struggle to find financial support for new work. Not surprisingly, 

Native new media artists tend to be less common in the United States. 

One place where these artists are more likely to be found is in postsecondary institutions and art schools such as the Institute of American 

Indian Arts (IAIA). In these spaces, which provide access to equipment, 

facilities, mentorship, and the camaraderie of other students, Native new 

media artists have found more fertile ground on which to experiment 

and push boundaries. Within the last few years, as exemplified through 

works such as Baerg’s There Was No End, created out of IAIA’s new Digital 

Dome, US artists are catching up to their Canadian peers.

Indigenous artists in Canada and the United States are working 

on the cutting edge of new technologies and new media, with Indigenous 

new media arts in both countries approaching similar states of 

development through different avenues. In the United States, Indigenous 

new media arts production appears to be taking place primarily within 

academia, which allows for greater access to sophisticated technologies 

but means arts production is less widespread. By contrast, Indigenous 

new media artists in Canada generally have access to somewhat less 

sophisticated technology, but these artists find support from a greater 

variety of sources, including a comparatively robust system of grant 

support, more venues in which to showcase their works, and more 

guidance through the country’s comparatively greater number of artist 

run centers and organizations. While there are advantages to both models 

of support, as the artists interviewed for this essay repeatedly note, the 

US system of support could benefit from the more holistic and proactive 

system of support apparent in the Canadian model, which first gave 

rise to the birth and blossoming of Native media arts. One Canadian 

institution that has been particularly important in encouraging the most 

innovative technology, education, and exploration in the arts is the Banff 

Centre, whose “lab model” provides media lab space and residencies; 

many of the interviewed artists have suggested that a similar space in 

the United States would benefit Native new media artists in their growth 

and development.17
145 Part II

Notes

1. Maskegon-Iskwew is quoted in France Trépanier and Chris 

Creighton-Kelly, Understanding Aboriginal Arts in Canada Today: A Knowledge and 

Literature Review (Ottawa: Canada Council for the Arts, December 2011), 59. 

A Cree/French Métis artist born in Northern Alberta, Maskegon-Iskwew 

(1958-2006) was a new media artist, performance artist, curator, organizer, and 

critical writer; he also co-founded Sâkêwêwak Artists Collective, one of the first 

Indigenous artist collectives in Canada. Among the first Indigenous artists in the 

country to work in New Media and Net Art, Maskegon-Iskwew laid important 

groundwork for Indigenous (and other) artists in these fields. Ibid., 59.

2. Many terms are used to describe individuals descended from the 

original inhabitants of the North American continent. In this essay, I use the 

terms “Native” and “Indigenous” interchangeably, and the term “Aboriginal” 

when specifically referring to Canadian artists of First Nations, Métis, and Inuit 

descent and/or if used by cited sources. 

3. Dana Claxton, “Re:wind,” in Transference, Tradition, Technology: Native 

New Media Exploring Visual & Digital Culture, eds. Melanie A. Townsend, Dana 

Claxton, and Steve Loft (Winnipeg: Walter Philips Gallery, 2005), 18.

4. Beryl Graham and Sarah Cook, Rethinking Curating: art after new media

(Cambridge: MIT Press, 2010).

5. Claxton, “Re:wind,” 40.

6. Maria Victoria Guglietti, “Dialogue- Assimilation- Subversion: 

Contemporary New Media Native Art in Canada” (poster presented at 

the Banff Centre’s REFRESH! The First International Conference on the 

Histories of Media Art, Science and Technology, Banff, AB, September 30, 

2005), http://www.banffcentre.ca/bnmi/programs/archives/2005/refresh/

docs/conferences/papers/Maria_Victoria_Guglietti.pdf.

7. Although underscoring new media’s rapid evolution in the arts, at 

this time there is no specific funding for new media arts among the Canada 

Council’s 16 Indigenous specific grants nor among any of the provincial 

arts councils’ Indigenous specific funding programs. Certain of the projects 

mentioned in this essay may be eligible for support under the Canada Council’s 

general media arts discipline section (the Aboriginal Media Arts Program). 

There is one funding agency that covers new media and gaming: the Canada 

Media Fund, which is aimed at financing professional producers of television, 

broadcast, and film. “Home,” Canada Media Fund, last accessed August 28, 

2014, http://www.cmf-fmc.ca. The Canada Media Fund is corporate/business 

focused and not artist focused. 

8. Kevin Lee Burton (on behalf of ITWÉ Collective), email message 

to Leena Minifie, August 1, 2014, email on file with Leena Minifie. Information 

regarding the collective is available at https://www.facebook.com/weareitwe.

9. Cristóbal Martínez (on behalf of Postcommodity Collective), 

Skype interview conducted by Leena Minifie, August 10, 2014, notes on file 

with Leena Minifie. Information regarding the collective is available at http://

postcommodity.com.

10. Jolene Rickard, email message to Leena Minifie, July 27, 2014, 

email on file with Leena Minifie. Information regarding Rickard and her work 

is available at http://nmai.si.edu/exhibitions/reservation_x/artists/rickardX.

htm and http://notartomatic.wordpress.com/2011/09/11/jolene-rickardscorn-blue-room-at-denver-art-museum/.

11. Archer Pechawis, email message to Leena Minifie, August 7, 2014, 

email on file with Leena Minifie. Information regarding Pechawis and his work 

is available at http://apxo.net.

12. Cheryl L’Hirondelle, email message to Leena Minifie, August 3, 

2014, email on file with Leena Minifie. Information regarding L’Hirondelle and 

her work is available at http://www.cheryllhirondelle.com/art.html.

13. Skawennati, email message to Leena Minifie, July 12, 2014, email 

on file with Leena Minifie. Information regarding Skawennati and her work is 

available at http://www.skawennati.com.

14. Jason Baerg, email message to Leena Minifie, July 16, 2014, 

email on file with Leena Minifie. Information regarding Baerg and his work is 

available at http://www.jasonbaerg.com/#!portfolio.

15. Greg Younging, “Indigenous Traditions: New Technology 

Interface,” in Transference, Tradition, Technology, 179.

16. Ford Foundation, Native Arts and Cultures: Research, Growth and 

Opportunities for Philanthropic Support (New York: Ford Foundation, 2010), 30-31.

17. “Film & Media,” The Banff Centre, last accessed August 28, 2014, 

http://www.banffcentre.ca/.

Image 25. Excerpt from Bhopal written by Rahul Varma, Artistic Director and 

Co-founder of Teesri Duniya Theatre. Reproduced by permission from Rahul 

Varma, Bhopal, 65. © 1996, Rahul Varma.

Scene 17

Anderson at Devraj’s house arrest.

Jaganlal This is the settlement you are proposing?

Anderson Yes.

Jaganlal This is not Just.

Anderson Mr. Minister, there is always an element of speculation in these 

arbitrations, The point is – the dead have stopped dying.

Jaganlal What?

Anderson The dead have stopped dying.

Jaganlal The dead have stopped dying?

Anderson Look—

Jaganlal My people are dying faster than the insects your chemical was 

supposed to kill.

Anderson Well, your casualty numbers don’t match ours.

Jaganlal Two hundred thousand and counting.

Devraj There have only been two thousand recorded deaths.

Jaganlal Only?

Devraj We ought to be precise about the numbers.

147
Overview of Characteristics 

Overview of Characteristics 

What are the current characteristics, needs, and challenges of 

Canadian and US ethnocultural arts organizations as a whole, 

and how do organizations targeting different racial groups 

compare regarding their characteristics, needs, challenges, 

and support systems?

How many support systems currently have programs that 

focus on ethnocultural arts organizations, what services do 

they provide, where are they located, and what are their 

target ethnic group(s)?

In January 2012, Ingrid, Kait, Mina, Patricia, and a fifth SAIC classmate 

gathered at a local Irish pub to recount our experiences over the first few 

months in our program and in Chicago. Ingrid and Mina each spoke 

of the lack of ethnic diversity at the conferences they had attended, 

which was followed by a lively group discussion exploring the reasons for 

the lack of diversity, and especially the absence of a culturally specific 

presence, at these and similar events. That evening we came up with the 

first version of the Plural project. 

Our original idea for Plural was to organize a North American 

conference or to create some type of arts service organization geared 

toward ethnocultural arts organizations. Believing that conferences 

provide an important means of networking, identifying opportunities 

for sharing resources, and otherwise strengthening organizational 

infrastructure, we commenced an environmental analysis to see what 

conferences existed and what programming they provided. We eventually 

realized, however, that Plural would require a broader research focus if 

we were going to create a service that addressed the actual, as opposed to 

the assumed, needs of the ethnocultural arts field. This realization took 

place in late spring during a meeting where we proposed the project to two 

departmental faculty members. Listening to our proposal, Departmental 

Chair Adelheid Mers, one of our advisors, redirected our plans with 

one question: “How do you know that’s what they [ethnocultural arts 

organizations] want?” 

 * * *

Perseverance has been the constant in continuing 

to practice, develop and share an art form that is 

not mainstream in Canada. – Plural project survey 

respondent (February 19, 2013) 

Canada

Compared to the US field, the Canadian ethnocultural arts field 

is relatively young and supported by an improving funding environment. 

After a long history of finding little to no support in Canada’s general 

arts environment, this environment is slowly and unevenly developing 

into more fertile ground for diverse arts practices. As evidenced by its 

wide-ranging and innovative work, the continued emergence of new 

organizations and spaces, and the increased commitment to equity 

principles by national and provincial funders, the Canadian ethnocultural 

arts field, and particularly the Aboriginal arts field, appears to be 

blooming. 

This section provides an overview of the general characteristics 

of Canadian ethnocultural arts organizations based on the quantitative 

data collected in the Canadian Plural project databases and survey 

responses. Two hundred and fifty-five registered charity ethnocultural arts 

organizations are listed in the Canadian database (Appendix A), which 

is a figure that represents 2.5 percent of the country’s 10,177 registered 

charity arts and culture organizations as of September 2012.1

 Detailed 

in the Methodology and Appendix U, we received an insufficient number 

of responses to the Canadian survey for these responses to be considered 

representative of the Canadian registered charity ethnocultural arts field. 

In our presentation of the field’s characteristics, we therefore rely more 

heavily on information derived from the Canadian database than we 

do in our presentation of information regarding US organizations. We 

stress that, when we employ data derived from the Canadian survey, this 

information is only reflective of the characteristics, views, and activities 

of our 72 Canadian survey respondents. 

The volume of data collected over the course of the Plural 

project renders a comprehensive presentation of project findings 

challenging. We have elected to focus on the more basic characteristics 

148
149 Part II

3%	
  

11%	
  

20%	
  

27%	
  

40%	
  

1960s	
   1970s	
   1980s	
   1990s	
   2000-­‐12	
  

Figure 2. Canadian organizations by CRA effective year of status

Source: Canadian organizations database (n=255). Figures have been rounded.

of the field and of survey respondents: artistic disciplines, age, number 

of employees, income, sources of income, organizational challenges, and 

organizational supports. We have further appended the databases and all 

closed-ended survey results with the hope that these raw data sources will 

be of use to future researchers.

Artistic Discipline 

Canadian ethnocultural arts organizations may be found in 

a broad range of artistic disciplines, with a significant component of 

the field engaged in multidisciplinary practices. Thirty-nine percent of 

organizations listed in the Canadian database identify an artistic practice 

and/or programming that involves more than one of the major artistic 

disciplines (see fig.1).2 Of these organizations, 63 percent integrate dance 

and music. 

For organizations that focus on a single artistic discipline, dance 

represents the greatest proportion of the field (22 percent), followed 

by music (14 percent), and the visual arts (12 percent). Of the three 

percent of organizations focused on film, these organizations primarily 

present film festivals. The humanities more commonly appear as part of 

multidisciplinary work: while less than one percent of organizations focus 

on the humanities as a single discipline, 26 percent of multidisciplinary 

organizations incorporate the humanities into their multidisciplinary 

practices. 

Age

We identified no sufficiently comparable earlier data to permit 

an accurate measurement of field growth; however, based on an 

examination of all information collected for the Plural project, it appears 

that ethnocultural arts organizations are increasing in number (see fig. 

2 and Part I). To analyze the Canadian field’s current age distribution, 

we rely on organizations’ CRA effective year of status. This information 

signifies receipt of registered charity status and not organizational date 

of founding or when organizational activity began. We note that, in 

some cases, decades may pass between when an organization began 

offering programming and when they obtained registered charity status. 

In addition, as referenced in Part I, no organizations possess effective 

dates prior to the 1960s as organizations were not required to formally 

register as charities until 1967. 

The largest proportion of the field (40 percent) obtained 

registered charity status within the past 10-12 years. We note that between 

2006 and 2011, a strong influx of immigrants came to Canada, with 

more than half of these individuals born in Asia, including the Middle 

East.3 This influx of newcomers not only contributed to the general 

Dance	
  

22%	
  

Film	
  	
  

3%	
  

Humani0es	
  

0.4%	
  

Music	
  

14%	
  

Theater	
  

10%	
  

Visual	
  Arts	
  

12%	
  

Mul0disciplinary	
  

39%	
  

Figure 1. Canadian organizations by artistic discipline

Source: Canadian organizations database (n=255). Figures have been rounded.
Overview of Characteristics 150

diversification of the Canadian population, but also greatly influenced 

the culturally diverse demographic segment, which increased 3 percent 

from 16 percent to 19 percent during the six-year period.4 While 

we have not found that the arrival of newcomers correlates with an 

immediate growth in the number of ethnocultural arts organizations, 

based on former patterns (see Part I), there is reason to believe that the 

country may see the emergence of a new wave of ethnocultural arts 

organizations, or increased activity by existing organizations, within the 

next 10-15 years following the settlement/adjustment period of these 

new Canadians. 

On the other side of the spectrum, at least a third of the field is 

over 24 years in age (registered charity date in the 1980s or prior). We 

identified no equivalent information regarding the age distribution of 

Canadian arts and culture organizations and thus are unable to compare 

the ethnocultural arts field to the arts field as a whole with respect to this 

characteristic.

Employees

On average, survey respondents operate with few paid 

employees. Seventy-two percent of survey respondents report zero to 

five paid employees, including full-time and part-time employees (see fig. 

3; see also Canadian survey question four, or CAN-SQ-4). Among these 

organizations, the majority have between one and five paid employees. 

We received no survey responses from organizations with 51-100 paid 

employees.

Almost one-third (32 percent) of survey respondents – the largest 

percentage – report that less than 25 percent of their paid employees are 

employed full-time, followed by 28 percent of respondents who report 

having no paid employees (CAN-SQ-5). We note that all organizations 

that report having no paid employees in CAN-SQ-4 respond in the same 

manner in CAN-SQ-5; however, six organizations that report having 

no employees in CAN-SQ-5 respond differently in CAN-SQ-4, which 

accounts for the discrepancy in responses regarding the percentage of 

zero paid employees. 

Fifty-five percent of survey respondents report working with 21 

or more volunteers, including interns, with the biggest proportion of 

respondents (30 percent) reporting 21-50 volunteers (CAN-SQ-6). As 

19%	
  

53%	
  

15%	
   10%	
  

1%	
   0%	
   1%	
  

0	
   1-­‐5	
   6-­‐10	
   11-­‐20	
   21-­‐50	
   51-­‐100	
   More	
  

than	
  100	
  

Figure 3. Canadian survey respondents by number of paid employees

Source: Canadian survey results (n=68). Figures have been rounded.

Arts	
  Category Mean	
   Median	
  

Opera	
  Companies $4,059,029	
   $1,759,060	
  

Orchestras $2,376,493	
   $712,655	
  

Art	
  Museums/	
  Galleries $2,160,220	
   $814,504	
  

Theatre	
  Companies $1,450,464	
   $385,355	
  

Dance	
  Companies $1,089,821	
   $294,617	
  

Media	
  Arts $616,865	
   $309,264	
  

Theatre	
  Young	
  Audiences $608,587	
   $497,203	
  

Choral $245,835 $169,853	
  

Music	
  Ensembles $245,339	
   $154,896	
  

Artist	
  Run	
  Centers $220,589	
   $216,205	
  

Table 1 Average and median annual revenue for arts and culture 

organizations in Canada (2012-2013)

Source: Canadian Arts Data/Données sur les arts au Canada (CADAC).
151 Part II

such, the majority of respondents rely heavily on volunteer personnel. 

We note that we identified no equivalent information regarding 

the number of employees of Canadian arts and culture organizations 

and thus are unable to compare the ethnocultural arts field to the arts 

field as a whole with respect to this characteristic.

Income 

Canadian registered charity ethnocultural arts organizations 

have an average annual gross income of $376,124, a median annual 

gross income of $116,189, and a maximum annual gross income of 

$7,254,047.5 We provide additional information regarding income 

trends across pan groups (Aboriginal, culturally diverse, and White) in 

Characteristics by Pan Racial Group. 

We note that we identified no equivalently comprehensive 

information regarding the incomes of Canadian arts and culture 

organizations and thus are unable to directly compare the ethnocultural 

arts field to the arts field as a whole with respect to this characteristic. 

Figure 4. Canadian organizations by average annual gross income: 

frequency distribution (2010-2012)

Source: Canadian organizations database (n=255). Average annual gross income 

calculated using annual gross incomes between 2010-2012 for all organizations. 

Figures have been rounded.

	
  $58,762	
  	
  

	
  $111,669	
  	
   	
  $119,138	
  	
  

2010	
   2011	
   2012	
  

Figure 5. Canadian organizations by median annual gross income per 

year (2010-2012)

Source: Canadian organizations database (n=255).

Although far from comprehensive, the Canadian Arts Data/Données 

sur les arts au Canada (CADAC), a web-based source of financial and 

statistical information on Canadian arts organizations, provides mean 

and median annual revenues across arts categories for organizations 

receiving operating support from CADAC member organizations, and 

this information may be suggestive as to how the incomes of ethnocultural 

arts organizations compare with the country’s larger arts and culture 

sector.6 A comparison to CADAC data indicates that the ethnocultural 

arts field is at the bottom of the income spectrum (see table 1).7

An examination of the income distribution of ethnocultural 

arts organizations reveals great income disparities within the field, with 

a small percentage of higher-income organizations skewing the field 

average upwards (see fig. 4). The overwhelming majority (75 percent) 

of organizations fall below the field average of $376,124, and almost 

half (47 percent) of organizations have less than $100,000 in average 

annual gross income. Less than one percent, or two organizations, have 

an average annual gross income of $5 million or more.

Focusing on the field’s median income, which is a better 

representation of the “typical” income of ethnocultural arts 

organizations, gross annual income has increased annually between 

2010 and 2012, from $58,762 to $119,138, respectively (see fig. 5). This 

pattern represents a 103 percent increase in gross income, with the 

greatest growth occurring between 2010 and 2011. 

47%	
  

20%	
  

13%	
   11%	
  

7%	
  

1%	
  

<$100k	
   $100k	
  to	
  

under	
  $250k	
  

$250k	
  to	
  

under	
  $500k	
  

$500k	
  to	
  

under	
  

$1,000,000	
  

$1,000,000	
  to	
  

under	
  

$5,000,000	
  

$5,000,000	
  

and	
  more	
  

Field Avg: $376k (75% of organizations < Avg)
Overview of Characteristics 152

2%	
  

2%	
  

8%	
  

8%	
  

10%	
  

15%	
  

16%	
  

62%	
  

77%	
  

2%	
  

23%	
  

3%	
  

41%	
  

33%	
  

20%	
  

59%	
  

70%	
  

26%	
  

18%	
  

64%	
  

46%	
  

66%	
  

41%	
  

51%	
  

57%	
  

16%	
  

10%	
  

8%	
  

5%	
  

34%	
  

30%	
  

30%	
  

10%	
  

8%	
  

13%	
  

10%	
  

3%	
  

3%	
  

Other	
  

Compe66on	
  from	
  non-­‐Aboriginal,	
  culturally	
  

diverse/ethno-­‐racial,	
  or	
  immigrant	
  arts	
  

Compe66on	
  from	
  other	
  Aboriginal,	
  culturally	
  

diverse/ethno-­‐racial,	
  and	
  immigrant	
  arts	
  

Collabora6on	
  and	
  networking	
  

Obtaining	
  media	
  coverage	
  

Media's	
  lack	
  of	
  familiarity/understanding	
  of	
  art	
  

form	
  

Administra6ve/performance/exhibi6on	
  space	
  

Audience	
  development	
  

Organiza6onal	
  capacity	
  building	
  

Financial	
  resources	
  

1-­‐2	
  HIGH	
   3-­‐5	
  MED	
   6-­‐10	
  LOW	
   N/A	
  

Figure 7. Organizational challenges by Canadian survey respondent 

ranking (General)

Source: Canadian survey results (n=61). Figures have been rounded.

Sources of Income

Survey respondents rely heavily on private sector contributions/

government funding as a source of financial support. Eighty-one 

percent of survey respondents report that more than a quarter of their 

organizations’ total (gross) revenue during their most recently completed 

fiscal year was from contributions (i.e., government, foundation, 

corporate grants, and individual contributions) (see fig. 6; CAN-SQ-8). 

More than half of respondents (56 percent) report that these income 

sources consist of more than 50 percent of their total (gross) revenue.

Organizational Challenges

The top four organizational challenges/needs reported by 

survey respondents are (i) financial resources (77 percent ranked 1-2), (ii) 

organizational capacity building (62 percent ranked 1-2), (iii) audience 

development (16 percent ranked 1-2), and (iv) space (15 percent ranked 

1-2) (see fig. 7; CAN-SQ-18).

With respect to financial resource needs, the majority of survey 

respondents are concerned with increasing contributed revenue (36 

percent ranked 1) and increasing earned income (27 percent ranked 1) (see 

fig. 8; CAN-SQ-20). When considering items ranked 1-2 in importance, 

however, respondents rank the need to increase earned income (52 

percent) and the need to identify new funding sources (53 percent) almost 

evenly as their biggest concerns after the need to increased contributed 

revenue. Seventy-three percent of survey respondents ranked grant 

assistance 4, 5, or N/A (not a challenge or need), thereby indicating that 

the more technical aspects of seeking contribution-related funding are 

of lesser concern for respondents.

The top four capacity building needs reported by survey 

respondents are (i) maintaining and/or increasing the number of paid 

staff (47 percent ranked 1-2), (ii) board development (37 percent ranked 

1-2), (iii) obtaining appropriately skilled staff (28 percent ranked 1-2), 

and (iv) leadership transition/succession planning (27 percent ranked 

1-2) (see fig. 9; CAN-SQ-19). As with financial resource concerns, 

19%	
  

25%	
  

56%	
  

Less	
  than	
  25%	
  	
   25	
  to	
  50%	
  	
   More	
  than	
  50%	
  	
  

Figure 6. Canadian survey respondents by income sources

Source: Canadian survey results (n=68). Figures have been rounded.

Note: Related to contributions (i.e., government, foundation, corporate grants, 

and individual contributions).
153 Part II

technical and other staff training-related concerns (i.e., professional 

development, financial management assistance, technical support, 

program development) are of lower priority for the majority of survey 

respondents.

Organizational Supports

Arts Services. Between 2011 and 2013, survey respondents that 

accessed arts services mostly accessed the following services: (i) financial 

support (69 percent of organizations), (ii) convening and networking 

(59 percent of organizations), (iii) education and training (52 percent 

of organizations), and (iv) promotion and audience development (41 

percent of organizations) (see fig. 10; CAN-SQ-23). A sizable number of 

respondents (16 percent) did not access any arts-related services during 

this period (organizations marking “not applicable”).

When survey respondents attend work-related conferences 

or workshops, the topics of these conferences and workshops most 

commonly relate to (i) networking (for 45 percent of organizations), (ii) 

development and fundraising (for 43 percent of organizations), and (iii) 

organizational management (e.g., board development, strategic planning) 

(for 41 percent of organizations) (CAN-SQ-27). Survey respondents 

report that their main reasons for attending these conferences and 

workshops are (i) professional development: administrative (48 percent 

ranked 1-2), (ii) organizational capacity building (39 percent ranked 1-2), 

and (iii) professional development: artistic (35 percent ranked 1-2) (CANSQ-28). The largest proportion of survey respondents (41 percent) have 

attended on average one to two conferences or workshops per year over 

the past five years (CAN-SQ-30). Similar to CAN-SQ-23, seventeen 

percent of respondents state that employees do not attend conferences 

or workshops.

Half of survey respondents accessed at least some services 

3%	
  

3%	
  

5%	
  

7%	
  

8%	
  

15%	
  

18%	
  

27%	
  

28%	
  

37%	
  

47%	
  

2%	
  

23%	
  

25%	
  

27%	
  

23%	
  

37%	
  

38%	
  

40%	
  

30%	
  

27%	
  

20%	
  

72%	
  

63%	
  

57%	
  

53%	
  

58%	
  

33%	
  

37%	
  

30%	
  

23%	
  

30%	
  

15%	
  

23%	
  

10%	
  

13%	
  

13%	
  

10%	
  

15%	
  

7%	
  

3%	
  

18%	
  

7%	
  

18%	
  

Other	
  

Program	
  development	
  and	
  evalua<on	
  

Clarifying	
  and/or	
  refocusing	
  organiza<onal	
  mission	
  and	
  

iden<ty	
  

Technical	
  support	
  

Financial	
  management	
  assistance	
  

Professional	
  development	
  of	
  exis<ng	
  staff	
  

Marke<ng/promo<onal	
  assistance	
  

Leadership	
  transi<on/	
  succession	
  planning	
  

Obtaining	
  appropriately	
  skilled	
  staff	
  

Board	
  development	
  

Maintaining	
  and/or	
  increasing	
  the	
  number	
  of	
  paid	
  staff	
  

1-­‐2	
  HIGH	
   3-­‐5	
  MED	
  	
   6-­‐11	
  LOW	
   N/A	
  

Figure 9. Capacity building needs by Canadian survey respondent 

ranking

Source: Canadian survey results (n=60). Figures have been rounded.

3%	
  

10%	
  

22%	
  

27%	
  

36%	
  

3%	
  

31%	
  

25%	
  

37%	
  

2%	
  

14%	
  

29%	
  

34%	
  

17%	
  

7%	
  

54%	
  

15%	
  

8%	
  

7%	
  

42%	
  

7%	
  

46%	
  

12%	
  

3%	
  

5%	
  

3%	
  

Other	
  

Assistance	
  with	
  the	
  

grant	
  applica<on	
  

process	
  

Iden<fy	
  new	
  funding	
  

sources	
  

Increase	
  earned	
  income	
  

Increase	
  contributed	
  

revenue	
  

1	
   2	
   3	
   4	
   5	
   N/A	
  

Figure 8. Financial resource needs by Canadian survey respondent 

ranking

Source: Canadian survey results (n=59). Figures have been rounded.
Overview of Characteristics 154

that were provided by organizations exclusively dedicated to serving 

Aboriginal, culturally diverse, and/or immigrant arts organizations (see 

fig. 11; CAN-SQ-24). A significant proportion (34 percent) of survey 

respondents accessed no such dedicated services, however. As a relatively 

small percentage (14 percent) of respondents report that they access 

a sizable amount of dedicated services (more than 25 percent), these 

survey findings indicate that, when organizations seek out arts services, 

most seek support from non-dedicated arts service organizations. Based 

on discussions with project participants (see Needs and Supports: A Life 

Cycle Approach), it is likely that this pattern of access is due in large part 

to necessity – the absence of dedicated services in needed areas and/

or with substantial resources – rather than the lack of importance of 

dedicated forms of support. 

For a number of survey respondents, non-arts specific services 

are another important part of their support network. Forty-three percent 

16%	
  

16%	
  

22%	
  

24%	
  

36%	
  

41%	
  

52%	
  

59%	
  

69%	
  

Not	
  Applicable	
  

Advocacy/	
  policy-­‐related	
  ac;on	
  

Contracted	
  group	
  services	
  

Accessed	
  other	
  arts-­‐related	
  services	
  

Informa;on/	
  research	
  

Promo;on/	
  audience	
  development	
  

Educa;on/	
  training	
  

Convening/	
  networking	
  

Financial	
  support	
  

Figure 10. Arts services accessed by Canadian survey respondents 

(2011-2013)

Source: Canadian survey results (n=58). Figures have been rounded.

34%	
   36%	
  

5%	
  

9%	
  

16%	
  

0%	
   More	
  than	
  0	
  

but	
  less	
  than	
  

25%	
  

25	
  to	
  50%	
   More	
  than	
  

50%	
  

Not	
  

Applicable	
  	
  

Figure 11. Dedicated arts services accessed by Canadian survey 

respondents (2011-2013)

Source: Canadian survey results (n=58). Figures have been rounded.

2%	
  

15%	
  

29%	
  

68%	
  

80%	
  

15%	
  

37%	
  

19%	
  

58%	
  

58%	
  

15%	
  

10%	
  

27%	
  

3%	
  

27%	
  

2%	
  

2%	
  

58%	
  

59%	
  

53%	
  

25%	
  

14%	
  

15%	
  

10%	
  

Other	
  

Language:	
  services	
  currently	
  provided	
  are	
  not	
  

offered	
  in	
  a	
  language	
  used	
  by	
  organizaDon	
  staff	
  

No	
  constraints	
  to	
  accessing	
  services	
  	
  

Knowledge:	
  lack	
  of	
  knowledge	
  of	
  the	
  existence	
  of	
  

arts	
  service	
  organizaDons	
  

Relevancy:	
  services	
  currently	
  provided	
  by	
  arts	
  

service	
  organizaitons	
  are	
  not	
  relevant	
  to	
  

organizaDonal	
  challenges,	
  needs	
  or	
  interests	
  

Financial:	
  insufficient	
  organizaDonal	
  resources	
  to	
  

support	
  aOendance	
  or	
  membership	
  

Time:	
  insufficient	
  Dme	
  to	
  aOend	
  or	
  parDcipate	
  in	
  

services	
  

1-­‐2	
  HIGH	
   3-­‐5	
  MED	
   6-­‐7	
  LOW	
   N/A	
  

Figure 12. Constraints in accessing arts services by Canadian survey 

respondent ranking 

Source: Canadian survey results (n=59). Figures have been rounded.
155 Part II

Funding. During the past two years, at least half of survey 

respondents have financially supported organizational operations through 

(i) self-initiated fundraising initiatives (73 percent of organizations), (ii) 

foundation support (63 percent of organizations), and (iii) provincial arts 

council support (58 percent of organizations) (see fig. 13; CAN-SQ-33). 

A sizable number of respondents have also received financial support 

from non-arts sources (43 percent from provincial non-arts sources and 

32 percent from federal non-arts sources).

When applying for funding, almost half of survey respondents 

(47 percent) report that more than 50 percent of their grant applications 

are to funding programs that have an explicit mandate to support 

specific cultural or ethnic communities (see fig. 14; CAN-SQ-34). We 

note that this high level of interaction with dedicated funding programs 

appears to conflict with responses to CAN-SQ-24, which indicate that 

survey respondents more often seek support from non-dedicated arts 

service organizations. However, the differing responses may be due to 

the manner in which we asked the two questions: CAN-SQ-24 refers 

to service organizations “exclusively dedicated” to serving particular 

ethnocultural organizations, whereas CAN-SQ-34 relates to dedicated 2%	
  

25%	
  

32%	
  

43%	
  

47%	
  

47%	
  

50%	
  

53%	
  

58%	
  

63%	
  

73%	
  

Other	
  

City	
  government,	
  non-­‐arts	
  	
  

Federal	
  government,	
  non-­‐arts	
  	
  	
  

Provincial	
  government,	
  non-­‐arts	
  	
  

Department	
  of	
  Canadian	
  Heritage	
  	
  

CorporaEons	
  	
  

City	
  arts	
  council	
  	
  

Canada	
  Council	
  for	
  the	
  Arts	
  	
  

Provincial	
  arts	
  council	
  	
  

FoundaEons	
  	
  

Self-­‐iniEated	
  fundraising	
  iniEaEves	
  	
  

Figure 13. Funding sources supporting Canadian survey respondents 

(2011-2013)

Source: Canadian survey results (n=60). Figures have been rounded.

of survey respondents are members of non-arts association(s) and/

or formal arts-related (but not specific) networks (CAN-SQ-26). For 

example, survey respondents affiliate with such networks as the Burnaby 

Board of Trade, the National Association of Japanese Canadians, and 

the Alberta Museums Association. 

Taking advantage of existing arts services can be time consuming 

and divert resources away from an organization’s core programming. 

Survey respondents report that their primary constraints in accessing 

arts services are (i) insufficient time to attend or participate in services 

(80 percent ranked 1-2), (ii) insufficient organizational resources to 

support attendance or membership (68 percent ranked 1-2), (iii) the 

services currently provided by arts service organizations are not relevant 

to organizational challenges, needs, or interests (29 percent ranked 1-2), 

and (iv) lack of knowledge of the existence of arts service organizations 

(15 percent ranked 1-2) (see fig. 12; CAN-SQ-31). 

16%	
  

32%	
  

5%	
  

47%	
  

0%	
   More	
  than	
  0%	
  but	
  

less	
  than	
  25%	
  

25	
  to	
  50%	
   More	
  than	
  50%	
  

Figure 14. Dedicated funding programs accessed by Canadian survey 

respondents

Source: Canadian survey results (n=57). Figures have been rounded.
Overview of Characteristics 156

programs (rather than service organizations). For example, the Canada 

Council is not an organization exclusively dedicated to serving particular 

ethnocultural organizations, but it does offer a number of dedicated 

funding programs. Moreover, in CAN-SQ-34, we did not provide a 

“N/A” answer choice as we did in CAN-SQ-24; if the “N/A” choice 

were removed from CAN-SQ-24, the percentage of organizations 

accessing dedicated services would shift.

Collaboration. Survey respondents are generally familiar 

with other organizations that share their organizations’ artistic and 

cultural/ethnic focus (CAN-SQ-35). When asked to describe their 

current relationship with other arts organizations that share their 

organizations’ cultural/ethnic focus (CAN-SQ-36), the majority of 

survey respondents (80 percent) report frequent interaction and a good 

relationship with locally based peers. With respect to organizations 

based in other geographic areas, 42 percent of respondents report 

infrequent interaction but a good relationship with arts organizations 

located in their own region, with a similar percentage of respondents 

(39 percent) reporting frequent interaction and a good relationship with 

these regional arts organizations. Slightly more than half of respondents 

(51 percent) report infrequent interaction but a good relationship with 

arts organizations located within the country but in other regions, 

and another quarter of respondents report frequent interaction and a 

good relationship with these national arts organizations. Over a third 

of respondents (39 percent) report infrequent interaction but a good 

relationship with their internationally based peers, and approximately 

another third report having no relationship with these organizations 

(36 percent). Few respondents report poor relationships with their local, 

regional, national, or international peers.

These findings suggest that survey respondents have strong local 

networks in which to take advantage of collaborative opportunities as 

they arise but there may be potential to enhance these opportunities on 

a regional, national, or international level. Such potential is reflected in 

additional survey responses: an overwhelming majority of respondents 

68%	
  

60%	
   58%	
  

55%	
  

47%	
  

35%	
   33%	
  

7%	
  

2%	
  

Aboriginal,	
  culturally	
  

diverse/ethno-­‐racial,	
  

and	
  immigrant	
  arts	
  

organizaBons	
  sharing	
  

the	
  same	
  cultural/

ethnic	
  focus	
  

EducaBonal	
  

organizaBons	
  

Community	
  based	
  non	
  

profit	
  organizaBons	
  

without	
  an	
  arts	
  focus	
  

Arts	
  organizaBons	
  with	
  

no	
  cultural/ethnic	
  focus	
  

Aboriginal,	
  culturally	
  

diverse/ethno-­‐racial,	
  

and	
  immigrant	
  arts	
  

organizaBons	
  with	
  a	
  

different	
  cultural/

ethnic	
  focus	
  

Private,	
  for	
  profit	
  

organizaBons	
  (e.g.,	
  

local	
  businesses)	
  

Governmental	
  agencies	
   Not	
  currently	
  

collaboraBng	
  with	
  any	
  

organizaBons	
  

Other	
  

Figure 15. Types of collaborating organizations of Canadian survey respondents

Source: Canadian survey results (n=60). Figures have been rounded.
157 Part II

believe that they share common challenges with other ethnocultural 

arts organizations (88 percent; CAN-SQ-37) and would be interested 

in collaborating with other ethnocultural arts organizations to address 

challenges and needs (85 percent; CAN-SQ-38).

Respondents collaborate with a variety of partners, although 

(not surprisingly) the most common partners share similar interests. 

Between 2012 and 2013, more than half of survey respondents 

collaborated with Aboriginal, culturally diverse, and/or immigrant arts 

organizations that share the same cultural/ethnic focus (68 percent of 

organizations), educational organizations (60 percent), and community 

based nonprofit organizations without an arts focus (58 percent) (see fig. 

15; CAN-SQ-39). A small number of respondents report no current 

collaborations.

As with accessing arts services, although there can be benefits 

to entering into collaborative arrangements, taking advantage of 

such opportunities involves time and other organizational resources. 

Survey respondents report that their most significant constraints with 

respect to collaboration are (i) insufficient time to organize and engage 

in collaboration (67 percent ranked 1-2), (ii) insufficient organizational 

resources to support collaboration (60 percent ranked 1-2), and (iii) 

lack of board support for collaboration (14 percent ranked 1-2) and 

competition with other organizations (14 percent ranked 1-2) (see fig. 

16; CAN-SQ-40). A sizable group of respondents report experiencing 

no constraints to collaboration (12 percent).

Support Programs. We identified 95 arts service organizations 

and funders that offer targeted programs for Canadian ethnocultural 

arts organizations (Appendix C). We note that our research concentrated 

on organizations that provide targeted arts and culture programs, and thus 

we have not included non-arts programs also geared toward the sector. 

Neither did we specifically research non-arts governmental agencies nor 

service organizations that offer isolated arts services, although when we 

came across targeted programs offered by these organizations, we did 

include them.

The mandates of arts service organizations and government 

agencies are wide ranging, including the geographic scope of service 

areas. Among the organizations we identified that possess programs 

targeting and/or particularly applicable to ethnocultural groups, 41 

percent of arts service organizations, including federal funders, have 

mandates that are national in scope, 37 percent, including provincial 

funders, have mandates that are regional in scope, and 21 percent, 

including municipal arts agencies, have mandates that are local in scope. 

We identified three federal agencies that offer targeted programs 

to organizations located across the country: the Canada Council, 

Canadian Heritage, and Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development 

Canada. 

Discussed in Part I, the Canada Council provides a number of 

grants specific to Aboriginal arts organizations and artists through the 

Aboriginal Arts Office and the discipline sections and has some targeted 

programming for culturally diverse arts organizations and artists 

through the Equity Office. The Aboriginal Arts Office and the discipline 

sections offer the following 16 grant programs:8

(i) Aboriginal Peoples Collaborative Exchange: National and 

5%	
  

7%	
  

10%	
  

12%	
  

14%	
  

14%	
  

60%	
  

67%	
  

9%	
  

37%	
  

43%	
  

31%	
  

2%	
  

26%	
  

28%	
  

21%	
  

19%	
  

31%	
  

12%	
  

22%	
  

14%	
  

38%	
  

17%	
  

21%	
  

2%	
  

60%	
  

46%	
  

28%	
  

45%	
  

48%	
  

43%	
  

38%	
  

19%	
  

12%	
  

Other	
  

Interest:	
  collabora;on	
  is	
  not	
  of	
  interest	
  

Knowledge:	
  lack	
  of	
  knowledge	
  of	
  poten;al	
  

collaborators	
  

Risk:	
  collabora;on	
  is	
  perceived	
  as	
  too	
  risky	
  

No	
  constraints	
  to	
  collabora;on	
  

Compe;;on:	
  other	
  organiza;ons	
  are	
  

perceived	
  as	
  compe;tors	
  

Support:	
  lack	
  of	
  board	
  support	
  for	
  

collabora;on	
  

Financial:	
  insufficient	
  organiza;onal	
  

resources	
  to	
  support	
  collabora;on	
  

Time:	
  insufficient	
  ;me	
  to	
  organize	
  and	
  

engage	
  in	
  collabora;on	
  

1-­‐2	
  HIGH	
   3-­‐5	
  MED	
   6-­‐11	
  LOW	
   N/A	
  

Figure 16. Constraints to collaboration by Canadian survey respondent 

ranking 

Source: Canadian survey results (n=58). Figures have been rounded.
Overview of Characteristics 158

International Project Grants ($5,000 to $30,000); 

(ii) Travel Grants for Aboriginal Collaborative Projects 

($2,500 maximum unless traveling to or from northern 

Canada, in which case $3,000 maximum); 

(iii) Grants under the Elder and Youth Legacy Program 

($20,000 maximum); 

(iv) Capacity Building Program: Annual and Multi-year 

Project Funding ($20,000 to $30,000);

(v) Grants under the Capacity Building Program: the Flying 

Eagle ($4,000); 

(vi) Grants to Aboriginal Dance Professionals for emerging, 

mid-career, and established dancers for professional 

development and research ($20,000 maximum) or 

apprenticeship/mentorship ($10,000 maximum); 

(vii) Aboriginal Peoples Production Project Grants in Dance 

for short-term productions ($30,000 maximum) and longterm productions ($100,000 maximum); 

(viii) Annual Support to Aboriginal Peoples Dance Companies, 

Organizations, Groups, and Collectives ($30,000 

minimum); 

(ix) Aboriginal Media Arts Program for emerging ($3,000 to 

20,000), mid-career ($3,000 to $60,000), and established 

artists ($3,000 to $60,000); 

(x) Aboriginal Peoples Music: Project Grants ($20,000 

maximum); 

(xi) Aboriginal Peoples Music: Travel Grants for individuals 

($2,500 maximum unless traveling to or from northern 

Canada, in which case $3,000 maximum) and music 

groups ($7,500 maximum);

(xii) Developmental Support to Aboriginal Theatre 

Organizations ($5,000 to $25,000);

(xiii) Aboriginal/Inuit Traditional Visual Art Forms Program 

for Individual Artists ($1,500 to $20,000); 

(xiv) Grants to Aboriginal Peoples: Creation Grants for Writers 

and Storytellers ($5,000 to $20,000); 

(xv) Grants to Aboriginal Peoples: Writers Residencies 

($7,000); and

(xvi) Grants to Aboriginal Peoples: Publishers for emerging 

publishers ($20,000) and established publishers ($40,000).

Undergoing a period of restructuring, the Equity Office’s targeted 

programming is currently limited to one remaining CBI grant: Travel 

Grants for professional artists or arts professionals who are culturally 

diverse, Deaf or have a disability ($500 to $2,500).9

Canadian Heritage offers three Aboriginal funding programs 

and three grants of particular interest for certain other types of 

ethnocultural arts organizations. These programs/grants are as follows:10

(i) Aboriginal Peoples’ Program: Aboriginal Languages 

Initiative (no maximum amounts listed); 

(ii) Aboriginal Peoples’ Program: Aboriginal Women’s 

Programming Elements (no maximum amounts listed);

(iii) Aboriginal Peoples’ Program: Northern Aboriginal 

Broadcasting (no maximum amounts listed);

(iv) Building Communities through Arts and Heritage: Local 

Festivals ($200,000 maximum); 

(v) Building Communities through Arts and Heritage: 

Community Anniversaries ($200,000 maximum); and

(vi) Building Communities through Arts and Heritage: Legacy 

Fund ($500,000 maximum).

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada 

(AANDC) provides funding for programs, services, and initiatives for 

First Nation, Inuit, and Northern communities, government, and 

individuals, as well as to Aboriginal organizations.11 Although no arts 

and culture funding programs are listed on AANDC’s website, AANDC 

has provided financial support to arts and culture related organizations 

and programs in the past (e.g., through its Cultural Educational Centres 

Program).12

Collectively, at the federal level there are 23 targeted funding 

programs, and these programs consist entirely of project grants that 

range in amount from $500 to $500,000.

Eight of the country’s ten provincial arts agencies/councils have 

funding and service programs directed toward supporting Aboriginal, 

culturally diverse, and/or White ethnocultural groups. These programs 

are as follows:
Image 26. Bruce Naokwegijig (pictured) and Josh Peltier (Visual Artist) with Debajehmujig Storytellers. Seven Minute Side Show, 2013. Photograph by Ron 

Berti. Reproduced by permission from Ron Berti.

159
Overview of Characteristics 

• AFA offers one funding program and one arts service 

program directed at supporting Aboriginal arts. These 

programs are the Aboriginal Traditional Arts Individual 

Project Grant Stream ($15,000 maximum) and Alberta’s 

Future Leaders Program – Arts Camps.13

• The British Columbia Arts Council offers four funding 

programs for Aboriginal arts provided in partnership with 

the First Peoples’ Cultural Council (FPCC).14 FPCC offers 

arts funding through the Aboriginal Arts Development 

Awards in four categories: (i) Emerging Individual Artists 

for emerging or professional artists ($5,000 maximum); 

(ii) Organizations and Collectives program for artistic 

production or mentorship projects ($15,000 maximum), 

grants for administrative capacity building projects ($15,000 

maximum), and grants for combined artistic production or 

mentorship, and administrative capacity building projects 

($30,000 maximum); (iii) Sharing Traditional Arts Across 

Generations ($12,000 maximum); and (iv) (Aboriginal) Arts 

Administrator Internship and Mentorship Program ($30,000 

maximum).15

• The Manitoba Arts Council offers two funding programs 

specifically directed toward Aboriginal arts and one funding 

program of interest to both Aboriginal and culturally 

diverse arts. These programs are (i) Aboriginal Arts Creative 

Development ($7,500 maximum), which is available across 

artistic disciplines, (ii) the Aboriginal Arts Mentorship 

Training and Development Grant ($5,000 maximum), and 

(iii) the Community Connections and Access Program for 

individual emerging artists ($2,500 maximum), established 

or professional artists ($5,000 maximum), and for ensembles 

and organizations ($10,000 maximum).16

• The Saskatchewan Arts Board offers one funding program 

and one other arts service program directed at supporting 

Aboriginal arts. These programs are the Indigenous 

Pathways Initiative – Grants to Artists ($7,500 maximum) 

and the Aboriginal Editors Circle for Aboriginal editors and 

publishers, which provides Aboriginal editors and publishers 

160

with peer mentorship and other services related to the editing 

of manuscripts by Indigenous authors.17

• OAC offers seven grants specifically directed toward 

supporting Aboriginal arts, one grant directed toward 

culturally diverse arts activities, and one grant directed 

toward both Aboriginal and culturally diverse artists. These 

grants are as follows:18

(i) Aboriginal Artists in Communities ($12,000 maximum); 

(ii) Aboriginal Arts Projects ($20,000 maximum); 

(iii) Aboriginal Presenters in the North – Music Events ($500 

to $3,000); 

(iv) Aboriginal Artists in Schools (hourly rate to a maximum 

of $6,300); 

(v) Aboriginal Artists Materials and Supplies Assistance ($500 

maximum); 

(vi) Aboriginal Curatorial Projects ($30,000 maximum); 

(vii) Northern Arts ($15,000 maximum);

(viii) Aboriginal and Culturally Diverse Dance Training 

($10,000 maximum); and

(ix) Culturally Diverse Curatorial Projects ($30,000 

maximum).

• Conseil des arts et des lettres du Québec offers two funding 

programs specifically for Aboriginal arts and one for culturally 

diverse arts. These programs are (i) Support for Aboriginal 

Professional Artists and Writers ($10,000 maximum for artists 

or writers and $15,000 maximum for groups), (ii) Nunavik 

Program for Arts and Literature ($10,000 maximum for 

artists or writers and $15,000 maximum for groups; $10,000 

maximum for residencies), and (iii) Vivacité Montréal, 

financial support for culturally diverse artists, writers, and 

artist groups ($15,000 maximum).19

• New Brunswick Tourism, Heritage and Culture offers one 

grant directed at encouraging more diverse arts audiences 

and toward supporting arts organizations with a community 

based mandate, and thus this grant is applicable to all 

ethnocultural arts groups: Arts – Partnership for Community 

Cultural Activities ($5,000 maximum).20
Part II

• Through its various offices and related agencies, the 

Government of Nova Scotia, Department of Communities, 

Culture, and Heritage offers one funding program 

particularly applicable to Aboriginal arts, one funding 

program particularly applicable to culturally diverse arts, 

three funding programs particularly applicable to White 

ethnocultural arts, and four funding programs particularly 

applicable to a broader group of ethnocultural arts 

organizations. These programs are as follows:21

(i) the Mi’kmaq Cultural Activities Program, directed toward 

supporting Mi’kmaq community groups and organizations 

($10,000 maximum);

(ii) the Diversity and Community Capacity Fund, which 

is aimed at promoting diversity and social equity and is 

particularly applicable to Aboriginal and culturally diverse 

arts organizations ($10,000 maximum);

(iii) the Cultural and Youth Activities Program, which is more 

generally directed toward supporting cultural diversity 

($5,000 maximum);

(iv) the One-time Emerging Culture and Heritage 

Initiatives Program, which is more generally directed 

toward supporting cultural development within diverse 

communities ($10,000);

(v) the Gaelic Language in the Community Program, which 

supports nonprofit organizations engaging in projects that 

involve promoting interest and involvement in Gaelic 

language and culture ($2,000 maximum); 

(vi) the Office of African Nova Scotian Affairs’ Grants and 

Contributions Program, which supports the province’s 

African Nova Scotian communities ($1,500 maximum); 

(vii) Vive l’Acadie Community Fund, which supports cultural 

projects in the province’s Acadian and francophone 

communities (no listed funding amounts); 

(viii) the Québec -Nova Scotian Agreement for Collaboration 

and Exchange, which offers funding for French-language 

exchanges and cooperative activities between community 

organizations in Nova Scotia and Québec (no listed 

funding amounts); and 

161

(ix) the new Arts Equity Fund Program, which specifically 

targets Aboriginal and culturally diverse artists ($500 to 

$12,000). 

We did not identify any targeted funding programs or other arts services 

for ethnocultural arts organizations provided by the Newfoundland and 

Labrador Arts Council or the Prince Edward Island Council of the Arts.

All three territories have programs directed toward supporting 

ethnocultural arts. The following are territorial governmental programs 

for the field:

• The Government of Yukon offers three funding programs 

particularly applicable to ethnocultural arts organizations. 

These programs are (i) Culture Quest, which funds a range 

of projects, including events, training and development, 

partnerships, and commissions toward developing 

cultural products (no funding amounts listed), (ii) the New 

Canadians Event Fund ($5,000 maximum), and (iii) the 

Yukon Historic Resources Fund, which provides funding 

for projects that promote, preserve, and develop the Yukon’s 

heritage ($10,000 maximum).22 We note that we identified 

no registered charity ethnocultural arts organization based 

in the Yukon.

• The Government of the Northwest Territories operates 

the Prince of Wales Northern Heritage Centre (PWNHC), 

which functions as a museum and archives.23 In addition 

to these roles, PWNHC provides technical, logistic, and 

financial support to individuals and organizations involved 

in cultural activities and the arts. PWNHC offers two 

funding programs for projects designed to promote the 

arts and cultural diversity: the Cultural Organizations 

Contributions program (no listed funding amount) and the 

Cultural Projects Contributions program (no listed funding 

amount).24

• The Department of Economic Development and 

Transportation/Nunavut Department of Culture, 

Language, Elders, and Youth offers one funding program 

directed at supporting Aboriginal arts: the Culture and 

Heritage/Elders and Youth Initiative (no listed funding 

amount).25
Overview of Characteristics 162

Collectively, at the provincial/territorial governmental level, there are 

39 targeted funding and other arts service programs for the field. The 

funding programs consist of project grants, with listed amounts ranging 

from $500 to $30,000; as not all governmental agencies list available 

funding amounts, some grant programs could exceed the $30,000 figure. 

We identified three local arts councils with funding and other 

service programs particularly applicable to ethnocultural groups. These 

programs are as follows:

• The Edmonton Arts Council offers one targeted grant for 

ethnocultural arts: the Cultural Diversity in the Arts project 

grant ($15,000 maximum).26

• The Toronto Arts Council offers four grants particularly 

applicable to ethnocultural arts organizations and which 

fall under the umbrella of its Community Arts program: 

the Community Arts Development project grant ($10,000 

maximum); (ii) the Arts Engagement project grant ($15,000 

maximum); (iii) Annual Operating Grants (no funding 

amount listed); and (iv) Multi-Year Operating Grants (no 

funding amount listed).27

• The Conseil des arts de Montréal offers one grant directed 

at supporting culturally diverse arts, one grant applicable 

to all ethnocultural arts groups, and one other arts service 

program directed at supporting culturally diverse and 

newly-arrived artists. These programs are (i) Creation and 

Career Development for Culturally Diverse Artists ($5,000 

maximum in addition to payment of an honorarium and use 

of rehearsal studios), (ii) Démart – MTL, which is to support 

organizations who apprentice culturally diverse, newlyarrived, or first generation artists ($12,000 maximum for a 

21-week period), and (iii) the Consulting Service-Cultural 

Diversity, which offers a range of non-monetary support 

services, such as informational meetings and networking 

sessions, aimed at supporting culturally diverse and newlyarrived artists within the city’s arts community.28

Collectively, at the municipal arts agency level, there are seven grants 

particularly applicable to the field. Five of these grants consist of project 

Image 27. Konstantin Milonadis. Untitled, Date Unknown. Stainless 

steel wire, 28 x 13 1/2 x 10 1/2 in. Gift of Mr. Wasyl Kacurovsky. 

Reproduced by permission from Ukrainian Institute of Modern Art. 
163 Part II

grants that range in amount from $5,000 to $15,000, and two of these 

grants consist of operating grants (no grant amounts listed). We note 

that local arts agencies may operate as governmental or government 

supported arts agencies or as private nonprofit arts service organizations; 

to aid analysis, we have grouped these agencies together regardless of 

structure.

In addition to federal, provincial, and local arts agencies, arts 

service organizations provide a range of services to support ethnocultural 

arts organizations. For analysis, we have divided these services into six 

service areas: (i) financial support; (ii) advocacy and policy; (iii) convening 

and networking; (iv) education and training; (v) promotion and audience 

development; and (vi) contracted group services and space. Through this 

method of organization, it is our intention to present a more detailed 

picture of the different means of supporting the field; however, we are 

aware that we risk depicting the support field as larger than it actually 

is as a number of services provided by organizations cross service areas. 

We have counted each type of service offered by a service organization, 

and thus the service-related figures we provide in this section reflect this 

multiple counting of organizations. As such, these figures should not be 

added.

Arts service organizations with a national mandate comprise the 

biggest portion of organizations in the Canadian supports database (37 

organizations). Set forth below is an overview of the targeted programs 

provided by national arts service organizations.

• Financial support services: We identified nine national arts 

service organizations that provide grants, fiscal sponsorship 

services, and general sponsorship opportunities for exhibitions, 

performances, and film. The Shevchenko Foundation, a 

grantmaking organization “dedicated to the preservation and 

promotion of the Ukrainian Canadian cultural heritage and 

the advancement of a flourishing Ukrainian community”29

in Canada, is among these organizations. The foundation’s 

Arts Program provides funding for individuals, groups, 

ensembles, choirs, orchestras, publishers, and collectives 

across the following sectors: Dance, Literary Arts, Media 

Arts, Music, Theatre, and Visual Arts based on available 

foundation resources (no listed funding amounts).30

• Advocacy and policy: We identified eight national arts service 

organizations that provide support in the areas of advocacy. 

An example of one of these arts service organizations is the 

National Indigenous Media Arts Coalition (NIMAC), which 

serves as the “Indigenous arm” of the Independent Media 

Arts Alliance in addition to providing arts services to its own 

membership.31 Among its many services, NIMAC advocates 

for equitable opportunities for Indigenous media artists and 

arts organizations across Canada.32

• Convening and networking: We identified 12 national arts 

service organizations that organize convenings, lectures, 

workshops, and networking opportunities. One of these 

service organizations is the Serbian Heritage Academy of 

Canada, which includes among its many roles the organization 

of lectures, conferences, seminars, and workshops related to 

Serbian cultural heritage and assists in the “establishment 

and development of...contacts among scholars, writers, 

artists and other experts in the field of Serbian studies.”33

• Education and training: We identified 13 national arts service 

organizations that provide education and training support 

services, including workshops, capacity building programs, 

residencies, and apprenticeships. One such organization is 

the Banff Centre, which offers targeted courses through its 

Indigenous Arts Programs in the disciplines of dance, music, 

writing, visual arts, digital media, film, as well as self-directed 

residencies and practicum opportunities.34

• Promotion and audience development: We identified 13 

national arts service organizations that provide promotional 

and audience development services through such activities as 

the maintenance of artist or artwork directories, calendars 

of events, awards or award shows, and by promoting literary 

works. One of these organizations is the Ukrainian Canadian 

Congress’ National Arts Council, which educates the public 

about Ukrainian arts in part through the management of a 

Ukrainian arts and culture database.35

• Contracted group services/Space: We did not identify any 

national arts service organization that provides targeted 

contracted group services (e.g., healthcare, legal, business 

services, referrals or similar professional services) or space. 
Overview of Characteristics 164

Arts service organizations possessing a provincial focus 

comprise the second highest portion of organizations in the Canadian 

supports database (21 organizations). Set forth below is an overview of 

the targeted programs provided by these arts service organizations. 

• Financial support services: We identified seven provincial 

arts service organizations that provide financial support 

particularly applicable to the field. Among these 

organizations is the Ontario Trillium Foundation (OTF), 

which provides support to community based nonprofits and 

charitable organizations in the areas of the arts, recreation, 

the environment, and human and social services in Ontario.36

OTF offers three granting programs: (i) the Community 

Grants Program, for activities that take place in one area 

and have a local impact in one or more communities within 

that area (a maximum of $375,000 over five years), (ii) the 

Province-Wide program, for activities that have provincewide impact (a maximum of $1.25 million over five years), 

and (iii) the Youth Opportunities Fund, which provides 

support for activities focused on youth ages 12 to 29 and that 

take place in the Greater Toronto area through the Strategic 

Collaborations grant (a maximum of $1.25 million over five 

years) or the Grassroots Innovations grant (a maximum of 

$400,000 over four years).37

• Advocacy and policy: We identified three provincial arts 

service organizations that provide support in the area 

of advocacy. One such organization is the Association 

acadienne des artistes professionnel du Nouveau-Brunswick, 

an Acadian arts service organization representing the 

interests of artists and advocating on their behalf.38

• Convening and networking: We identified seven provincial 

arts service organizations providing services in this area. 

Among these organizations is the previously referenced 

CPAMO (see Part I). CPAMO works to open opportunities 

for Aboriginal and ethno-racial artists and other professionals 

and organizations located in Ontario through convenings, 

workshops, town halls, roundtables, and other activities.39

• Education and training: We identified seven provincial arts 

service organizations providing services in this area. ACI 

Manitoba, an organization dedicated to supporting the arts 

and cultural industries of Manitoba and helping to develop 

sustainable careers for those working in arts and culture, is 

one such organization.40 ACI Manitoba offers an Indigenous 

Arts Program, which provides workshops and courses, 

toolkits directed at Indigenous artists and organizations, as 

well as additional resources and opportunities for Indigenous 

artists and organizations.41

• Promotion and audience development: We identified seven 

provincial arts service organizations providing services in the 

areas of promotion and audience development. Among these 

organizations is the African Nova Scotian Music Association, 

which is dedicated to the promotion of African Nova Scotian 

music through activities that include music showcases and 

award shows.42

• Contracted group services/Space: We identified six provincial 

arts service organizations that provide these forms of 

professional services or offer space for events and rehearsals 

for arts organizations. Folklorama Talent, a full-service 

entertainment booking agency representing multicultural 

and contemporary performers, is one such organization.43

Arts service organizations with a local focus comprise the 

smallest portion of the Canadian supports database (19 organizations). 

Set forth below is an overview of the targeted programs provided by 

these arts service organizations.

• Financial support services: We did not identify any local 

arts service organization that provides financial support 

particularly applicable to the field. 

• Advocacy and policy: We identified two local arts service 

organizations that provide support in this area. One 

organization is Diversité Artistique Montréal, which is 

dedicated to ensuring that Montréal’s culturally diverse 

communities are fairly represented in cultural policies, 

initiatives, and more generally within the city’s arts scene.44

• Convening and networking: We identified four local arts 

service organizations providing services in this area. One 

of these organizations is the Vancouver Asian Heritage 
165 Part II

Month Society, which among its various programs leads a 

summit of Asian artists and arts organizations to encourage 

networking.45

• Education and training: We identified seven local arts service 

organizations providing education and training related 

services. One of these organizations is the En’owkin Centre, 

a First Nations educational center offering education and 

training programs and other resources aimed at enhancing 

“Aboriginal culture, language, political development, and 

leadership and excellence in Aboriginal arts training.”46

• Promotion and audience development: We identified 11 

local arts service organizations providing promotion and 

audience development services. Among these organizations 

is the Saskatchewan Intercultural Association (SIA), which is 

an organization dedicated to fostering intercultural relations 

and cultural equity.47 Among its several services, SIA 

organizes public performance opportunities for its more than 

25 member ethnocultural arts organizations.48

• Contracted group services/Space: We identified eight local 

arts service organizations offering services in this category. 

Many of these organizations are cultural centers (and thus may 

independently function as ethnocultural arts organizations) 

that provide space for events and rehearsals for ethnocultural 

arts organizations that they may house within their own 

spaces. One such organization is the Hungarian Canadian 

Cultural Centre (HCCC). HCCC provides a space to enable 

several other Hungarian arts organizations to operate, 

including the Hungarian Heritage Museum of Toronto, the 

Kodaly Ensemble (a Hungarian folkdance group), and the 

Janos Arany Hungarian School.49

Further details regarding arts service organizations and agencies with 

targeted programming for the ethnocultural arts field are available in 

Appendix C.

An examination of the Canadian supports database indicates 

that targeted support services are relatively evenly distributed across 

service categories. The top four services provided by arts service 

organizations, including governmental agencies, are (i) promotion 

and audience development (36 percent of organizations), (ii) financial 

support (35 percent of organizations), (iii) education and training 

(32 percent of organizations), and (iv) convening and networking (26 

percent of organizations) (see fig. 17). We note that these figures are 

based on a count of each type of service offered by a governmental 

agency and arts service organization but not a count of each program 

offered by these organizations. In Characteristics by Pan Racial Group, 

we conduct a similar analysis of the specific programs offered by arts 

service organizations.

When comparing the top organizational needs identified by 

survey respondents (see fig. 7) with the targeted services offered by arts 

service organizations, and noting again that survey responses may not 

be representative of the Canadian ethnocultural arts field, we observe 

that identified needs do not appear to align with services offered. A 

high majority of respondents (and interview participants – see Needs 

and Supports: A Life Cycle Approach) stress the need for financial 

resources, particularly to increase contributed revenue, but financial 

support comprises little more than a third of services offered. Promotion 

and audience development rank of medium importance to survey 

respondents but comprise the highest proportion of the service offerings 

of arts service organizations. 

36%	
   35%	
  

32%	
  

26%	
  

17%	
   15%	
  

Promo-on	
  &	
  

Audience	
  

Development	
  

Financial	
  

Support	
  

Services	
  

Educa-on	
  &	
  

Training	
  

Convening	
  &	
  

Networking	
  

Advocacy	
  &	
  

Policy	
  

Contracted	
  

Group	
  Services	
  

Figure 17. Canadian arts service organizations by services provided 

Source: Canadian supports database (n=95). Figures have been rounded.
Overview of Characteristics 166

Considering the expressed needs of survey respondents (that 

is, the services that organizations are accessing), the services offered 

compared to the services accessed only loosely align. For example, less 

than half of survey respondents report that they have accessed any 

type of promotion/audience development service within the past two 

years, which is much lower than respondents’ access of services related 

to financial support, convening/networking, and educating/training 

during this time (see fig. 10). Along with seeking financial support, survey 

respondents report high access of services related to networking, but 

these services form only around a quarter of arts services. Characteristics 

by Pan Racial Group and Characteristics by Province/Region contain 

additional information regarding Canadian support programs, and 

Needs and Supports: A Life Cycle Approach contains a more in-depth 

discussion comparing field needs with existing services.

United States

Existing in an unstable supports environment that has generally 

deteriorated since the publication of Cultural Centers of Color over 20 

years ago, the current US field of ethnocultural arts organizations has 

nevertheless grown in number and gross income, surviving although 

Mul$disciplinary,	
  

45%	
  

Dance,	
  12%	
  

Film,	
  3%	
  

Humani$es,	
  1%	
  

Music,	
  15%	
  

Theater,	
  

10%	
  

Visual	
  Arts,	
  

14%	
  

Figure 18. US organizations by artistic discipline 

Source: US organizations database (n=2013). Figures have been rounded.

not operating to its full potential. After the elimination and reduction 

of important government funding programs, receiving uneven and on 

the whole little financial support from foundation sources, and having 

only ever attracted minimal corporate support, US organizations 

have maintained programming over the years in part through varying 

mixtures of the volunteer, in-kind, and discounted resources provided 

by their local communities and peer organizations, individual financial 

contributions, earned income, and sheer tenacity and ingenuity. With 

the majority operating with little to no paid staff and annual incomes 

under $100,000, US ethnocultural arts organizations have educated and 

entertained local, regional, national, and international audiences and 

proven that they are not as fragile as a focus on their administrative 

operations alone might suggest. They are resilient. 

This section provides an overview of the general characteristics 

of US ethnocultural arts organizations based on the quantitative data 

collected in the US Plural project databases and survey responses. Two 

thousand and thirteen tax-exempt ethnocultural arts organizations are 

listed in the US database (Appendix B), which is a figure that represents 

approximately two percent of the country’s 97,826 arts, culture, and 

humanities registered nonprofits as of October 2012.50 Detailed in 

the Methodology and Appendix U, we received 355 responses to the 

US survey, and these responses may be considered both generally 

7%	
  

3%	
  

15%	
  

18%	
  

24%	
  

33%	
  

Pre-­‐1960s	
   1960s	
   1970s	
   1980s	
   1990s	
   2000-­‐11	
  

Figure 19. US organizations by decade founded

Source: US survey results (n=342). Figures have been rounded.
167 Part II

representative of the US nonprofit ethnocultural arts field and more 

specifically representative as to race and geography. 

Similar to the presentation of information with respect to 

Canada, the volume of data collected over the course of the Plural 

project renders a comprehensive presentation of US project findings 

challenging. As with Canada, we focus on the more basic characteristics 

of the field and of survey respondents: artistic disciplines, age, number 

of employees, income, sources of income, organizational challenges, 

and organizational supports. We have also made the US databases and 

all closed-ended survey results publicly available with the intention that 

they will prove useful to future researchers.

Artistic Discipline

Ethnocultural arts organizations in the United States may be 

found in all major artistic disciplines and across disciplines as almost 

half of the field is engaged in multidisciplinary work. Forty-five percent 

of organizations listed in the US database identify an artistic practice 

and/or programming that involves more than one artistic discipline (see 

fig. 18).51 Of these organizations, 76 percent integrate dance and music.

For organizations that focus on a single artistic discipline, music 

represents the greatest proportion of the field (15 percent), followed by 

the visual arts (14 percent), and dance (12 percent). As with Canadian 

organizations, organizations focused on the humanities represent the 

smallest proportion of the field; however, also similar to Canadian 

organizations, a significant percentage of US organizations incorporate 

the humanities into multidisciplinary programming (18 percent of 

multidisciplinary organizations). 

Age 

We identified no sufficiently comparable earlier data to permit 

an accurate measurement of field growth; however, based on an 

examination of all information collected for the Plural project, it appears 

that ethnocultural arts organizations in both countries are increasing in 

number (see fig. 19 and Part I). To analyze the US field’s current age 

distribution, we employ the reported decade of founding of US survey 

respondents; as previously stated, US survey data may be treated as 

representative of US nonprofit ethnocultural arts organizations. 

One-third of survey respondents report founding dates in this 

century, which represents the biggest proportion of respondents founded 

in any decade. Viewed alternatively, the majority of organizations are 

more than 14 years in age, and a quarter of organizations are more than 

34 years in age (1970s or prior). Although we identified no equivalently 

comprehensive information regarding the age distribution of US arts 

and culture organizations as a whole, we did identify information that 

may be suggestive as to this characteristic. In the Nonprofit Finance 

Fund’s (NFF) 2014 State of the Nonprofit Sector Survey: National Results (Arts 

Edition), which collects information pertaining to organizations’ 2013 

fiscal year, 19 percent of surveyed arts organizations report founding 

dates between 2000 and 2014, and 48 percent of surveyed organizations 

report founding dates in the 1970s or prior.52 While we do not believe 

it is appropriate to characterize the ethnocultural arts field as “young,” 

and the NFF data may not be treated as representative of the arts and 

culture field,53 a consideration of the NFF data does suggest that there 

are a significantly greater number of older non-ethnocultural arts 

organizations than there are of older ethnocultural arts organizations. 

As the majority of ethnocultural arts organizations may be 

characterized as small due to their generally low number of paid staff 

and small incomes (see sections regarding Employees and Income, 

infra), we also examined research regarding the age distribution of 

46%	
  

35%	
  

9%	
  

4%	
   3%	
   1%	
   1%	
  

0	
   1-­‐5	
   6-­‐10	
   11-­‐20	
   21-­‐50	
   51-­‐100	
   More	
  

than	
  100	
  

Figure 20. US survey respondents by number of paid employees

Source: US survey results (n=350). Figures have been rounded.
Overview of Characteristics 168

the country’s small nonprofit organizations. According to survey data 

released by GrantStation in its State of Grantseeking Fall 2013 Fact Sheet; 

Small Organizations: Annual Budgets Under $100,000, 53 percent of small 

nonprofit survey respondents were under ten years of age (in comparison 

to 20 percent of survey respondents as a whole, which is a percentage 

similar to that of the NFF survey respondents), and only 17 percent of 

small organizations were more than 25 years in age.54 With at least 64 

percent of nonprofit ethnocultural arts organizations over ten years in 

age, and to the extent that the GrantStation data is suggestive as to the age 

distribution of small organizations, US ethnocultural arts organizations 

are on average older than other small organizations.

Employees

The overwhelming majority of ethnocultural arts organizations 

operate with little to no paid employees. Eighty-one percent of survey 

respondents report zero to five paid employees, including full-time and 

part-time employees (see fig. 20; see also United States survey question 

four, or US-SQ-4). Among these organizations, the majority have no paid 

employees. By comparison, in the 2014 State of the Nonprofit Sector Survey: 

National Results (Arts Edition), 51 percent of NFF survey respondents report 

zero to five part-time employees, and 52 percent report zero to five fulltime employees.55 Thus, it appears that ethnocultural arts organizations 

operate with far fewer employees than do non-ethnocultural arts 

organizations. It is also possible that their number of paid employees has 

shrunk over time: as discussed in Part I, Cultural Centers of Color reported 

the median number of employees for arts organizations of color as 16.

More than half of survey respondents with paid employees 

report that less than a quarter of these employees are employed to 

work full-time (US-SQ-5). We note that more than half (56 percent) of 

organizations responding to US-SQ-5 report having no paid employees. 

Nine organizations that report having no paid employees in US-SQ-4 

respond differently in US-SQ-5, which accounts for the discrepancy in 

responses between the two survey questions. 

Fifty-eight percent of survey respondents report working with 

11 or more volunteers, including interns, with the biggest proportions of 

respondents reporting 6-10 volunteers (22 percent) and 21-50 volunteers 

(also 22 percent) (US-SQ-6). Similar to their Canadian peers, the 

majority of US ethnocultural arts organizations rely heavily on volunteer 

personnel to supplement their small (to no) paid staffs.

In comparing survey respondents’ number of paid employees 

81%	
   77%	
   63%	
  

38%	
  

16%	
   8%	
   9%	
   0%	
  

33%	
  

19%	
   23%	
   37%	
  

62%	
  

84%	
   92%	
   91%	
   100%	
  

67%	
  

Less	
  than	
  

10k	
  

10k	
  to	
  

under	
  25k	
  

25k	
  to	
  

under	
  50k	
  

50k	
  to	
  

under	
  100k	
  

100k	
  to	
  

under	
  250k	
  

250k	
  to	
  

under	
  500k	
  

500k	
  to	
  

under	
  

1,000,000	
  

1,000,000	
  

to	
  

5,000,000	
  

5,000,000	
  

and	
  more	
  

0	
  Paid	
  Employees	
   At	
  least	
  1	
  Paid	
  Employee	
  

Figure 21. US survey respondents by number of paid employees and operating budget

Source: US survey results (n=348). Figures have been rounded.
169 Part II

with respondents’ operating budgets, we observed that, as would be 

expected, organizations with smaller operating budgets (less than 

$100,000) have a higher percentage of unpaid staff than organizations 

with higher operating budgets (see fig. 21). Organizations with operating 

budgets between $250,000 and $5,000,000 possess the lowest percentage 

of unpaid staff. For organizations with operating budgets that exceed 

$5,000,000, the percentage of unpaid staff once again begins to increase, 

possibly because higher organizational income may lead to a rise in 

organizational prestige and a subsequent ability to attract unpaid staff. 

Income

US nonprofit ethnocultural arts organizations reporting 

financial information have an average annual gross income of $701,358, 

a median annual gross income of $86,487, and a maximum annual 

gross income of $157,116,526.56 We provide additional information 

regarding income trends across pan racial groups in Characteristics by 

Pan Racial Group.

An examination of the income distribution of ethnocultural 

arts organizations reveals great income disparities within the field, with 

a small percentage of higher-income organizations skewing the field 

average upwards (see fig. 22). The overwhelming majority (88 percent) 

of organizations fall below the field average of $701,358, and more than 

half (55 percent) of organizations have less than $100,000 in average 

annual gross income. Two percent, or 25 organizations, have an average 

annual gross income of $5 million or more.57 We note that one-third 

of organizations in the US database did not file any federal tax forms 

between 2009 and 2012.58

Although we identified no equivalently comprehensive 

information regarding the incomes of US arts and culture organizations, 

we did identify information that is suggestive as to the average financial 

size of nonprofit organizations. According to research conducted by the 

Urban Institute, of the approximately one million public charities (501(c)

(3)s) in existence in 2011, 40.1 percent reported under $100,000 in gross 

receipts, and only 4.4 percent reported more than $10 million.59 As other 

research indicates that arts, culture, and humanities organizations are 

generally financially smaller than the nonprofit field as a whole,60 it is likely 

that an even greater percentage of the nonprofit arts and culture field 

have gross incomes that fall under $100,000. Thus, while the majority 

of ethnocultural arts organizations have incomes under $100,000 and 

55%	
  

19%	
  

11%	
  

7%	
   7%	
  

2%	
  

less	
  than	
  

$100k	
  

$100k	
  to	
  

under	
  $250k	
  

$250k	
  to	
  

under	
  $500k	
  

$500k	
  to	
  

under	
  

$1,000,000	
  

$1,000,000	
  to	
  

$5,000,000	
  

$5,000,000	
  

and	
  more	
  

Figure 22. US organizations by average annual gross income: 

frequency distribution (2009-2012)

Source: US organizations database (n=2013). Average annual gross income 

calculated using annual gross incomes between 2009-2012 for all organizations. 

Figures have been rounded.

	
  $79,093	
  	
  

	
  $95,935	
  	
  

	
  $107,000	
  	
   	
  $107,136	
  	
  

2009	
   2010	
   2011	
   2012	
  

Figure 23. US organizations by median annual gross income per year 

(2009-2012)

Source: US organizations database (n=2013).

Field Avg: $701k (88% of organizations < Avg)
Overview of Characteristics 170

may be characterized as small, this characteristic does not necessarily 

distinguish them from the rest of the arts and culture field as the majority 

of arts and culture organizations are also most likely small. Rather, as 

suggested by data from the NFF survey that 28 percent of NFF survey 

respondents possess operating budgets between $250,001 and $1 million 

and 48 percent of respondents possess operating budgets greater than $1 

million, the nonprofit ethnocultural arts field lacks the relatively greater 

number of middle and high-income organizations existing among other 

types of arts and culture organizations.61

Focusing on median income, which is a better representation of 

the typical income of ethnocultural arts organizations, the field’s gross 

annual income has increased annually between 2009 and 2012, from 

$79,093 to $107,136, respectively (see fig. 23). This pattern represents a 

35 percent increase in gross income, with the greatest growth occurring 

between 2009 and 2010. We note that these median income figures are 

higher than the median income for arts organizations of color reported in 

Cultural Centers of Color ($45,250, or $69,129 in real dollars, and discussed 

in Part I). While the differing methodologies between our study and 

Cultural Centers of Color make direct comparisons impossible, the different 

figures suggest that ethnocultural arts organizations today are operating 

with fewer employees but higher incomes. 

0% 1	
  to	
  10% 11	
  to	
  20% 21	
  to	
  30% 31	
  to	
  40% 41	
  to	
  50% 51	
  to	
  60% 61	
  to	
  70% 71	
  to	
  80% 81	
  to	
  90% 91	
  to	
  100%

Percentage	
  

unknown

Federal 75% 12% 4% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5%

State 57% 21% 11% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 4%

Local 49% 24% 10% 7% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 3%

Foundation 41% 23% 13% 6% 5% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0% 0% 4%

Corporate 41% 32% 9% 5% 5% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 5%

Individual 8% 32% 13% 7% 9% 5% 3% 1% 3% 4% 11% 5%

Earned	
  Income 14% 16% 10% 9% 10% 8% 6% 4% 4% 4% 10% 5%

Other 32% 27% 11% 5% 2% 1% 1% 2% 0% 1% 2% 15%

Figure 24. US survey respondents by income sources

Source: US survey results (n=234). Figures have been rounded.

2%	
  

2%	
  

2%	
  

3%	
  

4%	
  

7%	
  

20%	
  

21%	
  

53%	
  

86%	
  

22%	
  

2%	
  

16%	
  

21%	
  

53%	
  

39%	
  

58%	
  

41%	
  

28%	
  

9%	
  

53%	
  

66%	
  

57%	
  

55%	
  

36%	
  

47%	
  

15%	
  

25%	
  

11%	
  

4%	
  

23%	
  

30%	
  

25%	
  

20%	
  

7%	
  

7%	
  

7%	
  

13%	
  

8%	
  

1%	
  

Compe22on	
  from	
  other	
  Aboriginal,	
  culturally	
  

diverse/ethno-­‐racial,	
  and	
  immigrant	
  arts	
  

Other	
  

Compe22on	
  from	
  non-­‐Aboriginal,	
  culturally	
  

diverse/ethno-­‐racial,	
  or	
  immigrant	
  arts	
  

Media's	
  lack	
  of	
  familiarity/understanding	
  of	
  art	
  

form	
  

Collabora2on	
  and	
  networking	
  

Obtaining	
  media	
  coverage	
  

Audience	
  development	
  

Administra2ve/performance/exhibi2on	
  space	
  

Organiza2onal	
  capacity	
  building	
  

Financial	
  resources	
  

1-­‐2	
  HIGH	
   3-­‐5	
  MED	
   6-­‐10	
  LOW	
   N/A	
  

Figure 25. Organizational challenges by US survey respondent ranking 

(General)

Source: US survey resultss (n=323). Figures have been rounded.
171 Part II

Sources of Income

Nonprofit ethnocultural arts organizations currently rely more 

heavily on earned income and individual contributions than they do 

on any other income source. Compared to their peers from the early 

1990s and before, the overwhelming majority (75 percent) of survey 

respondents report that, during their most recently completed fiscal year, 

they received zero support from federal sources (see fig. 24; US-SQ-8). 

For a number of respondents, state, local, foundation, and/or corporate 

funding have not recently supported operating expenses: 41 percent to 

57 percent of respondents report that they derived no income from these 

sources in the 2012-2013 fiscal year. Another 21 percent to 32 percent of 

respondents report that these sources individually comprised only 1 to 

10 percent of gross revenue.62

In comparison, more than a quarter (27 percent) of respondents 

report that individual contributions comprise 41 percent or more of gross 

revenue, and more than one-third (36 percent) of respondents report that 

earned income comprises 41 percent or more of gross revenue. These 

figures are higher than for all other income sources combined (i.e., a total 

of 24 percent of respondents report that 41 percent or more of gross 

revenue derives from federal, state, local, foundation, corporate, and/

or other sources). While these survey findings indicate that individual 

contributions and earned income are a significant proportion of the 

gross revenues of a sizable portion of the ethnocultural arts field, they 

also indicate that no one source currently dominates the field. Stated 

otherwise, the income sources of ethnocultural arts organizations appear 

to be fairly diverse. 

An examination of the revenue sources for US nonprofit arts 

organizations as a whole indicates that the greater arts field is less 

diversified. The “average revenue picture” for a US nonprofit arts 

organization is as follows: an estimated 60 percent of revenue stems 

from earned income, 24 percent from individual contributions, and the 

remaining 16 percent is relatively equally derived from federal, state, 

local, foundation, and corporate sources.63 With income somewhat 

more evenly distributed, on average, ethnocultural arts organizations do 

appear to resemble the greater art field’s revenue picture. These findings 

1%	
  

11%	
  

18%	
  

30%	
  

39%	
  

15%	
  

24%	
  

29%	
  

30%	
  

1%	
  

14%	
  

31%	
  

28%	
  

22%	
  

5%	
  

47%	
  

20%	
  

9%	
  

6%	
  

52%	
  

2%	
  

1%	
  

41%	
  

12%	
  

6%	
  

3%	
  

3%	
  

Other	
  

Assistance	
  with	
  the	
  grant	
  

applica<on	
  process	
  

Increase	
  earned	
  income	
  

Iden<fy	
  new	
  funding	
  sources	
  

Increase	
  contributed	
  revenue	
  

1	
   2	
   3	
   4	
   5	
   N/A	
  

Figure 26. Financial resource needs by US survey respondent ranking

Source: US survey results (n=319). Figures have been rounded.

3%	
  

6%	
  

9%	
  

10%	
  

13%	
  

15%	
  

22%	
  

24%	
  

25%	
  

29%	
  

41%	
  

3%	
  

24%	
  

28%	
  

27%	
  

34%	
  

22%	
  

35%	
  

31%	
  

30%	
  

28%	
  

19%	
  

62%	
  

57%	
  

42%	
  

53%	
  

28%	
  

47%	
  

29%	
  

38%	
  

22%	
  

28%	
  

12%	
  

31%	
  

13%	
  

21%	
  

9%	
  

25%	
  

17%	
  

14%	
  

6%	
  

22%	
  

14%	
  

29%	
  

Other	
  

Program	
  development	
  and	
  evalua=on	
  

Clarifying	
  and/or	
  refocusing	
  organiza=onal	
  mission	
  

and	
  iden=ty	
  

Technical	
  support	
  

Professional	
  development	
  of	
  exis=ng	
  staff	
  

Financial	
  management	
  assistance	
  

Leadership	
  transi=on/succession	
  planning	
  

Marke=ng/promo=onal	
  assistance	
  

Obtaining	
  appropriately	
  skilled	
  staff	
  

Board	
  development	
  

Maintaining	
  and/or	
  increasing	
  the	
  number	
  of	
  paid	
  

staff	
  

1-­‐2	
  HIGH	
   3-­‐5	
  MED	
   6-­‐11	
  LOW	
   N/A	
  

Figure 27. Capacity building needs by US survey respondent ranking

Source: US survey results (n=316). Figures have been rounded.
Overview of Characteristics 172

suggest that the lower number of middle and high-income ethnocultural 

arts organizations, when compared to the arts field as a whole, is not 

due to obtaining funding from markedly different sources than other 

arts organizations but rather that ethnocultural arts organizations are 

obtaining smaller amounts from the same sources as non-ethnocultural arts 

organizations. 

Organizational Challenges

Challenges related to obtaining sufficient financing are by far the 

number one concern of nonprofit ethnocultural arts organizations. The 

top four organizational challenges/needs reported by survey respondents 

are (i) financial resources (86 percent ranked 1-2), (ii) organizational 

capacity building (53 percent ranked 1-2), (iii) space (21 percent ranked 

1-2), and (iv) audience development (20 percent ranked 1-2) (see fig. 25; 

US-SQ-18). 

With respect to financial resource needs, the majority of survey 

respondents are concerned with increasing contributed revenue (39 

percent ranked 1) and identifying new funding sources (30 percent ranked 

1) (see fig. 26; US-SQ-20). Nearly two-thirds (61 percent) of respondents 

ranked grant assistance 4, 5, or N/A (not a challenge or need), thereby 

indicating that a sizable portion of ethnocultural arts organizations 

are less concerned with the more technical aspects involved in seeking 

contribution-related funding.

The top four capacity building needs reported by survey 

respondents are (i) maintaining and/or increasing the number of paid 

staff (41 percent ranked 1-2), (ii) board development (29 percent ranked 

1-2), (iii) obtaining appropriately skilled staff (25 percent ranked 1-2), and 

(iv) marketing/promotional assistance (24 percent ranked 1-2) (see fig. 

27; US-SQ-19). As with financial resource concerns, technical and other 

staff training-related concerns (i.e., financial management assistance, 

professional development, technical support, program development) are 

of lower priority for the majority of survey respondents.

We note that we compared the organizational needs of smallincome survey respondents (organizations with operating budgets under 

$25,000) with the organizational needs of medium and high-income 

survey respondents (organizations with operating budgets of $500,000 

or greater) and found no significant differences between the two groups. 

We also compared the needs of respondents’ founded in different 

decades and found no significant differences. Finally, we compared the 

needs of respondents whose annual total revenue had decreased over 

the preceding five years with the needs of respondents whose annual 

total revenue had increased over the preceding five years and found no 

significant differences (US-SQ-9). 

Organizational Supports

Arts Services. Between 2011 and 2013, survey respondents that 

accessed arts services mostly accessed the following services: (i) financial 

support (48 percent of organizations), (ii) convening and networking 

(40 percent of organizations, (iii) education and training (38 percent 

of organizations), and (iv) promotion and audience development (37 

percent of organizations) (see fig. 28; US-SQ-23). As 86 percent of survey 

respondents report that financial resources is their top organizational 

challenge/need but only 48 percent of respondents report that they have 

accessed financial support services, these findings indicate that there 

is a disconnect between the current financial support offered and the 

financial needs of respondents. We examine this disconnect in greater 

detail in Needs and Supports: A Life Cycle Approach, but note here 

12%	
  

16%	
  

25%	
  

26%	
  

26%	
  

37%	
  

38%	
  

40%	
  

48%	
  

Contracted/group	
  services	
  

Advocacy/policy-­‐related	
  ac@on	
  

Accessed	
  other	
  arts-­‐related	
  services	
  

Not	
  applicable	
  

Informa@on/research	
  	
  

Promo@on/	
  audience	
  development	
  	
  

Educa@on/training	
  

Convening/networking	
  

Financial	
  support	
  	
  

Figure 28. Arts services accessed by US survey respondents (2011-2013)

Source: US survey results (n=290). Figures have been rounded.
173 Part II

that, based on open-ended survey responses and formal and informal 

interviews for the Plural project, the disconnect appears to involve 

a number of factors that differ by organization and include systemic 

barriers to accessing financial support, inappropriate forms of available 

support, a lack of knowledge of existing opportunities, lack of staff to 

pursue existing opportunities, the administrative work and time involved 

in fulfilling grant reporting requirements, and the deliberate non-pursual 

of current and future opportunities due to failure to obtain support in 

the past. Related to several of these factors, more than a quarter (26 

percent) of respondents did not access any arts-related services during 

the 2011 to 2013 period (organizations marking “not applicable”). 

When survey respondents attend work-related conferences or 

workshops, the topics of these conferences and workshops most commonly 

relate to (i) development/fundraising (for 41 percent of organizations), 

(ii) organizational management (for 38 percent of organizations), and 

(iii) marketing/communications (for 36 percent of organizations) (USSQ-27). Survey respondents report that their main reasons for attending 

these conferences and workshops are (i) professional development: 

administrative (43 percent ranked 1-2), (ii) professional development: 

artistic (37 percent ranked 1-2), and (iii) organizational capacity building 

(36 percent ranked 1-2) (US-SQ-28). More than one-third (37 percent) 

of respondents – the largest proportion – have attended on average 

one to two conferences or workshops per year over the past five years 

(US-SQ-30). More than a quarter (27 percent) of respondents state that 

employees do not attend conferences or workshops.

Over half (57 percent) of survey respondents accessed at least 

some services that were provided by organizations exclusively dedicated 

to serving ethnocultural arts organizations (see fig. 29; US-SQ-24). A 

significant proportion (20 percent) of survey respondents accessed no 

such dedicated services, however, with another significant proportion 

(28 percent) reporting that less than a quarter of services accessed were 

in the form of dedicated support. As less than one-third (29 percent) 

of respondents report that they access a sizable amount of dedicated 

services (more than 25 percent), all of these figures collectively indicate 

that, when organizations seek out arts services, most seek services from 

non-dedicated arts service organizations. Similar to our Canadian 

findings, based on discussions with project participants (see Needs and 

20%	
  

28%	
  

11%	
  

18%	
  

22%	
  

0%	
   More	
  than	
  0	
  

but	
  less	
  than	
  

25%	
  

25	
  to	
  50%	
   More	
  than	
  

50%	
  

Not	
  

applicable	
  

Figure 29. Dedicated arts services accessed by US survey respondents 

(2011-2013)

Source: US survey results (n=266). Figures have been rounded.

1%	
  

1%	
  

8%	
  

20%	
  

21%	
  

62%	
  

74%	
  

16%	
  

36%	
  

13%	
  

55%	
  

59%	
  

22%	
  

14%	
  

35%	
  

6%	
  

35%	
  

1%	
  

1%	
  

48%	
  

57%	
  

43%	
  

23%	
  

19%	
  

15%	
  

13%	
  

Other	
  

Language:	
  services	
  currently	
  provided	
  are	
  not	
  

offered	
  in	
  a	
  language	
  used	
  by	
  organizaDon	
  staff	
  

No	
  constraints	
  to	
  accessing	
  the	
  services	
  of	
  arts	
  

service	
  organizaDons	
  

Knowledge:	
  lack	
  of	
  knowledge	
  of	
  the	
  existence	
  of	
  

arts	
  service	
  organizaDons	
  

Relevancy:	
  services	
  currently	
  provided	
  by	
  arts	
  

service	
  organizaDons	
  are	
  not	
  relevant	
  to	
  

organizaDonal	
  challenges,	
  needs	
  or	
  interests	
  

Time:	
  insufficient	
  Dme	
  to	
  aPend	
  or	
  parDcipate	
  in	
  

services	
  

Financial:	
  insufficient	
  organizaDonal	
  resources	
  to	
  

support	
  aPendance	
  or	
  membership	
  

1-­‐2	
  HIGH	
   3-­‐5	
  MED	
   6-­‐7	
  LOW	
   N/A	
  

Figure 30. Constraints in accessing arts services by US survey 

respondent ranking 

Source: US survey results (n=288). Figures have been rounded.
Overview of Characteristics 174

Supports: A Life Cycle Approach), it is likely that this pattern of access 

is due in large part to necessity – the absence of dedicated services in 

needed areas and/or with substantial resources – rather than the lack of 

importance of dedicated forms of support. 

For a number of ethnocultural arts organizations, non-arts 

specific services are another important part of their support network. 

Twenty-nine percent of survey respondents are members of non-arts 

association(s) and/or formal arts-related (but not specific) networks (USSQ-26). For example, survey respondents affiliate with such groups as 

local chambers of commerce, tourism development organizations, rotary 

clubs, the American Alliance of Museums, the Minnesota Council of 

Nonprofits, the Japan America Society, and the New Mexico Historical 

Society.

Taking advantage of existing arts services can be time consuming 

and divert resources away from an organization’s core programming. 

Survey respondents report that their primary constraints in accessing arts 

services are (i) insufficient organizational resources to support attendance 

or membership (74 percent ranked 1-2), (ii) insufficient time to attend or 

participate in services (62 percent ranked 1-2), (iii) the services currently 

provided by arts service organizations are not relevant to organizational 

challenges, needs, or interests (21 percent ranked 1-2), and (iv) lack of 

knowledge of the existence of arts service organizations (20 percent 

ranked 1-2) (see fig. 30; US-SQ-31).

Funding. US ethnocultural arts organizations rely on a variety 

of funding sources to support their work. During the past two years, 

the greatest proportion of survey respondents have financially supported 

organizational operations through (i) self-initiated fundraising initiatives 

(72 percent of organizations), (ii) foundations (53 percent of organizations 

have received some form of support), (iii) corporations (46 percent of 

organizations have received some form of support), (iv) city arts councils 

(40 percent of organizations have received some form of support), and 

(v) state arts councils (39 percent of organizations have received some 

form of support) (see fig. 31; US-SQ-33). Relatively few respondents 

have recently received financial support from non-arts governmental 

(city, state, and federal) sources. We note that these survey findings only 

regard funding sources and not the amount of support received from these 

sources. For example, as indicated by responses to US-SQ-8, foundation 

and corporate financial support collectively comprise only a small 

5%	
  

7%	
  

14%	
  

20%	
  

23%	
  

39%	
  

40%	
  

46%	
  

53%	
  

72%	
  

Federal	
  government,	
  non-­‐arts	
  

State	
  government,	
  non-­‐arts	
  

City	
  government,	
  non-­‐arts	
  

Na@onal	
  Endowment	
  for	
  the	
  Arts/Na@onal	
  

Endowment	
  for	
  the	
  Humani@es	
  

Other	
  

State	
  arts	
  council	
  

City	
  arts	
  council	
  

Corpora@ons	
  

Founda@ons	
  

Self-­‐ini@ated	
  fundraising	
  ini@a@ves	
  

Figure 31. Funding sources supporting US survey respondents (2011-

2013)

Source: US survey results (n=282). Figures have been rounded.

29%	
  

27%	
  

14%	
  

30%	
  

0%	
   More	
  than	
  0%	
  but	
  

less	
  than	
  25%	
  

25	
  to	
  50%	
   More	
  than	
  50%	
  

Figure 32. Dedicated funding programs accessed by US survey 

respondents

Source: US survey results (n=256). Figures have been rounded.
175 Part II

fraction of the annual gross revenue of the majority of organizations. 

In addition, omitted from US-SQ-33 were answer choices related to 

individual contributions and earned income, two important sources of 

support identified by respondents in US-SQ-8.

When applying for funding, almost one-third of survey 

respondents (30 percent) report that more than 50 percent of their grant 

applications are to funding programs that have an explicit mandate to 

support specific cultural or ethnic communities (see fig. 32; US-SQ-34). 

This figure is somewhat higher than respondents’ reported interaction 

with the broader category of dedicated arts service programs (18 

percent report more than 50 percent in US-SQ-24). As we noted in the 

Canadian section, the differing responses may be due to the manner 

in which we asked the two questions: US-SQ-24 refers to service 

organizations “exclusively dedicated” to serving particular ethnocultural 

organizations, whereas US-SQ-34 relates to dedicated programs (rather 

than service organizations). Moreover, in US-SQ-34, we did not provide 

a “N/A” answer choice as we did in US-SQ-24; if the “N/A” choice were 

removed from US-SQ-24, the percentage of organizations accessing 

dedicated services would shift.

Despite the slight differences between responses to the 

two questions, findings from both survey questions indicate that 

approximately half of US ethnocultural arts organizations currently 

have little to no interaction with targeted arts services. When survey 

findings are combined with our literature review, which indicates that 

dedicated arts services have historically served an important role in the 

support of ethnocultural arts organizations as at least certain general 

arts services provide little substantial support to these organizations 

(see Part I) and other research that indicates that dedicated arts services 

appear to have decreased over the past 10-15 years, our research findings 

indicate that ethnocultural arts organizations have found various means 

of adapting to this new, weaker support environment. For a sizable 

number of organizations, survival mechanisms do not involve any form 

of arts service support. 

Collaboration. Ethnocultural arts organizations are generally 

familiar with other organizations that share their organizations’ artistic 

and cultural/ethnic focus (US-SQ-35). When asked to describe their 

current relationship with other arts organizations that share their 

67%	
  

58%	
  

46%	
   43%	
  

28%	
  

19%	
  

10%	
  

3%	
  

Culturally	
  

specific	
  arts	
  

organiza>ons	
  

sharing	
  the	
  

same	
  cultural/

ethnic	
  focus	
  

Educa>onal	
  

organiza>ons	
  

Culturally	
  

specific	
  arts	
  

organiza>ons	
  

with	
  a	
  different	
  

cultural/ethnic	
  

focus	
  

Community	
  

based	
  non	
  

profit	
  

organiza>ons	
  

without	
  an	
  arts	
  

focus	
  

Private,	
  for	
  

profit	
  

organiza>ons	
  

(e.g.,	
  local	
  

businesses)	
  

Governmental	
  

agencies	
  

Not	
  currently	
  

collabora>ng	
  

with	
  any	
  

organiza>ons	
  

Other	
  

Figure 33. Types of collaborating organizations of US survey respondents

Source: US survey results (n=295). Figures have been rounded.
Overview of Characteristics 176

organizations’ cultural/ethnic focus (US-SQ-36), the majority of 

survey respondents (57 percent) report frequent interaction and a good 

relationship with locally based peers, and approximately a quarter (26 

percent) report infrequent interaction but a good relationship with these 

organizations. With respect to organizations based in other geographic 

areas, 41 percent of respondents report infrequent interaction but a 

good relationship with arts organizations located in their own region, 

and 42 percent of respondents describe a similar relationship with arts 

organizations located within the country but in other regions. A little 

under one-third (29 percent) of respondents report frequent interaction 

and a good relationship with arts organizations located in their own 

region, with a smaller percentage of respondents (18 percent) reporting 

a similar relationship with arts organizations located within the country 

but in other regions. Slightly more than one-third of respondents (34 

percent) report infrequent interaction but a good relationship with their 

internationally based peers while a larger percentage report having no 

relationship with these organizations (43 percent). A small percentage of 

respondents report poor relationships with their local, regional, national, 

or international peers.

These findings suggest that survey respondents have strong local 

networks in which to take advantage of collaborative opportunities as 

they arise but there may be potential to enhance these opportunities on 

a regional, national, or international level. Such potential is reflected in 

additional survey responses: all US respondents believe that they share 

common challenges with other ethnocultural arts organizations (USSQ-37) and the vast majority report an interest in collaborating with 

other ethnocultural arts organizations to address challenges and needs 

(89 percent; US-SQ-38).

US ethnocultural arts organizations collaborate with a variety 

of partners, although they most commonly work with partners who 

share similar interests. Between 2012 and 2013, more than half of 

survey respondents collaborated with ethnocultural arts organizations 

sharing the same cultural/ethnic focus (67 percent of organizations) 

and educational organizations (58 percent), and slightly less than half 

of respondents collaborated with ethnocultural arts organizations with 

a different cultural/ethnic focus (46 percent) (see fig. 33; US-SQ-39). 

We note that Canadian respondents share the same first two primary 

partners and that a slightly higher percentage of US respondents report 

no current collaborations (10 percent compared to 7 percent). These 

findings comport with interview-based findings, which suggest that 

Canadian ethnocultural arts organizations are somewhat more closely 

networked than US organizations (see Needs and Supports: A Life Cycle 

Approach).

As with accessing arts services, although there can be benefits 

to entering into collaborative arrangements, taking advantage of such 

opportunities involves time and other organizational resources. Survey 

respondents report that their most significant constraints with respect 

to collaboration are (i) insufficient organizational resources to support 

collaboration (62 percent ranked 1-2), (ii) insufficient time to organize and 

engage in collaboration (50 percent ranked 1-2), and (iii) collaboration 

is perceived as too risky (16 percent ranked 1-2) (see fig. 34; US-SQ-40). 

A sizable number of respondents report experiencing no constraints to 

3%	
  

6%	
  

8%	
  

9%	
  

14%	
  

16%	
  

16%	
  

50%	
  

62%	
  

9%	
  

16%	
  

33%	
  

37%	
  

34%	
  

9%	
  

32%	
  

29%	
  

14%	
  

37%	
  

34%	
  

15%	
  

14%	
  

24%	
  

37%	
  

7%	
  

4%	
  

3%	
  

51%	
  

43%	
  

44%	
  

40%	
  

28%	
  

38%	
  

45%	
  

17%	
  

21%	
  

Other	
  

Interest:	
  collabora;on	
  is	
  not	
  of	
  interest	
  

Support:	
  lack	
  of	
  board	
  support	
  for	
  collabora;on	
  

Compe;;on:	
  other	
  organiza;ons	
  are	
  perceived	
  as	
  

compe;tors	
  

Knowledge:	
  lack	
  of	
  knowledge	
  of	
  poten;al	
  

collaborators	
  

No	
  constraints	
  to	
  collabora;on	
  

Risk:	
  collabora;on	
  is	
  perceived	
  as	
  too	
  risky	
  

Time:	
  insufficient	
  ;me	
  to	
  organize	
  and	
  engage	
  in	
  

collabora;on	
  

Financial:	
  insufficient	
  organiza;onal	
  resources	
  to	
  

support	
  collabora;on	
  

1-­‐2	
  HIGH	
   3-­‐5	
  MED	
   6-­‐11	
  LOW	
   N/A	
  

Figure 34. Constraints to collaboration by US survey respondent 

ranking 

Source: US survey results (n=293). Figures have been rounded.
177 Part II

collaboration (tied in third place with 16 percent of respondents ranking 

this factor 1-2).

Support Programs. We identified 248 arts service organizations 

and funders that offer targeted programs for US ethnocultural arts 

organizations (Appendix D). As in the Canadian section, we note that 

our research concentrated on organizations that provide targeted arts and 

culture programs, and thus we have not included non-arts programs also 

geared toward the sector. Neither did we specifically research non-arts 

governmental agencies nor service organizations that offer isolated arts 

services, although when we came across targeted programs offered by 

these organizations, we did include them.

The missions of arts service organizations and government 

agencies are wide ranging, including the geographic scope of service 

areas. Among the organizations we identified that possess programs 

targeting and/or particularly applicable to ethnocultural groups, 2 

percent possess missions that are international in scope, 28 percent 

of organizations, including federal funders, possess missions that are 

national in scope, 38 percent, including state arts agencies, possess 

missions that are regional/state-wide in scope, and 31 percent possess 

missions that are local in scope.64

On a national level, the NEA offers two programs that are 

particularly applicable to segments of the US ethnocultural arts 

sector: the National Heritage Fellowships ($25,000 maximum), which 

Image 28. Hurricane in a Glass by Kimberly 

del Busto, Breath of Fire Latina Theater 

Ensemble, 2009. Left to right: Elsa Martinez 

Phillips, Carmen Guo, and Diana Alvarez. 

Directed by Barbara Covington. Reproduced 

by permission from Breath of Fire Latina 

Theater Ensemble.
Overview of Characteristics 178

are awarded to master folk and traditional artists (either individuals 

or unincorporated groups) following public nomination, and the Art 

Works Folk & Traditional Arts project grant ($10,000 minimum to 

$100,000).65 Art Works grant support requires matching funds, and due 

to administrative requirements, the NEA “encourages organizations with 

operating budgets of less than $50,000 and organizations that have not 

applied for public funds previously to consider applying to local or state 

sources rather than” to the NEA.66

There are state arts agencies in all four regions with funding 

programs directed toward supporting ethnocultural groups. Set forth 

below is an overview of these targeted state arts agency programs.

In the Midwest, there are seven state arts agencies (Illinois, 

Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Ohio, and Wisconsin) 

that offer programs directed at ethnocultural groups. One of these 

agencies is the Missouri Arts Council, which offers a Minority Arts grant 

to support arts projects created by and/or targeted to African American, 

Asian American, Latino American, and Native American communities 

($2,500 maximum) and a Folk Arts grant, which provides support for the 

traditional folk arts of Missouri ($30,000 maximum).67

The Northeast has five state arts agencies (Maine, Massachusetts, 

New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island) with programs directed at 

ethnocultural groups. Among these agencies is the Pennsylvania Council 

on the Arts, which has four targeted programs: (i) the Preserving Diverse 

Cultures (PDC) program; (ii) the Entry Track to Arts Organizations 

& Arts Programs: Community Arts: Folk and Traditional Arts (FTAEntry program); (iii) the Arts Organizations & Arts Programs (AOAP) 

Track: Folk and Traditional Arts (FTA program); and (iv) the Folk and 

Traditional Arts Apprenticeship program. The PDC program supports 

organizational stabilization and the expansion of arts and cultural 

programming in African American, Asian American, Latino American, 

and Native American communities through a variety of PDC grants 

($20,000 maximum for the largest available grant and requires matching 

amounts).68 The FTA-Entry program supports organizations with 

some history of programming who meet other eligibility requirements 

(no funding amount listed but no more than 25 percent of program/

organizational budget; funds must be matched), and the FTA program 

supports organizations who have consistently received PCA funding 

(no funding amount listed but no more than 25 percent of program/

organizational budget; funds must be matched).69 The Folk and 

Traditional Arts Apprenticeship program supports partnerships between 

master artists and apprentices in the areas of both the performing arts 

and the craft arts ($4,000 maximum).70

In the South, 11 state arts agencies (Alabama, Arkansas, 

Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South 

Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia) offer programs directed 

at ethnocultural groups. Among these agencies is the South Carolina 

Arts Commission, which offers Folklife & Traditional Arts project 

grants for organizations that “promote and preserve the traditional 

arts practiced across the state” ($6,000 maximum)71 and the Traditional 

Arts Apprenticeship Initiative ($2,500) for individual artists engaging in 

master-apprenticeship relationships.72

The West has 11 state arts agencies (Alaska, Arizona, California, 

Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and 

Wyoming) with programs directed at ethnocultural groups. One of 

these agencies is the Hawaii State Foundation on Culture and the Arts, 

which offers three grants under its Folk & Traditional Arts Program: (i) 

Apprenticeship Grants ($5,000 maximum for each of the two years of 

the apprenticeship); (ii) Culture Learning Grants, for organizations to 

encourage leadership and education in the folk and traditional arts and 

to increase access and provide arts education in these areas (no funding 

amount listed); and (iii) Special Projects & Community Partnerships, 

for special projects undertaken by the Folk & Traditional Arts program, 

including particular support for Native Hawaiian projects (no funding 

amount listed).73

Collectively, of the country’s 50 state arts agencies and the 

District of Columbia, two-thirds offer funding programs particularly 

applicable to the ethnocultural arts field, and these programs primarily 

consist of project grants (60 out of a total of 64 state grants and awards) 

that range in amount from $250 to $30,000. We did not identify any 

targeted funding programs or other arts services for ethnocultural arts 

organizations located in any of the US Territories or Associated States. 

As noted in the Methodology, given resource constraints we did not 

research local US arts agencies. Information contained in our literature 

review indicates that local arts agency support has historically served an 
179 Part II

important role in the support structure of arts organizations of color, 

and we are aware that at least some of these organizations currently offer 

targeted support for ethnocultural arts organizations. For example, the 

San Francisco Arts Commission offers two funding programs specifically 

directed at ethnocultural artists and arts organizations: (i) the Cultural 

Equity Initiatives grants, which invest in capacity building initiatives of 

arts organizations “that are deeply rooted in historically underserved 

communities, such as African/American, Asian, Disabled, Latino, 

L/G/B/T, Native American, Pacific Islander, and Women” ($25,000 

maximum for short-term, one-time projects and $100,000 maximum for 

projects involving more substantive organizational change) and (ii) the 

Native American Arts & Cultural Traditions Grants (NAACT), which 

support artists and organizations focused on Native American arts and 

cultural traditions in accessing existing funding and technical assistance 

resources and in participating in arts policy discussions ($5,000-$7,500 

for Individual Artist project grants; $5,000-$7,500 for Presenting the 

Art project grants; $7,500-$15,000 for Building Sustainable Arts project 

grants; $1,000 for Mini-Grants).74

In addition to governmental agencies, arts service organizations 

provide a range of services to support ethnocultural arts organizations. 

As in our examination of Canadian support services, to aid our US 

analysis we have divided these services into six service areas: (i) financial 

support; (ii) advocacy and policy; (iii) convening and networking; (iv) 

education and training; (v) promotion and audience development; 

and (vi) contracted group services and space. Through this method of 

organization, it is our intention to present a more detailed picture of the 

different means of supporting the field; however, we are aware that we 

risk depicting the support field as larger than it actually is as a number 

of services provided by organizations cross service areas. We have 

counted each type of service offered by a service organization, and thus 

the service-related figures we provide in this section reflect this multiple 

counting of organizations. As such, these figures should not be added.

The smallest group of service organizations in the US supports 

database (five organizations) are organizations whose missions cross 

national borders. These international arts service organizations are 

generally focused on strengthening connections between ethnocultural 

communities in the United States and communities in origin countries. 

Set forth below is an overview of the targeted programs provided by 

international arts service organizations. 

• Financial support services: We identified three international 

arts service organizations with a US presence that provide 

grants, fiscal sponsorship services, and general sponsorship 

opportunities for exhibitions, performances, and film. 

The Y&S Nazarian Family Foundation, a grantmaking 

organization primarily focused on “the areas of education, 

policy research, arts and culture, Jewish causes, Iranian 

causes, and general social causes,” is one of these three 

organizations.75

• Advocacy and policy: We did not identify any international 

arts service organization providing targeted support in the 

areas of advocacy. 

• Convening and networking: We identified two international 

arts service organizations with a US presence that 

organize convenings, lectures, workshops, and networking 

opportunities. One of these two organizations is the 

Armenian Center for Contemporary Experimental Art, 

which among its various services organizes meetings, 

seminars, conferences, and other opportunities for cultural 

exchange.76

• Education and training: We did not identify any international 

arts service organization providing targeted support in this 

area. 

• Promotion and audience development: We identified two 

international arts service organizations with a US presence 

that provide promotional and audience development services 

through such activities as the maintenance of artist or artwork 

directories, calendars of events, awards or award shows, and 

by promoting literary works. One of these two organizations 

is the Association for Asian Performance, which publishes 

the Asian Theatre Journal. The Asian Theatre Journal is 

dedicated to the performing arts of Asia and “aims to facilitate 

the exchange of knowledge throughout the international 

theatrical community.”77 

• Contracted group services/Space: We identified two 
Image 29. Jamal Ari Black (air) and Mervin Primeaux (right) with EDGEWORKS Dance Theater, 2011. Photograph by Isaac 

Oboka. Reproduced by permission from EDGEWORKS Dance Theater.

180
181 Part II

international arts service organizations with a US presence 

that provide contracted group services (e.g., healthcare, 

legal, business services, referrals or similar professional 

services) and/or space. One of these two organizations is 

the Cisneros Fontanals Arts Foundation, which is dedicated 

to the support of emerging and mid-career contemporary 

artists from Latin America and, as part of its grant programs, 

provides grantees with space to exhibit their work.78

We note that, in addition to organizations incorporated and/or 

operating within the United States, there are a number of governmental 

and nongovernmental agencies/organizations based outside of the 

country that offer financial support to diasporic artists and arts groups 

and to organizations showcasing artwork from origin countries. Several 

interview participants report obtaining grants and sponsorships from 

such sources as the Basque government, an array of Latin American 

countries, and the Swedish and Norwegian governments.

Arts service organizations with a national focus comprise the 

second largest portion of organizations in the US supports database (70 

organizations). Set forth below is an overview of the targeted programs 

provided by national arts service organizations.

• Financial support services: We identified 37 national 

arts service organizations that provide financial support 

particularly applicable to the field. Among these 

organizations is the Native Arts and Cultures Foundation, 

which is “dedicated exclusively to the appreciation and 

perpetuation of American Indian, Alaska Native and Native 

Hawaiian arts and culture” and provides grants for Native 

artists ($20,000 maximum for NACF Artist Fellowships), 

Native community projects (no funding amount listed), and 

operational support for Native arts organizations ($40,000 

maximum through the Regional Collaboration Pilot 

Program).79

• Advocacy and policy: We identified eight national arts 

service organizations that provide support in this area. 

Among these organizations is TAAC, referenced in Part 

I. As one core component of its services, TAAC monitors 

national legislation that may impact the culturally specific 

arts sector, including visiting Congressional offices to provide 

information on the needs of culturally specific artists and arts 

organizations as part of National Advocacy Day.80

• Convening and networking: We identified 28 national arts 

service organizations providing services in this category. One 

of these organizations is the Country Dance & Song Society, 

which among its various service areas organizes regional 

conferences to share ideas and resources, create stronger 

communities, and to support the organization of local and 

regional English and Anglo-American dance, music, and 

song activities.81

• Education and training: We identified 13 national arts 

service organizations providing education and training 

related services. One of these organizations is the Hispanic 

Organization of Latin Actors, which assists and strengthens 

Hispanic actors in part through its professional training unit 

of workshops and seminars.82

• Promotion and audience development: We identified 33 

national arts service organizations providing services in 

this area. Among these organizations is the Center for 

Asian American Media, which promotes Asian American 

viewpoints and stories in public media.83

• Contracted group services/Space: We identified three 

national arts service organizations offering services in 

this category. Among these organizations is the Asian Art 

Coordinating Council, whose art and design services include 

translation, exhibition management, traveling exhibition 

consulting services, and Asian art appraisal.84

Arts service organizations with a regional/state focus comprise 

the second smallest portion of organizations in the US supports database 

(61 organizations when not including state funders; these organizations 

are the largest portion of the database when including state funders). Set 

forth below is an overview of the targeted programs provided by these 

arts service organizations.

• Financial support services: We identified 33 regional/state 
Overview of Characteristics 182

arts service organizations that provide financial support 

particularly applicable to the field. Among these organizations 

is the Asian Pacific Islander Cultural Center, whose services 

include fiscal sponsorship.85

• Advocacy and policy: We identified nine regional/state arts 

service organizations that provide services in this area. One 

of these organizations is the Latino Arts Network, whose 

services include advocating for greater public funding for the 

arts in California.86

• Convening and networking: We identified 27 regional/state 

arts service organizations providing services in this area. 

One of these organizations is the Polish American Council 

of Texas, which facilitates the networking of Polish groups in 

the state through the organization of conferences for member 

organizations, in addition to providing other services.87

• Education and training: We identified 11 regional/state 

arts service organizations providing services in this category. 

One of these organizations is the Association for the 

Advancement of Filipino American Arts and Culture, which 

offers a Pilipino Artists Network program that provides 

numerous arts services, including training and professional 

development for artists.88

• Promotion and audience development: We identified 15 

regional/state arts service organizations providing services 

in this category. Among these organizations is the Northern 

California Spelmanslag, which presents performances of 

Scandinavian folk music and dance and maintains contacts 

with Scandinavian organizations and agencies to support the 

organization of Scandinavian arts and culture activities.89

• Contracted group services/Space: We identified seven 

regional/state arts organizations that provide professional 

services or offer space for events and rehearsals for arts 

organizations. One of these organizations is the Cajun French 

Music Association, which among its various services provides 

musicians with free access to health care information and 

screening through the organization’s partnership with the 

Southwest Louisiana Area Health Education Center.90

Arts service organizations with a local focus comprise the largest 

component of the US supports database (77 organizations). Set forth 

below is an overview of the targeted programs provided by these arts 

service organizations.

• Financial support services: We identified 27 local arts service 

organizations that provide financial support particularly 

applicable to the field. Among these organizations is the 

Italian Cultural Heritage Foundation of Santa Barbara, 

which provides funds for scholarships, awards, education, 

and sponsors cultural programs and events.91

• Advocacy and policy: We identified three local arts service 

organizations that provide support in this category. One of 

these three is the Asian American Performers Action Coalition 

(AAPAC), which focuses on the expansion of “the perception 

of Asian American performers in order to increase their 

access to and representation on New York City’s stages.”92 

AAPAC’s work has included the hosting of symposia and 

a roundtable discussion directed to this purpose, and the 

gathering of statistical information on the ethnic makeup of 

performers in New York City’s mainstream productions.

• Convening and networking: We identified 22 local arts 

54%	
  

33%	
   32%	
  

16%	
   13%	
  

8%	
  

Financial	
  Support	
   Convening	
  &	
  

Networking	
  

Promo@on	
  &	
  

Audience	
  

Development	
  

Contracted	
  Group	
  

Services	
  

Educa@on	
  &	
  

Training	
  

Advocacy	
  &	
  Policy	
  

Figure 35. US arts service organizations by services provided 

Source: US supports database (n=248). Figures have been rounded.
183 Part II

service organizations providing services in this category. 

One of these organizations is the Ethnic Heritage Council, 

whose member organizations include hundreds of ethnic 

and cultural organizations that work together to organize 

various activities, including festivals, workshops, meetings, 

and publications intended to “preserve and document 

ethnic heritage, advance cross-cultural understanding and 

inform area residents about the ethnic experience in the 

Northwest.”93 

• Education and training: We identified eight local arts service 

organizations providing education and training related 

services. One of these organizations is the Atlanta Piping 

Foundation, which offers piping and drumming workshops 

led by internationally-recognized instructors in addition to 

the organization of other activities.94

• Promotion and audience development: We identified 23 

local arts service organizations providing services in this 

category. One of these organizations is the Austin Latino 

Music Association, which provides a calendar of music 

events and a Latino artist directory to further its mission of 

increasing knowledge and awareness of local musicians and 

historical figures in the city’s Latino music scene.95

• Contracted group services/Space: We identified 27 local arts 

service organizations that provide services in this category. 

Among these organizations is the Asian Arts Initiative, which 

operates a multi-tenant community based arts building in 

Philadelphia’s Chinatown North (the Multi-Tenant Arts 

Facility). The Multi-Tenant Arts Facility supports both the 

Asian Arts Initiative and other arts and community based 

organizations and artists through the provision of space 

that accommodates individual artist studios, administrative 

activities, rehearsals, performances, and other activities.96

Further details regarding arts service organizations and agencies with 

targeted programming for the ethnocultural arts field are available in 

Appendix D.

An examination of the US supports database indicates 

that targeted support services are relatively evenly distributed across 

service categories, although more services exist in the area of financial 

support. The top four services provided by arts service organizations, 

including governmental agencies, are (i) financial support (54 percent 

of organizations), (ii) convening and networking (33 percent of 

organizations), (iii) promotion and audience development (32 percent 

of organizations), and (iv) contracted group services (16 percent of 

organizations) (see fig. 35). We note that these figures are based on a 

count of each type of service offered by a governmental agency and 

arts service organization but not a count of each program offered 

by these organizations. In Characteristics by Pan Racial Group, we 

conduct a similar analysis of the specific programs offered by arts service 

organizations.

When comparing the top organizational needs identified by 

survey respondents (see fig. 25) with the targeted services offered by arts 

service organizations, we observe that identified needs only loosely align 

with services offered. A high majority of respondents (and interview 

participants – see Needs and Supports: A Life Cycle Approach) stress the 

need for financial resources, particularly to increase contributed revenue, 

but financial support comprises little more than half of services offered. 

More closely aligned are promotion and audience development related 

services, which comprise a sizable portion of the arts service field (almost 

one-third), and audience development related needs, which are of high 

to medium concern for the majority of respondents. Less well aligned are 

collaboration and networking related services, which comprise one-third 

of the service offerings of arts service organizations, and collaboration 

and networking related needs, which are of medium to low importance 

to the vast majority of survey respondents.

Considering the expressed needs of survey respondents (that 

is, the services that organizations are accessing), the services offered 

compared to the services accessed more closely align. For example, 

financial support and convening and networking are the two most 

common services offered by arts service organizations and are also 

the two most accessed services by ethnocultural arts organizations (see 

fig. 28). Advocacy and policy related services represent only a small 

portion of targeted arts services and are also one of the least frequently 

accessed services by ethnocultural arts organizations. Characteristics 
Overview of Characteristics 184

by Pan Racial Group and Characteristics by Province/Region contain 

additional information regarding US support programs, and Needs and 

Supports: A Life Cycle Approach contains a more in-depth discussion 

comparing field needs with existing services.

Notes

1. On September 19, 2012, we downloaded the CRA’s datafile 

of registered charities, which contained records from 75,261 organizations 

as of that date (the CRA updates its records on a daily basis). “Charities 

and giving: Charities Listings,” Canada Revenue Agency, last accessed 

September 19, 2012, http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/chrts-gvng/lstngs/

menu-eng.html. As detailed in the Methodology, we then narrowed down 

this list based on arts and culture related category codes provided in the 

CRA file. This narrowed list contained records for 10,177 organizations. 

2. As noted in the Methodology, we coded the artistic disciplines 

engaged in by organizations based on information available to us and therefore 

there is a particular level of subjectivity to this coding category.

3. Statistics Canada, Immigration and Ethnocultural Diversity in Canada: 

National Household Survey 2011 (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2013), 4, http://

www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/99-010-x2011001-eng.

pdf.

4. Percentage calculated from “2006 Census Area Profiles,” Statistics 

Canada, last modified July 25, 2014, 

https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/rel/

rp-eng.cfm?lang=e&apath=3&detail=0&dim=0&fl=a&free=0&gc=0&gid=0

&gk=0&grp=1&pid=92623&prid=0&ptype=89103&s=0&showall=0&sub=

0&temporal=2006&theme=80&vid=0&vnamee=&vnamef=; “2011 National 

Household Survey: Data tables,” Statistics Canada, last modified March 4, 

2014, http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/dp-pd/dt-td/Rp-eng.cfm?

lang=e&apath=3&detail=0&dim=0&fl=a&free=0&gc=0&gid=0&gk=0&grp

=1&pid=107647&prid=0&ptype=105277&s=0&showall=0&sub=0&tempora

l=2013&theme=95&vid=0&vnamee=&vnamef.

5. Figures cover the years between 2010 and 2012. The average and 

median annual incomes were calculated as follows: (i) for each organization we 

calculated the average annual gross income for amounts reported across the 

three-year period to arrive at one number for each organization and (ii) we then 

calculated the average and median values for the field using the one annual 

gross income figure for each organization. For the maximum value, we pulled 

the highest number reported by any organization in any year during the threeyear period.

6. Similar to some extent to the United States’ Cultural Data Project, 

CADAC works with partner provincial arts agencies and the Canada Council 

to pull information related to organizations receiving operating support at the 

provincial and federal levels; however, not all provincial agencies are CADAC 

members and no territorial agencies are members (i.e., Québec, Nova Scotia, 

Prince Edward Island, the Northwest Territories, and the Yukon are not 
185 Part II

members, and thus information pertaining to arts organizations located in these 

areas only covers organizations supported by the Canada Council).

7. Email exchange between Kaitlyn Wittig Mengüç and Ellen Busby 

(Financial Coordinator, Arts Disciplines Division, Canada Council for the 

Arts) on May 28, 2014, regarding aggregate revenue data for Canadian arts 

organizations registered in CADAC for the 2012-2013 fiscal year. Email on file 

with Plural project co-leads.

8. “Aboriginal Arts Office: Find Aboriginal Arts Grants,” Canada 

Council for the Arts, last accessed August 10, 2014, http://canadacouncil.ca/

en/aboriginal-arts-office/find-a-grant. Current through August 2014. 

9. “Equity Office: Find Equity Office Grants,” Canada Council for the 

Arts, last accessed August 10, 2014, http://canadacouncil.ca/en/equity-office/

find-a-grant. Current through August 2014.

10. “Alphabetical Listing of Canadian Heritage Funding and Assistance 

Programs”, Canadian Heritage, date last modified June 23, 2014, http://www.

pch.gc.ca/eng/1268917737337/1268917925906. Current through August 

2014.

11. “Aboriginal Peoples and Communities: Funding,” Aboriginal 

Affairs and Northern Development Canada, date last modified January 31, 

2014, https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100014444/1100100014445

. Current through August 2014.

12. Geoffrey Gurd (Senior Policy Manager, Aboriginal Affairs and 

Northern Development Canada), phone conversation with Mina Matlon and 

Ingrid Van Haastrecht, November 9, 2012, notes on file with Plural project 

co-leads.

13. “Grants: Aboriginal Arts,” Alberta Foundation for the Arts, last 

accessed August 10, 2014, http://www.affta.ab.ca/Grants/Aboriginal-Arts. 

Current through August 2014.

14. “Organizations: Aboriginal Organizations,” British Columbia 

Arts Council, last accessed August 10, 2014, https://www.bcartscouncil.ca/

organizations/aboriginal.htm. Current through August 2014.

15. “Arts: Aboriginal Arts Development Award Programs,” First 

Peoples’ Cultural Council, last accessed August 10, 2014, http://www.fpcc.ca/

arts/Programs/. Current through August 2014.

16. “Apply for a Grant: Grants for Artists and Individuals: Visual Arts,” 

Manitoba Arts Council, last accessed August 10, 2014, http://artscouncil.

mb.ca/apply-for-a-grant/grants-for-artists-and-individuals/; “Community 

Connections and Access Program,” Manitoba Arts Council, last accessed 

August 10, 2014, http://artscouncil.mb.ca/2014/06/community-connectionsand-access-program-2/. Current through August 2014.

17. “Grants and Funding: Artists,” Saskatchewan Arts Board, last 

accessed August 10, 2014, http://www.artsboard.sk.ca/grants. Current through 

August 2014.

18. “Aboriginal Arts,” Ontario Arts Council, last accessed August 10, 

2014, http://www.arts.on.ca/Page2837.aspx; “Granting Programs & Awards: 

Alphabetical List of Granting Programs,” Ontario Arts Council, last accessed 

August 10, 2014, http://www.arts.on.ca/Page3499.aspx. Current through 

August 2014.

19. “Regional programs,” Conseil des arts et des lettres du Québec, 

last accessed August 10, 2014, http://www.calq.gouv.qc.ca/regions/sommaire_

en.htm. Current through August 2014.

20. “Services: Arts – Partnership for Community Cultural Activities 

(Grant),” New Brunswick Tourism, Heritage and Culture, last accessed August 

10, 2014, http://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/departments/thc/services/

services_renderer.201064.Arts_-_Partnership_for_Community_Cultural_

Activities_%28Grant%29.html. Current through August 2014.

21. “Investing in our Future,” Government of Nova Scotia, 

Department of Communities, Culture, and Heritage, last accessed August 10, 

2014, http://cch.novascotia.ca/investing-in-our-future; “Gaelic Affairs: What 

We Do,” Gaelic Affairs, last accessed August 19, 2014, http://gaelic.novascotia.

ca/work; “Grants and Contributions Program,” African Nova Scotian Affairs, 

last accessed August 19, 2014, http://ansa.novascotia.ca/grant; “Services and 

Programs,” Acadian Affairs, last accessed August 19, 2014, http://acadien.

novascotia.ca/en/services. Current through August 2014.

22. “Funding,” Government of Yukon Department of Tourism and 

Culture, last accessed August 10, 2014, http://www.tc.gov.yk.ca/funding_

in_yukon.html; “Culture Quest,” Government of Yukon Department of 

Tourism and Culture, last accessed August 19, 2014, http://www.tc.gov.yk.ca/

cq.html; “New Canadians Event Fund,” Government of Yukon Department 

of Tourism and Culture, last accessed August 19, 2014, http://www.tc.gov.

yk.ca/NewCanadians.html; “Yukon Historic Resources Fund,” Government 

of Yukon Department of Tourism and Culture, last accessed August 19, 2014, 

http://www.tc.gov.yk.ca/yhrf.html.

23. “Culture and Heritage,” Government of the Northwest Territories, 

last accessed August 10, 2014, http://www.ece.gov.nt.ca/culture-and-heritage.

24. “Community Programs,” Prince of Wales Northern Heritage 

Centre, last accessed August 10, 2014, http://www.pwnhc.ca/programs/

comm_programs.asp.

25. “Elders and Youth: Introduction,” Nunavut Department of 

Culture, Language, Elders, and Youth, last accessed August 10, 2014, http://

www.ch.gov.nu.ca/en/EldersYouthIntro.aspx.

26. “Edmonton Arts Council: Grant Programs: Grants & Awards 

for Individuals: Cultural Diversity in the Arts,” Edmonton Arts Council, last 

accessed August 21, 2014, http://grants.edmontonarts.ca/eac_grants_-_

grants_and_awards_for_individual_artists/grants_awards_for_individual_

artists_-_cultural_diversity/.
Overview of Characteristics 186

27. “Community Arts: Grant Types + Eligibility,” Toronto Arts 

Council, last accessed August 10, 2014, http://www.torontoartscouncil.org/

Grant-programs/Community-Arts.

28. “Call for Proposals from Culturally Diverse Artists in Dance,” 

Conseil des arts de Montréal, last accessed August 21, 2014, http://www.

artsmontreal.org/en/news/2014-07-24/call-for-proposals-from-culturallydiverse-artists-in-dance; “Supporting Arts: Cultural diversity – ConsultationService,” Conseil des arts de Montréal, last accessed August 10, 2014, http://

www.artsmontreal.org/en/artists/cultural-diversity/consultation-service.

29. “Home,” Shevchenko Foundation, last accessed August 19, 2014, 

http://shevchenkofoundation.com/index.html.

30. “Grant Application: Arts Program,” Shevchenko Foundation, last 

accessed July 7, 2014, http://shevchenkofoundation.com/grant-arts.html.

31. “About NIMAC,” National Indigenous Media Arts Coalition, last 

accessed July 7, 2014, http://www.nationalimac.org/ABOUT-NIMAC.

32. Ibid.

33. “Goals and Objectives of The Serbian Heritage Academy of 

Canada,” Serbian Heritage Academy of Canada, last accessed August 19, 

2014, http://www.serbianheritageacademyofcanada.com/index.html.

34. “Indigenous Arts Programs,” The Banff Centre, last accessed 

August 10, 2014, http://www.banffcentre.ca/indigenous-arts/programs/.

35. “Home,” Ukrainian Canadian Congress National Arts Council, 

last accessed August 10, 2014, http://nac.ucc.ca/.

36. “About Us,” Ontario Trillium Foundation, last accessed August 10, 

2014, http://www.otf.ca/en/aboutUs/about_us.asp.

37. “Granting Programs,” Ontario Trillium Foundation, last accessed 

August 10, 2014, http://www.otf.ca/en/applyForaGrant/granting_programs.

asp.

38. “Mission,” Association acadienne des artistes professionnel du 

Nouveau-Brunswick, last accessed August 10, 2014, http://www.aaapnb.ca/

english/.

39. “What CPAMO Does,” Cultural Pluralism in the Arts Movement 

Ontario (CPAMO), last accessed August 10, 2014, http://cpamo.wordpress.

com/what-cpamo-does/.

40. “About ACI Manitoba,” ACI Manitoba, last accessed August 10, 

2014, http://www.creativemanitoba.ca/about.

41. “About Indigenous Programs,” ACI Manitoba, last accessed 

August 10, 2014, http://www.creativemanitoba.ca/indigenous/about.

42. “ANSMA’s Goals and Objectives,” African Nova Scotian Music 

Association, last accessed July 7, 2014, http://www.ansma.com/objectives.

html.

43. “Talent,” Folkorama Talent, last accessed July 7, 2014, http://

www.folklorama.ca/talent.

44. “Supporting Arts: Cultural diversity,” Diversité Artistique Montréal 

(DAM), last accessed July 7, 2014, http://www.artsmontreal.org/en/artists/

cultural-diversity/dam.

45. “About Us: Strategies,” Vancouver Asian Heritage Month Society, 

last accessed August 23, 2014, http://explorasian.org/about-us/.

46. “About us,” En’owkin Centre, last accessed August 10, 2014, 

http://www.enowkincentre.ca/about.html.

47. “About Us: Mandate,” Saskatchewan Intercultural Association 

Inc., last accessed August 10, 2014, http://saskintercultural.org/about-us/

mandate.

48. “Programs: Performing Arts Groups,” Saskatchewan Intercultural 

Association Inc., last accessed August 10, 2014, http://saskintercultural.org/

programs/performing-arts/performing-arts-groups.

49. “Home,” Hungarian Canadian Cultural Centre, last accessed 

August 10, 2014, http://hccc-e.org/index.php.

50. As of October 2012, the NCCS 2012 Business Master File contained 

97,826 organizations classified as art, culture, and humanities organizations. 

Detailed in the Methodology, the BMF was one of the principal files we used to 

construct the US ethnocultural arts organization database.

51. As noted in the Methodology, we coded artistic discipline based on 

information available to us and therefore there is a particular level of subjectivity 

to this coding category.

52. Nonprofit Finance Fund, 2014 State of the Nonprofit Sector Survey: 

National Results (Arts Edition) (Nonprofit Finance Fund, March 2014), 3, http://

nonprofitfinancefund.org/files/nff2014survey_charts_artsedition.pdf. 

53. Data from the Nonprofit Finance Fund survey is based on a 

survey of nonprofit leaders conducted between January and February 2014. 

As is the case with much research directed to the arts sector, a review of survey 

methodology indicates that the survey over represents responses from highincome organizations and under represents responses from lower income 

organizations; however, the survey makes no pretense as to its representativeness 

as its methodology clearly states that conclusions drawn from the survey may not 

represent the nonprofit sector as a whole. Nonprofit Finance Fund, 2014 State 

of the Sector Survey: Methodology Statement (Nonprofit Finance Fund, March 2014), 

http://nonprofitfinancefund.org/files/images/2014_survey_methodology.pdf.

54. GrantStation, State of Grantseeking Fall 2013 Fact Sheet; Small 

Organizations: Annual Budgets Under $100,000 (GrantStation, 2013), 5, 

http://www.grantstation.com/includes/sog/2013/Budget%20Small%20

Organizations%20Fall%202013.pdf. GrantStation surveys are conducted 

electronically twice a year and do not use scientific methods to ensure 

representativeness. We note that a significant number of small organization 

survey respondents were arts, culture, and humanities organizations.

55. Nonprofit Finance Fund, 2014 State of the Nonprofit Sector Survey: 

National Results (Arts Edition), 3. 
187 Part II

56. Figures cover the years between 2009 and 2012. The average and 

median annual incomes were calculated as follows: (i) for each organization we 

calculated the average annual gross income for amounts reported across the 

four-year period to arrive at one number for each organization and (ii) we then 

calculated the average and median values for the field using the one annual 

gross income figure for each organization. For the maximum value, we pulled 

the highest number reported by any organization in any year during the fouryear period. 

57. Of these organizations, 23 reported annual gross incomes of $5 

million or more in at least two of the four years between 2009 and 2012. 

58. As noted in the Methodology, organizations regularly reporting 

under $5,000 in gross annual receipts are not required to file any form or 

otherwise register with the IRS, organizations reporting under $50,000 in 

annual gross receipts are not required to file a Form 990 or Form 990-EZ, and 

Section 7871 organizations are not required to file financial returns with the 

IRS (we identified 27 possible 7871s that are included in the database). For 

organizations that are not 7871s, we are unable to determine if they did not file 

because their gross incomes fell under the threshold amounts or simply because 

they have failed to file their tax forms in a timely manner. If the former situation 

explains the reason for the missing financial data, then the average and median 

gross incomes reported in this section would likely be significantly lower. 

59. Sarah L. Pettljohn, The Nonprofit Sector in Brief: Public Charities, Giving, 

and Volunteering, 2013 (Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2013), 2-3, http://

www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412923-The-Nonprofit-Sector-in-Brief.pdf. 

Data is based on financial information reported by tax-exempt organization 

to the IRS. 

60. For example, in both the GrantStation and NFF surveys, a greater 

percentage of arts, culture, and humanities organizations report incomes under 

$100,000 than do survey respondents as a whole. Nonprofit Finance Fund, 

2014 State of the Nonprofit Sector Survey: National Results (Arts Edition), 3; Nonprofit 

Finance Fund, 2014 State of the Nonprofit Sector Survey: National Results (Nonprofit 

Finance Fund, March 2014), 2, http://nonprofitfinancefund.org/files/

docs/2014/2014survey_natl_full_results.pdf; GrantStation, State of Grantseeking 

Fall 2013 Fact Sheet; Mission Focus: Arts, Culture, and Humanities (GrantStation, 

2013), 5, http://www.grantstation.com/includes/sog/2013/Mission%20

Arts%20Culture%20Humanities%20Fall%202013.pdf.

61. Nonprofit Finance Fund, 2014 State of the Nonprofit Sector Survey: 

National Results (Arts Edition), 3. 

62. We note that US-SQ-8 instructed respondents to not include inkind contributions (addressed in US-SQ-10). As corporate support commonly 

occurs in the form of in-kind contributions, corporate support could be higher.

63. Americans for the Arts, Revenue Sources for Nonprofit Arts Organizations 

(Estimated) (2014), data received via email from Ben Davidson (Senior Director 

of Research Services, Americans for the Arts) to Kaitlyn Wittig Mengüç on 

February 18, 2014. Email on file with Plural project co-leads.

64. Numbers do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. 

65. “Lifetime Honors: NEA National Heritage Fellowships,” National 

Endowment for the Arts, last accessed August 25, 2014, http://arts.gov/

honors/heritage; “Lifetime Honors: NEA National Heritage Fellowships: 

Make a Nomination,” last accessed August 26, 2014, http://arts.gov/honors/

heritage/nomination; “Grants: Art Works: Folk & Traditional Arts,” National 

Endowment for the Arts, last accessed August 12, 2014, http://arts.gov/grantsorganizations/art-works/folk-traditional-arts; “Grants: Art Works: Award 

Information,” National Endowment for the Arts, last accessed August 23, 2014, 

http://arts.gov/grants-organizations/art-works/award-information.

66. “Grants: Art Works: Award Information,” National Endowment 

for the Arts.

67. “MAC Grants,” Missouri Arts Council, last accessed August 23, 

2014, http://mac.culturegrants.org/navigation/links/page/mac-grants.

68. “Funding for Organizations: Preserving Diverse Cultures,” 

Pennsylvania Council on the Arts, last accessed August 12, 2014, http://

pacouncilonthearts.org/pca.cfm?id=47&level=Third.

69. “Entry Track to Arts Organizations & Arts Programs (AOAP), 

Pennsylvania Council on the Arts, last accessed August 23, 2014, http://

pacouncilonthearts.org/pca.cfm?id=2&level=Third&sid=48; “Arts 

Organizations & Arts Programs (AOAP) Track,” Pennsylvania Council on 

the Arts, last accessed August 23, 2014, http://pacouncilonthearts.org/pca.

cfm?id=1&level=Third&sid=48.

70. Pennsylvania Council on the Arts, “Folk and Traditional Arts 

Apprenticeship Guidelines” (Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Council on the Arts), 

4, http://pacouncilonthearts.org/docs_upload/FAguides2014REV5_9_14.

pdf.

71. “SC Arts Commission Grants Programs: Folklife & Traditional 

Arts Grant Guidelines,” South Carolina Arts Commission, last accessed August 

12, 2014, http://www.southcarolinaarts.com/grants/organizations/folklife.

shtml.

72. “SC Arts Commission Grants for Individual Artists: Traditional 

Arts Apprenticeship Initiative,” South Carolina Arts Commission, last 

accessed August 12, 2014, http://www.southcarolinaarts.com/grants/artists/

folklifeapprentice.shtml.

73. “Grants & Programs: Folk and Traditional Arts,” Hawaii State 

Foundation on Culture and the Arts, last accessed August 12, 2014, http://

sfca.hawaii.gov/grants-programs/folk-traditional-arts/.
Overview of Characteristics 188

74. “Cultural Equity Initiatives (CEI),” San Francisco Arts Commission, 

last accessed August 23, 2014, http://www.sfartscommission.org/ceg/grantprograms/grant-categories/organizations/cultural-equity-initiatives-cei/; 

“Native American Arts & Cultural Traditions Grants (NAACT),” San Francisco 

Arts Commission, last accessed August 23, 2014, http://www.sfartscommission.

org/ceg/grant-programs/grant-categories/organizations/native-americanarts-and-cultural-traditions-grants-naact/.

75. “Our Grants: Focus Areas and Allocations,” Y&S Nazarian 

Family Foundation, last accessed August 12, 2014, http://www.

yandsnazarianfamilyfoundation.org/our-grants/focus-and-allocations.

76. “The Purpose,” Armenian Center for Contemporary Experimental 

Art, last accessed August 24, 2014, http://www.accea.info/en/home/#.

77. “Asian Theatre Journal,” Association for Asian Performance, last 

accessed August 12, 2014, http://www.yavanika.org/aaponline/?page_id=21.

78. “Program Overview,” Cisneros Fontanals Arts Foundation, last 

accessed August 12, 2014, http://www.cifo.org/en/exhibitions-and-programs/

grants-and-commissions.

79. “Programs,” Native Arts and Cultures Foundation, last accessed 

August 12, 2014, http://www.nativeartsandcultures.org/programs.

80. “About,” The Association of American Cultures, last accessed 

August 12, 2014, http://www.taac.com/about.

81. “About Us: Mission Statement,” Country Dance & Song Society, 

last accessed August 13, 2014, http://www.cdss.org/mission-statement.html.

82. “About Us: Mission Statement,” Hispanic Organization of Latin 

Actors, accessed July 7, 2014, http://www.hellohola.org/mission_statement.

html.

83. “Public Media,” Center for Asian American Media, last accessed 

August 12, 2014, http://caamedia.org/public-media/.

84. “Art and Design Services,” Asian Art Coordinating Council, last 

accessed August 12, 2014, http://asianartcc.org/art%20&design.htm.

85. “APICC Tech Services,” Asian Pacific Islander Cultural 

Center, last accessed July 7, 2014, http://www.apiculturalcenter.org/index.

php?option=com_content&view=article&id=176&Itemid=67.

86. “Advocacy,” Latino Arts Network, last accessed July 7, 2014, 

http://latinoarts.net/?page_id=55.

87. “About Us,” Polish American Council of Texas, last accessed 

August 12, 2014, http://polishamericancounciloftexas.org/wp/about-us/.

88. “Our Programs: Pilipino Artists Network,” FilAM ARTS, last 

accessed August 12, 2014 http://www.filamarts.org/pilipino-artist-network-1/.

89. “About the Northern California Spelmanslag,” Northern California 

Spelmanslag, last accessed August 12, 2014, http://www.norcalspelmanslag.

org/ncsaboutncs.html#about.

90. “Services,” The Cajun French Music Association, last accessed 

August 12, 2014, http://www.cajunfrenchmusic.org/services.html.

91. “About us,” Italian Cultural Heritage Foundation of Santa Barbara, 

last accessed August 12, 2014, http://italianheritagesb.org/about-us/.

92. “About,” The Asian American Performers Action Coalition, last 

accessed August 12, 2014, http://www.aapacnyc.org/.

93. “About EHC: Who we are,” Ethnic Heritage Council, last accessed 

August 12, 2014, http://www.ethnicheritagecouncil.org/who.html.

94. “Up and coming Events,” Atlanta Piping Foundation, last accessed 

August 12, 2014, http://www.atlantapipingfoundation.com/upcoming.shtml.

95. “About Alma,” Austin Latino Music Association, last accessed 

August 12, 2014, http://www.austinlatinomusic.com/about-alma/.

96. “Programs: Multi-Tenant Arts Facility,” Asian Arts Initiative, 

last accessed August 12, 2014, http://asianartsinitiative.org/programs/multitenant-arts-facility.
Image 30. Raul Pizzaro / Self-Help Graphics & Art. Sharia, 2012. Serigraph, 

30 x 26 in. Reproduced by permission from Self-Help Graphics & Art.

189
The Evolution of Arab-American Literary Arts

The Evolution of Arab-American Literary Arts

by Alex Aubry

The emergence of Arab-American authors onto the national literary 

landscape in the past few decades can be attributed to social, cultural, 

and political shifts that have thrust their work into public consciousness. 

Although it gained heightened visibility post-9/11, the Arab-American 

literary tradition dates back to the turn of the last century when 

immigrant poets came to the US from what was then known as greater 

Syria, which included Lebanon. The most well-known of these was the 

Lebanese-born poet Kahlil Gibran, author of the best selling poem 

‘’The Prophet’’. In 1920, Gibran and other immigrant writers of Arab 

heritage founded the short-lived New York Pen League; as the first 

Arab-American literary society, it was responsible for establishing ArabAmerican literature in the US. These authors, most of whom were 

Christian, wrote in Arabic and English in what is known as the Mahjar 

(émigré) school of Arab-American writing. Most of their works bridged 

East and West by exploring the commonalities between both cultures, 

as Arab-American literature during this period reflected a desire to 

assimilate within mainstream US culture.1 

Grappling with the question of race and assimilation

Historically, within the black-white division of American racial 

politics, Arab-Americans have had the particular burden of being 

perceived as occupying an indeterminate place in the country’s racial 

mix. The first wave of Arab immigrants found themselves in a heavily 

assimilationist context, and maintaining Arab identity became a matter 

of importance to many within the community. In the first half of the 20th

Century, the idea that American identity was closely linked to a western 

European and Christian definition of “whiteness” was strongly prevalent, 

and thus aware of this sentiment, Arab-American writers consciously 

tried to write themselves into these categories. Mahjar authors, for 

example, often stressed their Christian identity in their writing in an 

attempt to engage with American readers and familiarize the exotic. 

Yet despite the early flourishing of Arab-American literature, 

the New York Pen League eventually disbanded after a few years and 

the art form experienced an extended period of inactivity due to several 

factors, including xenophobia and economic struggles. By 1924, the 

Johnson-Reed Quota Act had drastically limited the number of new 

Arab immigrants to the US, and the absence of contact with their 

home culture accelerated the process of assimilation among early Arab 

immigrants, so much so that they risked loosing their Arab identity 

altogether. 

Redefining & challenging Arab-American identity

As observed by poet and scholar Lisa Suhair Majaj, a dramatic 

shift occurred after the 1960s following the Civil Rights and Black 

Power movements, which created a space for ethnic literary voices to 

(re)emerge.2 Arab-Americans turned to the arts and literature as a form 

of cultural expression at a time when an audience was emerging for this 

kind of literature as well as publishers willing to bring it to the public. 

This resurgence was fueled by an influx of new Arab immigrants who 

were predominantly Muslim and hailed from across the Middle East and 

North Africa. Comprised of a high percentage of educated professionals, 

this group also continued to be engaged in Arab culture and politics 

while carving out new lives in the US. 

In the late 1960s, political events in the Middle East, and in 

particular the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, “forced Arab–Americans to grapple 

with their identity and with the ‘write or be written’ imperative: Define 

yourself or others will define you.”3 Writers began to explore their Arab 

roots, touching on previously sensitive subjects such as racial identity. 

Early immigrant communities had largely assimilated by passing for 

“white.” But with the increased politicization of Arab identity, “passing” 

was no longer an option. As author Joanna Kadi observed, “Our race 

is simultaneously emphasized and ignored. For long periods of time no 

one can remember that Arabs even exist....this forgetfulness changes 

once there is another ‘crisis in the Middle East.’ ... During crises, Arabs 

190
Part II

can be reassured we exist as a distinct racial group.”4

In contrast to their predecessors, this new generation of ArabAmerican writers increasingly began to interrogate and challenge US 

racial categories. In his writing, poet Lawrence Joseph explored the 

ambiguous position Arabs have traditionally held within America’s 

racial politics. His poem titled “Sand Nigger,” a term that invokes ethnic 

ambiguity within America’s defined racial divisions, addresses the shifting 

lines of inclusion and exclusion that form part of the Arab-American 

experience. “I am the light-skinned nigger/ with black eyes and the look 

difficult to figure—a look of indifference, a look to kill... who waves his 

hands, nice enough to pass.”5

That Arabs are legally defined as “white” without receiving 

the advantages of such mainstream identification has become a 

recurring theme in more recent Arab-American literature. Through 

her work, novelist Diana Abu-Jaber points out that while some ArabAmericans might be able to “pass” as white, others are unable to do 

so, succumbing instead to the cultural pressures to assimilate which 

may encourage violence of a different kind. In her first novel, Arabian 

Jazz, a book widely described as the first mainstream Arab-American 

novel when it was published in 1993, the main character grapples with 

her biracial identity as the daughter of an Arab father and American 

mother, while trying to gain larger acceptance of those around her.6

Exploring new genres & creating a sense of community

By the 1980s and ‘90s several groundbreaking anthologies and 

periodicals emerged, which helped generate interest in Arab-American 

literature, including Grape Leaves: A Century of Arab–American Poetry (1988), 

Food for Our Grandmothers: Writings By Arab-American and Arab-Canadian 

Feminists (1994), and Post Gibran: Anthology of New Arab American Writing

(1999). These books not only showcased established writers while 

introducing emerging authors to a broader audience, but also made 

Arab-American writers realize that they constituted a community. As 

writer and critic Evelyn Shakir observed, “In the early 1980s, I don’t 

think such writers necessarily thought of themselves as ‘Arab-American 

writers.’ ...These days they and those who follow in their footsteps are 

almost forced to identify themselves in this way, or else explain why they 

refuse that label.”7

This renewed self-awareness also found writers exploring new 

forms of expression such as fiction, an underrepresented genre among 

early Arab-American writers. The reasons for the dearth of fiction 

novels in Arab-American literature were often complicated by several 

perceptions. In the past, the formula for publishing successful ethnic 

writers involved producing works that explored a clash between “old 

world” traditional values and those of a progressive utopian American 

culture. As a result Arab-American writers were reluctant to speak out 

lest their words were used against their own culture. But the last decade 

has seen the publication of a number of Arab-American novels exploring 

sensitive issues such as gender and sexuality with more openness than in 

the past.

In the past decade, drama has emerged as the latest genre within 

Arab-American literary arts.8 Writers such as Betty Shamieh and Jamil 

Khoury, the latter a co-founder of Silk Road Rising and a Plural project 

interviewee, are increasingly producing plays that bring Arab-American 

stories to the stage, while the first collection of works by contemporary 

Arab-American playwrights, Four Arab American Plays: Works by Leila Buck, 

Jamil Khoury, Yussef El Guindi, and Lameece Issaq & Jacob Kader (ed. Michael 

Malek Najjar), was published as recently as December 31, 2013. 

9/11 & a renewed sense of urgency

Although Arab-American literature continued to grow 

throughout the 1990s, for many Arab-Americans the process of 

integration was interrupted by the September 11, 2001 attacks. Author 

Naomi Shihab Nye stressed the need to address the darker side of the 

Arab-American experience formed by stereotypes, racism, and political 

agendas that are not always easy or positive. “There is a real sense 

among Arab-American writers of a need for balance, with 9/11 and 

the demonization of people in that part of the world,” said Nye, who is 

the daughter of a Palestinian Muslim father and an American Christian 

mother.9 “All the bad headlines are just very sad fragments of the true 

story. We feel a larger need than we did 20 years ago to create positive 

cultural stories, forces and linkages.”10 Similar to past crises involving 

the US and the Middle East, 9/11 shifted attention back to a somewhat 

invisible minority in the country. Fueled by an upsurge of interest in all 

things Arab and Muslim, the attacks also helped broaden the mainstream 

191
The Evolution of Arab-American Literary Arts

appeal of literature by American authors of Arab descent. As a result 

more Arab-American writers are getting published, while their work is 

gradually finding a place in more anthologies. 

Current challenges & responses

The early years of the 21st century have witnessed a number 

of new works of Arab-American fiction and poetry, autobiographical 

memoirs, anthologies, and a growing body of literary criticism. However, 

several factors, including the consolidation of the publishing industry and 

the attendant focus on profitability, anti-Arab and anti-Muslim racism, 

and the increasing conglomeratizing of bookstores, have continued to 

limit the number and range of works that are being published. Despite 

promising inroads, Arab-American literature is still far from integrated 

into the mainstream of US cultural criticism. Although recent anthologies 

have created a visible community of Arab-American authors, many of 

these writers remain mostly unknown, not only to the larger public, but 

even to experts in the field of contemporary American literature. 

Such continuing challenges have spurred increasing numbers of 

Arab-Americans to create their own venues to present works of literary 

and cultural production, especially after the 1991 Gulf War. A key driver 

in this movement has been the Radius of Arab-American Writers, Inc. 

(RAWI), the New York-based nonprofit literary organization dedicated 

to supporting and disseminating creative and scholarly writing by ArabAmericans. The organization has grown immensely since its inception 

in 1993 and now includes over 100 Arab-American authors while 

maintaining a website that features member profiles and original writing. 

Its yearly conference is attended by prominent Arab-American writers, 

and includes readings, panel discussions, and creative writing workshops. 

Over the last two decades several literary journals have also 

appeared to facilitate the publication of hundreds of Arab-American 

writers and visual artists whose work might not otherwise have found 

support. In 1995, Elie Chalala founded the Los Angeles-based journal Al 

Jadid: A Review and Record of Arab Culture and Arts, which played a critical 

role in showcasing the work of Arab-American writers and critics. Not 

restricted to Arab-American writers, Al-Jadid provided a forum for writers 

from the Middle East and the Arab diaspora, with a particular interest 

in writings that challenged authoritarian structures. Over a decade of 

reviewing and publishing Arab-American writing has convinced Chalala 

that Arab-American writers are becoming thematically more daring, 

increasingly producing works that demonstrate a willingness to move 

beyond nostalgia and celebration, in favor of creating more complex 

and nuanced renderings of the Arab-American experience. 

In 1998, playwright Kathryn Haddad founded a collaborative 

outlet for writers in the form of Mizna: Prose, Poetry and Art Exploring Arab 

America, the only journal of Arab-American literature produced in the US 

today. Based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, the organization also supports 

Arab-American artists in the visual arts, stage, music, and film through 

talks, community events, and festivals to promote Arab-American art. 

For Haddad, RAWI provided a community of like-minded writers and 

served as encouragement to create Mizna.11 Haddad also observed 

that “Arab-American writers, both immigrants and American-born, 

focus on ‘racial politics... that have to do with international politics’ to 

a greater extent than other ‘hyphenated’ American artists. Given the 

cold shoulder mainstream literary journals typically give such political 

writing, Mizna...provides an important forum.”12

While these organizations and individuals have created a 

national community of Arab-American writers, they are also fueling 

more collaborative projects that remain a key driver behind events that 

showcase and encourage Arab-American literary production.

In 2006 the Arab American Museum, in Dearborn, Michigan, 

established the first Arab American Book Award. Although the museum has 

hosted and organized readings and seminars with noted Arab-American 

authors, the establishment of a literary award served as a platform to 

further expose Arab-American literature to a wider audience. During 

its seven-year history, the program has attracted increasing numbers 

of submissions from writers and publishers across the nation for its 

commitment to drawing attention to books and authors dealing with 

Arab-American issues. 

Together, these organizations have contributed to a rich and 

growing body of Arab-American literature, making it more accessible to 

scholars and students in disciplines such as English, comparative literature, 

American studies, and women’s studies. Despite their contributions, as 

late as 2000, the academic field of Arab American studies had been 

virtually invisible within colleges and universities throughout the country. 

The attacks of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent backlash 

192
Part II

against persons perceived to be Arab, South Asian, or Muslim, produced 

a heightened interest in Arab-American studies, with institutions such 

as the University of Michigan including Arab-American literature 

within courses related to cross-cultural studies. These developments in 

academia present new opportunities for the Arab-American literary 

community. RAWI‘s president, Hayan Charara, observed that, “One 

of the questions that came up during the conference is where do we 

go forward, how to reach not just our own people, but those who are 

either in solidarity with us or who oppose some of the ideas that we are 

interested in. One of the ways we discussed was teaching. There are so 

many people who are interested in teaching Arab-American literature, 

yet one of the questions they often have is ‘where do we begin?’”13

The future of the field

According to poet and anthologist Nathalie Handal, not much 

has changed since 9/11 and the field continues to face challenges 

of “marginalization, exclusion.”14 Arab-American writers are also 

confronting the same difficulties shared by all other writers, most 

notably the shrinking publication market caused by concentration in the 

publishing and bookselling industries. 

Arab-American writers have had to self-organize and form 

communities to publish and disseminate their work. Their continuing 

challenge is to gain acceptance within the wider field of contemporary 

American literature to make the point that their stories are “American” 

stories that contribute to the nation’s history and identity. 

Notes

1. Lisa Suhair Majaj, “Arab-American Literature: Origins and 

Developments,” American Studies Journal No. 52 (Winter 2008), http://www.

asjournal.org/archive/52/150.html.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid. 

5. Ibid. 

6. Ibid. 

7. Lisa Suhair Majaj, “Of Stories and Storytellers,” Saudi Aramco 

World 56, no. 2 (March/April 2005), http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/

issue/200502/of.stories.and.storytellers.htm.

8. Majaj, “Arab-American Literature: Origins and Developments.”

9. Dinitia Smith, “Arab-American Writers, Uneasy in Two Worlds; 

Immigrant Authors Feel Added Burdens Since 9/11,” New York Times, February 

19, 2003, http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/19/arts/arab-american-writersuneasy-two-worlds-immigrant-authors-feel-added-burdens.html.

10. Ibid.

11. Majaj, “Of Stories and Storytellers.”

12. Ibid.

13. “Arab American Writers Try to Find their Unique Voice,” Voice 

of America, June 29, 2010, http://www.voanews.com/content/arab-americanwriters-try-to-find-their-unique-voice-97389354/120717.html.

14. Majaj, “Of Stories and Storytellers.”

193

Image 31. Warsaw Melody, Arlekin Players Theatre, 2014. Left to Right: Anna Chalaya and Gene Ravvin. Photograph by Irina Danilova. 

Reproduced by permission from Arlekin Players Theatre. 

195
Characteristics by Pan Racial Group 

Characteristics by Pan Racial Group

If you think about that subtitle, ‘Festival of New Yiddish 

Culture,’ that’s a pretty specific thing. And within the 

Jewish cultural community, Yiddish culture is definitely 

a very specific niche. So the festival, I think when it 

was founded, in a sense was very defiantly defining 

itself along Eastern European Yiddish lines because 

most Jewish cultural events at that time were probably 

related to Israel or Zionism, related to a post World 

War II, post Israel Jewish narrative. Whereas this was 

reclaiming something that was – had been lost to some 

extent before that. I guess, as far as the evolution over 

the years, it’s really been a question of broadening that 

mandate to go beyond Yiddish, and beyond Eastern 

European and, ultimately over the last number of 

years, really grow into something that aspires to a global 

inclusiveness in reflecting Jewish cultural creativity all 

over the world. – Eric Stein, Artistic Director of the 

Ashkenaz Foundation (May 16, 2013)

Email exchange in Winter 2012 between Mina and Ingrid:

Mina: Their performance is mochi making? 

Ingrid: YUM! Wow...performance and food?

Mina: No mention of a racial or ethnic identity so they’re out.

Ingrid: Hm...arguable that it’s implied though: Mochi Tsuki is Japanese 

and they refer to the “community, traditions” through the art of 

performance. Your call.

Mina: We’ve always held that they have to spell it out. Because in this 

particular case, yes I know it’s Japanese. But what if it were some African 

or South American reference, or Polish reference we were completely 

unfamiliar with? Plus, I thought the idea was that they explicitly 

associated.

Ingrid: Agreed...I was more thinking about when an organization refers 

to “our” or “The” community. But yes...for the most part, I would go 

with explicit.

[Time passes]

Mina: So, after going back and adding them this morning, I realized – 

how to code them? I’ve placeholded them under “Theater” for now.

Ingrid: Agreed...theater makes sense.

 * * *

This section examines the characteristics of ethnocultural 

arts organizations by pan racial group. While many ethnocultural arts 

organizations share common features, our findings demonstrate that 

there are a number of differences between organizations (re)presenting 

different pan groups in Canada (Aboriginal, culturally diverse, and 

White) and pan racial groups in the United States (American Indian/

Alaska Native, Asian, Black, Latino, Multiracial, Native Hawaiian/Other 

Pacific Islander, Some Other Race, and White). As such, to understand 

the characteristics and needs of ethnocultural arts organizations it is 

necessary to consider the various socioeconomic, political, and artistic 

circumstances out of which these organizations have arisen (see Part I and 

the contributing essays throughout this book) and the various differences 

among groups as they exist today. Moreover, our research indicates that 

standardized approaches, in discounting the many layers of complexity 

across ethnocultural communities, are limited in their ability to assist 

the ethnocultural arts field, and thus knowledge of internal differences 

is crucial in the development and implementation of effective support 

programs targeting the field.

Information within this section is primarily based on the 

quantitative data collected in the Canadian and US Plural project 

databases and survey responses and covers ethnocultural arts 

organizations’ artistic disciplines, ages, employees, incomes, sources 

196
Part II

of income, organizational challenges, and organizational supports as 

viewed from a pan racial perspective. 

Canada

Pan Group/Ethnic Distribution

A multicultural country, Canada’s growing population is diverse, 

and increasingly diversifying, in its composition. One out of five people 

in the country is foreign-born, with South Asians, Chinese, and Blacks 

accounting for the three largest visible minority groups.1 In 2011, slightly 

more than three-quarters of the country’s inhabitants were White, 19 

percent were culturally diverse, and four percent were Aboriginal.2 

Included within these three general pan groups are individuals from 

hundreds of racial and ethnic groups around the world. 

Canadian ethnocultural arts organizations are similarly 

racially and ethnically diverse, although their pan group distribution 

does not resemble that of the general Canadian population. Of 

the 255 registered charities listed in the Plural project’s Canadian 

database, White arts organizations comprise the largest portion of 

organizations (43 percent), followed closely by culturally diverse arts 

organizations (42 percent) (see fig. 36). Aboriginal arts organizations 

comprise the smallest portion (15 percent). When comparing the pan 

group distribution of ethnocultural arts organizations to the country’s 

population, Aboriginal and culturally diverse arts organizations are 

overrepresented in the registered charity ethnocultural arts field while 

White arts organizations are underrepresented (see fig. 37). We note 

that the overrepresentation of Aboriginal and culturally diverse arts 

organizations within the ethnocultural arts field points to the great 

underrepresentation of Aboriginal and culturally diverse artists, arts 

administrators, and perspectives among arts organizations possessing no 

articulated ethnocultural arts focus. As indicated in the Methodology, 

due to cultural differences between Canada and the United States, we 

included organizations in the Canadian database that would likely not 

have been included in the US database – organizations with less explicit 

and specific ethnic focuses but viewed by their peers and such bodies 

as the Canada Council as “Aboriginal” or “culturally diverse” due to 

the nature of their programming and staff and leadership composition. 

197

Aboriginal	
  

15%	
  

Culturally	
  

Diverse	
  42%	
  

White	
  43%	
  

Figure 36. Canadian organizations by pan group

Source: Canadian organizations database (n=255). Figures are rounded.

4%	
  

19%	
  

77%	
  

15%	
  

42%	
   43%	
  

Aboriginal	
   Culturally	
  Diverse	
   White	
  

CAN	
  Census	
  (2011)	
   CAN	
  Database	
  (2013)	
  

Figure 37. Comparison of Canadian organizations with Canadian 

population

Source: Canadian organizations database (n=255) and Statistics Canada Census 

(2011). Figures are rounded.
Characteristics by Pan Racial Group 

Consequently, we believe that the Canadian database contains the 

majority of all registered charity arts organizations with a significant 

Aboriginal or culturally diverse presence, which suggests that these 

organizations collectively comprise a small percentage of the country’s 

registered charity arts organizations. 

Pan Group/Artistic Discipline

Mirroring the findings reported in Overview of Characteristics, 

the largest portion of organizations in all three pan groups are engaged 

in multidisciplinary artistic practices (see fig.38). With respect to single 

artistic disciplines, pan groups vary in their focus. The greatest proportion 

of Aboriginal arts organizations focus on programming in the visual 

arts (23 percent), followed by dance and theater (10 percent each). For 

culturally diverse arts organizations, dance is the most common discipline 

(20 percent), followed by theater and music (17 percent each). For White 

arts organizations, dance is also the most common (29 percent), followed 

by music (15 percent) and the visual arts (14 percent). For both culturally 

diverse and White arts organizations, film represents the smallest portion 

of these organizations, and we identified no registered charity culturally 

diverse or White arts organizations focused solely on the humanities. 

The humanities represent the smallest portion of Aboriginal arts 

organizations, and we identified no registered charity Aboriginal arts 

organization focused solely on music or film.

Pan Group/Age 

Research indicates that the three pan groups vary greatly in 

terms of organizational age, with White arts organizations generally 

far older than Aboriginal and culturally diverse arts organizations. 

Relying on organizations’ registered charity date (CRA effective year 

of status) as a rough indicator of age, while there are organizations in 

all three groups possessing registration dates in the 1960s (the decade in 

which nonprofits were required to register to obtain certain tax-exempt 

benefits), the majority of Aboriginal (67 percent) and culturally diverse 

(53 percent) arts organizations in existence today were registered within 

the past 12 years whereas the great majority (83 percent) of White arts 

organizations currently in existence were registered prior to that time 

(see fig. 39). 

We note that there is frequently a time lag between when an 

198

36%	
  

35%	
  

54%	
  

29%	
  

20%	
  

10%	
  

14%	
  

7%	
  

23%	
  

4%	
  

17%	
  

10%	
  

15%	
  

17%	
  

2%	
  

5%	
  

3%	
  

White	
  

Culturally	
  

Diverse	
  

Aboriginal	
  

Mul@disciplinary	
   Dance	
   Visual	
  Arts	
   Theater	
   Music	
   Film	
  	
   Humani@es	
  

Figure 38. Canadian organizations by pan group and artistic discipline

Source: Canadian organizations database (n=255). Figures are rounded.

3%	
  

2%	
  

5%	
  

18%	
  

6%	
  

8%	
  

28%	
  

14%	
  

10%	
  

34%	
  

25%	
  

10%	
  

17%	
  

53%	
  

67%	
  

White	
  

Culturally	
  Diverse	
  

Aboriginal	
  

1960s	
   1970s	
   1980s	
   1990s	
   2000-­‐12	
  

Figure 39. Canadian organizations by pan group and CRA effective 

year of status

Source: Canadian organizations database (n=255). Figures are rounded.
199 Part II

organization is founded and when it obtains its registered charity status, 

and thus an organization’s registered charity date is at best an imperfect 

means of determining organizational age. 

Pan Group/Employees

Emphasizing that our Canadian survey data is only reflective 

of the situation of Canadian survey respondents, there is considerable 

variation among respondents from different pan groups regarding their 

number of paid employees (full-time and part-time) and volunteers. 

Aboriginal survey respondents report the greatest number of paid 

employees, with all of these respondents reporting at least one paid 

employee, and almost two-thirds (61 percent) reporting 6 or more 

employees (CAN-SQ-4). Two-thirds of culturally diverse respondents 

have one to five paid employees, with the next biggest proportion (16 

percent) reporting no paid employees. Between the three groups, White 

survey respondents operate with the fewest number of paid employees: 

less than half (44 percent) report one to five employees, and the same 

percentage report no paid employees. 

With respect to respondents with paid full-time staff, Aboriginal 

arts organizations report the greatest percentage of full-time staff, and 

White arts organizations the lowest (CAN-SQ-5). More than half (56 

percent) of Aboriginal respondents report that 51 percent or more of 

their paid employees are employed full-time; we note, however, that 

a sizable percentage (28 percent) report that less than 25 percent (but 

more than zero) of employees are full-time. Two-thirds of White 

respondents report having no full-time paid employees, and only 11 

percent report having 25 percent or more that are employed full-time. 

As before, culturally diverse arts organizations fall between the two pan 

groups, with 41 percent reporting less than 25 percent (but more than 

zero) of paid employees are full-time, and 38 percent reporting that 25 

Image 32. Gruff, Puente Theatre, 2013. Left to 

right: Izad Etemadi playing “Rich Goat” and 

Jana Morrison playing “Poor Goat.” Written by 

Mercedes Bátiz-Benét and Judd Palmer. Directed 

by Mercedes Bátiz-Benét. Photograph by Pamela 

Stringer. Reproduced by permission from Puente 

Theatre.
Characteristics by Pan Racial Group 200

10%	
  

43%	
  

65%	
  

47%	
  

13%	
  

28%	
  

15%	
   20%	
   18%	
   15%	
  

8%	
   13%	
  

38%	
  

8%	
   5%	
  

11%	
  

18%	
  

4%	
   7%	
   7%	
   3%	
   1%	
   0%	
   1%	
  

Aboriginal	
   Culturally	
  Diverse	
   White	
   Total	
  Field	
  

<$100k	
   $100k	
  to	
  under	
  $250k	
   $250k	
  to	
  under	
  $500k	
  

$500k	
  to	
  under	
  $1,000,000	
   $1,000,000	
  to	
  under	
  $5,000,000	
   $5,000,000	
  and	
  more	
  

Figure 40. Canadian organizations by pan group and average annual gross income: frequency distribution (2010-2012)

Source: Canadian organizations database (n=255). Average annual gross income based on 3-year annual gross incomes (2010-2012). Figures are rounded.

Pan	
  Group Average	
  Gross	
  

Income

Median	
  Gross	
  

Income

Max	
  Gross	
  

Income

ECAOs	
  with	
  

available	
  Financial	
  

Data	
  

(%	
  of	
  Total)

Aboriginal $828,558	
   $579,657	
   $7,254,047	
   97%

Culturally	
  Diverse $308,638	
   $121,713	
   $7,246,091	
   98%

White $284,248	
   $65,073	
   $4,400,094	
   100%

All	
  Groups $376,124	
   $116,189	
   $7,254,047	
   99%

Table 2. Canadian organizations by average, median, and max annual 

gross income (2010-2012)

Source: Canadian organizations database (n=255). Average and median gross 

incomes calculated by first determining the average income for each organization 

for the 3-year period (2010-2012) and then calculating the average and median 

for the field. Max gross income is the largest single value for any organization 

during the 3-year period. Figures are rounded.

percent or more are employed full-time. 

Not surprisingly given their relatively low number of full-time 

employees, culturally diverse and White respondents report relying 

more heavily on the assistance of volunteers (including interns) than do 

Aboriginal respondents (CAN-SQ-6). Almost three-quarters (72 percent) 

of White respondents report having 21 or more volunteers, with a 

high percentage of White respondents reporting 51-100 volunteers (28 

percent). More than half (58 percent) of culturally diverse respondents 

report having 21 or more volunteers, with the greatest percentage of 

culturally diverse respondents reporting 21-50 volunteers (36 percent). 

Although a sizable proportion of Aboriginal respondents also operate 

with 21 or more volunteers (33 percent), the majority of these respondents 

operate with fewer volunteers, and the greatest percentage (39 percent) 

report zero to five volunteers.

Pan Group/Income

The income differences between the three pan groups may 

explain the differences in the numbers of employees between the three 

26% of organizations < 

Field Avg ($376k)

72% of organizations < 

Field Avg ($376k)

85% of organizations < 

Field Avg ($376k)

75% of organizations < 

Field Avg ($376k)
Part II

groups of respondents. Aboriginal registered charity arts organizations 

have the highest average, median, and maximum annual gross income, 

with these organizations’ average annual gross income of $828,558 a 

much higher figure than the registered charity ethnocultural arts field 

average of $376,124 (see table 2). We note that while Aboriginal arts 

organizations’ average gross income is more than twice the average 

gross income for the other two groups, it is not high when compared to 

CADAC figures regarding the average annual revenue for the country’s 

arts and culture organizations (identified in table 1 in Overview of 

Characteristics). According to the CADAC data, dance companies, 

theater companies, and art museums/galleries, the most common single 

artistic disciplines engaged in by Aboriginal arts organizations, report 

average incomes between $1,089,821 (dance companies) and $2,160,220 

(art museums/galleries), and opera companies, arguably the only 

multidisciplinary artistic discipline in the CADAC data, report average 

incomes of $4,059,029. By these measures, the incomes of Aboriginal 

arts organizations appear to fall far below the overall average for their 

respective disciplines (see fig. 40). Moreover, the higher incomes of 

Aboriginal arts organizations is not surprising given the proportionately 

greater number of targeted programs and otherwise more robust arts 

services that have emerged in the country over the past 10-20 years to 

support these organizations (see Part I and Support Programs below).

In comparison, the average annual gross incomes of culturally 

diverse and White arts organizations, which collectively comprise 85 

percent of registered charity ethnocultural arts organizations, are lower 

than the field average ($308,638 and $284,248, respectively). Although 

older than the other two pan groups and thus, due to having had a 

greater period of time in which to develop a donor base and accumulate 

income, standard measures would predict that they would report the 

highest incomes, White arts organizations have significantly lower 

median and maximum gross annual incomes than the respective field 

averages. These findings comport with other research for the Plural 

project that indicates that the support system for these organizations is 

proportionately weaker. Falling between the other two pan groups are 

culturally diverse arts organizations, which research indicates have a 

weak, but strengthening, system of support.

A closer examination of culturally diverse arts organizations 

reveals that the consolidation of non-Aboriginal and non-White pan 

racial groups (i.e., Asian, Black, Latino, Multiracial, and Some Other 

Race) into one group masks striking differences within this group. At 

the lower end are Latino arts organizations, with an average annual 

gross income of $146,109 and maximum annual gross income of 

$247,342; at the high end are Some Other Race arts organizations, 

with an average annual gross income of $608,980 and a maximum 

gross income of $7,246,091. Demonstrating the further differences 

within pan racial groups, the second highest maximum gross income 

belongs to an Asian arts organization ($2,715,490) even as Asian arts 

organizations possess the lowest median annual gross income ($76,734); 

Black arts organizations have the highest median gross income 

($209,739) within the culturally diverse arts field, although by other 

measures these organizations fall squarely in the middle of the field. 

With relatively close average, medium, and maximum gross incomes, 

we observe little income disparity among the country’s small number of 

Latino arts organizations.

Income disparities prevail across pan groups and thus the 

ethnocultural arts field as a whole. The overwhelming majority of 

culturally diverse and White arts organizations fall under the field 

average (72 percent and 85 percent, respectively), with nearly half (43 

201

Pan	
  Group 2010 2011 2012

Aboriginal $454,793	
   $567,407	
   $600,298	
  

Culturally	
  Diverse $56,273	
   $112,789	
   $140,255	
  

White $52,114	
   $68,956	
   $63,330	
  

Field	
  Median $58,762	
   $111,669	
   $119,138	
  

Table 3. Canadian organizations by pan group and median annual 

gross income per year (2010-2012)

Source: Canadian organizations database (n=255).
Characteristics by Pan Racial Group 

percent) of culturally diverse and more than half (65 percent) of White 

arts organizations possessing average gross incomes under $100,000, 

while each of these groups have higher-income ($1 million or more) 

organizations that upwardly skew their respective averages (see fig. 40 

and table 2). The incomes of Aboriginal arts organizations are somewhat 

more evenly distributed, although these organizations also have a few 

much higher ($5 million or more) organizations that upwardly skew this 

group’s average.

With median income a better representation of the income of 

pan groups, gross annual income increased for all pan groups between 

2010 and 2012, although income for White arts organizations decreased 

slightly between 2011 and 2012 (see table 3). During this period, the 

median income of Aboriginal arts organizations increased by 32 

percent, the income of culturally diverse arts organizations increased 

by 149 percent, and the income of White arts organizations increased 

by 22 percent. As a result of increases between 2011 and 2012, the 

median income of culturally diverse arts organizations in 2012 was 

slightly above the median for the ethnocultural arts field (which covers 

the period between 2010 and 2012). 

Pan Group/Sources of Income

As discussed in Overview of Characteristics, Canadian survey 

respondents strongly rely on private sector contributions/government 

funding for financial support; however, this general finding varies 

significantly across pan group (CAN-SQ-8). For Aboriginal and 

culturally diverse respondents, the majority of survey respondents 

report that more than half of recent total revenue came from private 

sector contributions/government funding (78 percent and 61 percent, 

respectively). In comparison, approximately one quarter (26 percent) of 

survey respondents at White arts organizations report that more than half 

of recent total revenue came from these sources. The largest percentage 

of these organizations (42 percent) report that less than a quarter of their 

recent total revenue was from private sector contributions/government 

funding. 

There are also variations in the specific funding sources that 

support survey respondents from different pan groups (see fig. 41; CANSQ-33). For Aboriginal respondents, the most common funding sources 

are Canadian Heritage (supporting 81 percent of these respondents) and 

non-arts bodies/agencies of the federal government and of provincial 

202

56%	
  

81%	
  

63%	
  

56%	
  

63%	
  

44%	
  

25%	
  

44%	
  

50%	
  

56%	
  

13%	
  

79%	
  

54%	
  

21%	
  

82%	
  

39%	
  

68%	
  

21%	
  

46%	
  

71%	
   71%	
  

6%	
   7%	
  

0%	
  

19%	
   19%	
  

31%	
  

25%	
  

31%	
  

50%	
  

63%	
  

94%	
  

38%	
  

Canada	
  Council	
  

for	
  the	
  Arts	
  

Department	
  of	
  

Canadian	
  

Heritage	
  

Federal	
  

government,	
  

non-­‐arts	
  

Provincial	
  arts	
  

council	
  

Provincial	
  

government,	
  

non-­‐arts	
  

City	
  arts	
  council	
   City	
  government,	
  

non-­‐arts	
  

CorporaHons	
   FoundaHons	
   Self-­‐iniHated	
  

fundraising	
  

iniHaHves	
  

Other	
  

Aboriginal	
   Culturally	
  Diverse	
   White	
  

Figure 41. Funding sources supporting Canadian survey respondendents by pan group (2011-2013)

Source: Canadian survey results (n=60). Figures are rounded.
203 Part II

governments (each source supporting 62.5 percent of respondents). For 

culturally diverse respondents, the most common funding sources are 

provincial arts councils (supporting 82 percent of these respondents), 

the Canada Council (supporting 79 percent of respondents), and selfinitiated fundraising initiatives and foundations (each source supporting 

71 percent of respondents). The most common funding sources for 

White respondents are self-initiated fundraising initiatives (supporting 

94 percent of these respondents), followed by foundations (supporting 

63 percent of respondents), and corporations (supporting 50 percent of 

respondents). We note that CAN-SQ-33 regards which funding sources 

support Canadian survey respondents and is not an indicator of the amount 

of support from these sources (e.g., a common source may provide a 

relatively small level of financial support but be easier to obtain).

Pan Group/Organizational Challenges

Across all pan groups, the majority of survey respondents 

list financial resources as their most critical challenge or need (CANSQ-18). The top four challenges reported by Aboriginal respondents are 

(i) financial resources (69 percent ranked 1-2), (ii) organizational capacity 

building (63 percent ranked 1-2), (iii) the media’s lack of familiarity/

understanding of art form (25 percent ranked 1-2), and (iv) audience 

development (19 percent ranked 1-2). The top four challenges reported 

by culturally diverse respondents are (i) financial resources (83 percent 

ranked 1-2), (ii) organizational capacity building (76 percent ranked 1-2), 

(iii) administrative/performance/exhibition space (10 percent ranked 

1-2), and (iv) a four-way tie between audience development, the media’s 

lack of familiarity/understanding of art form, obtaining media coverage, 

and collaboration and networking (7 percent ranked 1-2). The top four 

challenges reported by White respondents are (i) financial resources (75 

percent ranked 1-2), (ii) administrative/performance/exhibition space 

(38 percent ranked 1-2), (iii) organizational capacity building (38 percent 

ranked 1-2), and (iv) audience development (31 percent ranked 1-2). 

With respect to the top financial resource needs of specific 

groups, Aboriginal survey respondents prioritize the need to increase 

earned income (44 percent ranked 1) and identify new funding sources 

(25 percent ranked 1), culturally diverse respondents prioritize the need 

to increase contributed revenue (41 percent ranked 1) with increasing 

earned income and identifying new funding sources also equally 

significant concerns (each ranked 1 by 26 percent of respondents), and 

White respondents prioritize the need to increase contributed revenue 

(44 percent ranked 1) and assistance with the grant application process 

(31 percent ranked 1) (CAN-SQ-20). 

Specific capacity building needs among respondents also vary, 

with both Aboriginal and culturally diverse respondents prioritizing 

staff-related needs and White respondents prioritizing leadership 

transition needs even though they possess less employees than their 

Aboriginal and culturally diverse peers (CAN-SQ-19). For Aboriginal 

respondents, the top four capacity building needs are (i) maintaining 

and/or increasing the number of paid staff (56 percent ranked 1-2), 

(ii) obtaining appropriately skilled staff (31 percent ranked 1-2), (iii) 

professional development of existing staff (25 percent ranked 1-2), and 

(iv) a three-way tie between marketing/promotional assistance, leadership 

transition/succession planning, and board development (19 percent 

ranked 1-2). For culturally diverse respondents, the top four capacity 

building needs are (i) maintaining and/or increasing the number of paid 

staff (57 percent ranked 1-2), (ii) board development (57 percent ranked 

1-2), (iii) obtaining appropriately skilled staff (29 percent ranked 1-2), 

and (iv) leadership transition/succession planning (21 percent ranked 

1-2). For White respondents, the top capacity building need is leadership 

transition/succession planning (44 percent ranked 1-2); following this 

need, responses split among answer choices, with obtaining appropriately 

skilled staff (25 percent ranked 1-2), financial management assistance (25 

percent ranked 1-2), and marketing/promotional assistance (25 percent 

ranked 1-2) the next most highly ranked needs.

Pan Group/Organizational Supports

Arts Services. Conforming with their top organizational 

challenge/need, for survey respondents that accessed arts services 

between 2011 and 2013, the majority of respondents from all pan 

groups accessed services related to financial support (see fig. 42; CANSQ-23). Aboriginal respondents most frequently accessed financial 

support (63 percent of organizations) and education/training-related 

services (another 63 percent of organizations), convening/networking 

(50 percent of organizations), and promotion/audience development 
Characteristics by Pan Racial Group 204

19%	
   18%	
  

7%	
  

31%	
  

25%	
  

7%	
  

50%	
  

68%	
  

47%	
  

63%	
  

50%	
  

40%	
  

63%	
  

68%	
  

73%	
  

31%	
  

43%	
  

27%	
  

44%	
   43%	
  

33%	
  

19%	
  

29%	
  

20%	
  

13%	
  

7%	
  

33%	
  

Aboriginal	
   Culturally	
  Diverse	
   White	
  

Advocacy/policy-­‐related	
  acEon	
  	
   Contracted/group	
  services	
  	
   Convening/networking	
  	
  

EducaEon/training	
  	
   Financial	
  support	
  	
   InformaEon/research	
  

PromoEon/audience	
  development	
  	
   Accessed	
  other	
  arts-­‐related	
  services	
   Not	
  Applicable	
  (have	
  not	
  accessed	
  arts-­‐related	
  services)	
  

Figure 42. Canadian survey respondents by pan group and arts services accessed (2011-2013)

Source: Canadian survey results (n=59). Figures are rounded.

(44 percent of organizations). Somewhat differently, culturally diverse 

respondents most frequently accessed financial support and convening/

networking-related services (for both, 68 percent of organizations), 

education/training (50 percent of organizations), and promotion/

audience development and information/research (for both, 43 percent 

of organizations). White respondents most frequently accessed services 

related to financial support (73 percent of organizations), convening/

networking (47 percent of organizations), and education/training (40 

percent of organizations). A greater percentage of White respondents 

(33 percent) than Aboriginal (13 percent) or culturally diverse (7 percent) 

respondents did not access any arts-related services during this period 

(organizations reporting “not applicable”).

When they accessed arts services, the majority of Aboriginal (64 

percent) and culturally diverse (54 percent) respondents accessed at least 

some services provided by organizations exclusively dedicated to serving 

Aboriginal, culturally diverse, and/or immigrant arts organizations 

(CAN-SQ-24). In comparison, less than one-third (31 percent) of White 

respondents report accessing such dedicated services. 

In accessing both dedicated and non-dedicated arts services, 

survey respondents from all pan groups share the same main constraints 

of lack of time and finances; constraints relating to lack of knowledge 

of existing services and the lack of relevancy of such services also rank 

highly for all three groups (CAN-SQ-31). 

Funding. In seeking grant support, the overwhelming majority 

of survey respondents from all pan groups submit at least some 

percentage of their grant applications to funding programs with an 

explicit mandate to support specific cultural or ethnic communities 

(CAN-SQ-34). Aboriginal respondents frequently seek support from 

such programs: more than two-thirds (69 percent) of respondents 

report that more than half of their grant applications are to dedicated 

funding programs. Culturally diverse respondents also regularly apply 

to dedicated programs, but to a lesser extent: approximately one-third 

(35 percent) of respondents report that more than half of their grant 

applications are to these programs, and a larger percentage (39 percent) 

report that less than a quarter (but more than zero) of their grant 

applications are to these programs. White respondents seek dedicated 

funding support more often than culturally diverse respondents but 

less often than Aboriginal respondents: just under half (47 percent) 

of respondents report that more than half of their grant applications 

are to dedicated programs, with more than a quarter (27 percent) of 
205 Part II

respondents reporting that less than a quarter (but more than zero) of 

their applications are to these programs. As indicated in the Support 

Programs section below, the lesser interaction with dedicated funding 

programs on behalf of culturally diverse and White respondents may be 

due to the smaller number of available programs.

A comparison of responses to CAN-SQ-24 with responses to 

CAN-SQ-34 suggests that dedicated funding programs are of high value 

to respondents, and possibly more so than other forms of dedicated 

arts services (see table 4 and discussion in Overview of Characteristics 

regarding differences between the two questions). 

Collaboration. Across pan groups, survey respondents are 

generally familiar with other organizations that share their organizations’ 

artistic and cultural/ethnic focus (CAN-SQ-35). When asked to describe 

their current relationship with other arts organizations that share their 

organizations’ cultural/ethnic focus, a high percentage of respondents 

from all pan groups report frequent interaction and good relationships 

with their local peers (88 percent of Aboriginal respondents, 75 percent 

of culturally diverse respondents, and 81 percent of White respondents). 

With respect to organizations based in other geographic areas, the vast 

majority of Aboriginal respondents report infrequent interaction but 

good relationships with their regional and national peers (69 and 75 

percent, respectively), the majority of culturally diverse respondents 

report good relationships and either frequent interaction (41 percent) or 

infrequent interaction (33 percent) with regional and national peers, and 

the majority of White respondents report good relationships and either 

frequent interaction or infrequent interaction with regional (50 percent 

and 31 percent, respectively) and national (19 percent and 56 percent, 

respectively) peers (CAN-SQ-36). Active cross-border relationships 

(whether good or poor) are small among all respondents, with culturally 

diverse respondents reporting the highest level of interaction with 

international peers among the three pan groups (22 percent report 

frequent interaction and good relationships).

Across pan groups, respondents report a variety of collaborating 

partners; however, respondents from all three groups primarily 

collaborate with partners sharing similar interests. In particular, 

Aboriginal respondents report extremely high levels of collaboration 

with arts organizations sharing the same cultural/ethnic focus: between 

2012 and 2013, 94 percent of these respondents collaborated with 

such partners compared to 54 percent of culturally diverse respondents 

and 69 percent of White respondents (CAN-SQ-39). Culturally 

diverse respondents are the only pan group to report more frequent 

collaborations with non-ethnocultural partners or partners from a 

different ethnocultural group than collaborations with arts organizations 

sharing their own ethnocultural focus: 64 percent of culturally diverse 

respondents report collaborating in the last year with arts organizations 

having no cultural/ethnic focus, and 60 percent report collaborating 

with an Aboriginal, culturally diverse, or immigrant arts organization 

possessing a cultural/ethnic focus different from the respondent. 

Support Programs. Overview of Characteristics discusses at 

length the arts service organizations and governmental agencies that 

we identified as offering targeted programs for Canadian ethnocultural 

arts organizations. To more closely examine the distribution of these 

dedicated support programs by pan group, we considered the intended 

ethnocultural group, or groups, for each grant and/or service offered. 

In certain cases, support organizations (arts service organizations and 

governmental agencies) direct dedicated programming toward more 

than one pan group; for these organizations, we counted such programs 

%	
  of	
  organizations	
  that	
  have	
  

more	
  than	
  0%	
  services	
  

provided	
  by	
  organizations

dedicated	
  to	
  serving	
  

Aboriginal,	
  culturally	
  diverse/	
  

ethno-­‐racial	
  and/or	
  immigrant	
  

arts	
  organizations

%	
  of	
  organizations with	
  

more	
  than	
  0%	
  of	
  grant	
  apps	
  

submitted	
  to	
  funding	
  

programs	
  with	
  explicit

mandate	
  to	
  support	
  specific	
  

cultural	
  or	
  ethnic	
  

communities

Aboriginal 64% 94%

Culturally	
  Diverse 54% 81%

White	
   31% 80%

Table 4. Dedicated arts services and funding sources accessed by pan 

group

Source: Canadian survey results (CAN-SQ-24: n=58, CAN-SQ-34: n=57).

Figures are rounded.
Characteristics by Pan Racial Group 

in each applicable pan group, thus resulting in a double, or multiple, 

counting of available programs. For example, CPAMO, referenced in 

Part I, is an Ontario-based arts service organization that supports the 

work of both Aboriginal and ethno-racial (interpreted as culturally 

diverse) artists and arts organizations, and we counted its services in 

categories under both Aboriginal and culturally diverse arts services. 

This method of organization is intended as another means of depicting 

the support field; however, we warn that it will also depict this field as 

significantly larger than it actually is. Moreover, we note that whether 

ethnocultural arts organizations from various pan groups are actually 

able to access the services presented in this section depend on such 

factors as their geographic location, artistic discipline(s), the traditional 

or contemporary nature of the artistic discipline(s), “professional” or 

“amateur” status, and specific ethnic group.

With these caveats, analysis indicates that, of the 95 support 

organizations that we identified, almost half of their dedicated 

services are directed toward (or include) Aboriginal arts organizations, 

approximately a third of dedicated programs are directed toward (or 

include) culturally diverse arts organizations, and a fifth of dedicated 

206

15%	
  

42%	
   43%	
  

47%	
  

32%	
  

21%	
  

Aboriginal	
   Culturally	
  Diverse	
   White	
  

CAN	
  ECAOs	
   ASO	
  dedicated	
  programs	
  

Figure 43. Comparison of Canadian organizations and dedicated arts 

services by pan group

Source: Canadian organizations database (n=255) and Canadian supports 

database (based on programs offered by n=95 support organizations).

programs are directed toward (or include) White arts organizations (see 

fig. 43). 

Set forth below is a brief discussion of the types of dedicated 

services (governmental and non-governmental) by pan group (table 5). We 

make one final preliminary note that, as in Overview of Characteristics, 

we have counted each type of service offered by a support organization, 

and thus the service-related figures we provide herein reflect a multiple 

counting of organizations.

Regarding services to support Aboriginal arts organizations 

(including services specifically targeting this group and services aimed 

at ethnocultural arts organizations more broadly), more than half (59 

percent) of these services are in the area of financial support, with the 

next largest percentage of services related to education and training 

(15 percent). When comparing the top organizational needs identified 

by Aboriginal survey respondents with targeted services, and stating 

again that survey responses may not be representative of Aboriginal 

arts organizations, we observe that identified needs appear to align with 

the types of services offered. Over two-thirds of Aboriginal respondents 

identify a need for financial resources, and nearly two-thirds of targeted 

Financial	
  

support	
  

Advocacy/	
  

Policy-­‐related	
  

action

Convening/	
  

networking	
  

Education/	
  

Training

Promotion/	
  

audience	
  

development	
  

Contracted/	
  

Group	
  

Services

Aboriginal 59% 5% 8% 15% 7% 6%

Culturally	
  Diverse 42% 9% 14% 11% 20% 4%

White 53% 4% 11% 6% 17% 9%

Table 5. Canadian arts service organizations by services provided and 

pan group

Source: Canadian supports database (based on programs offered by n=95 

support organizations).
Part II

services are in the area of financial support. Similarly, professional 

development-related concerns and the need for appropriately skilled 

staff rank relatively highly as capacity building needs, and the next largest 

percentage of targeted services offered are in the area of education and 

training.

 Regarding services to support culturally diverse arts organizations 

(including services specifically targeting this group and services aimed at 

ethnocultural arts organizations more broadly), the largest percentage 

of these services (42 percent) is in the area of financial support, followed 

by promotion/audience development (20 percent) and convening/

networking (14 percent). When comparing the distribution of targeted 

services to the top organizational needs identified by culturally diverse 

respondents, there appears to be less alignment between identified needs 

and the types of services offered. More than three-quarters of culturally 

diverse respondents prioritize the need for financial resources, with a 

particular need to increase contributed revenue, and yet financial support 

comprises less than half of services offered. In addition, a significant 

percentage of targeted services is directed toward promotion/audience 

development; while this is an identified need of culturally diverse (and 

interview) participants, given other needs, the focus on these services by 

so many support programs may be disproportionate to culturally diverse 

respondents’ need for these services.

Regarding services to support White arts organizations 

(including services specifically targeting this group and services aimed 

at ethnocultural arts organizations more broadly), more than half (53 

percent) of these services are in the area of financial support, with 

the next largest percentage of services related to promotion/audience 

development (17 percent). When comparing the top organizational 

needs identified by White survey respondents with targeted services, we 

observe that, as with culturally diverse respondents, the types of services 

offered appear to only loosely align with identified needs. Three-quarters 

of White survey respondents state a need for financial resources, but 

financial services comprise approximately half of targeted services. 

Promotion/audience development is, however, a top need of White 

survey respondents, and these services comprise a significant portion of 

the targeted services for this group. 

Considering the field’s support programs in their entirety, the 

207

existence of a comparatively greater number of dedicated Aboriginal 

arts support programs likely accounts for Aboriginal arts organizations’ 

greater interaction with such programs when compared to their 

culturally diverse and White peers. The presence of these programs 

also suggests a relatively stronger support environment for Aboriginal 

arts organizations, which likely has assisted in the rapid growth of these 

organizations over the past two decades, these organizations’ higher 

incomes and greater number of paid employees despite their relative 

youth, and the general vitality of the field (see Part I). The relatively 

smaller number of dedicated programs available to culturally diverse 

and White arts organizations, when considering their proportion of the 

ethnocultural arts field, suggests a weaker support environment for these 

organizations. We note that this latter observation is based on a review of 

all research for the Plural project, including existing literature discussed 

in Part I and informal and formal interviews. Moreover, our observations 

regarding the support systems for culturally diverse and White arts 

organizations should in no manner be interpreted as an implication that 

there are too many Aboriginal arts services but rather that there are too 

few targeted culturally diverse and White arts services: it is our belief 

that the existence of a more robust support system for Aboriginal arts 

organizations has greatly contributed to the emergence of the field, is 

necessary given the long history of institutionalized attack on the cultures 

of the country’s Aboriginal peoples, discussed to some extent in Part I, 

and warrants prioritization as the country’s indigenous and first arts.

A final note: we have considered herein the types of services offered 

by support organizations and found a certain degree of correlation 

between identified needs and the types of services offered. We have not 

discussed the particular form such services have taken, which qualitative 

research for the Plural project indicates do not correlate with the specific 

needs of organizations, and which in turn has impacted the effectiveness 

of such services in addressing needs. In Needs and Supports: A Life 

Cycle Approach, we address the specific form(s) of programs aimed at 

the ethnocultural arts sector. 
Characteristics by Pan Racial Group 

United States

Pan Racial Group/Ethnic Distribution

The United States is a highly ethnically diverse and rapidly 

diversifying country. According to US Census Bureau estimates, in 2013 

the racial distribution of the US population was as follows: the American 

Indian and Alaska Native population alone (not in combination with 

other races) represented 1.2 percent of the country’s population, the Asian 

population alone represented 5.3 percent, the Black population alone 

represented 13.2 percent, the Hispanic/Latino population represented 

17.1 percent, individuals identifying with two or more races represented 

2.4 percent, the Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander population 

alone represented 0.2 percent, and the White population alone (and not 

Hispanic/Latino) represented 62.6 percent.3 We identified no equivalent 

figures for individuals identifying as Some Other Race.

US ethnocultural arts organizations are similarly racially and 

ethnically diverse and may be found in all pan racial groups. Of the 

2,013 tax-exempt organizations listed in the Plural project’s US database, 

White arts organizations comprise the largest portion of organizations 

208

AMERICAN	
  

INDIAN/	
  

ALASKA	
  NATIVE	
  

7%	
  

ASIAN	
  

24%	
  

BLACK	
  

18%	
  

LATINO	
  &	
  

CARIBBEAN	
  

16%	
  

MULTIRACIAL	
  

1%	
  

NATIVE	
  

HAWAIIAN/	
  

OTHER	
  PACIFIC	
  

ISLANDER	
  

2%	
  

SOME	
  OTHER	
  

RACE	
  

6%	
  

WHITE	
  

26%	
  

Figure 44. US organizations by pan racial group

Source: US organizations database (n=2013). Figures are rounded.

(26 percent), followed closely by Asian arts organizations (24 percent), 

and then Black arts organizations (18 percent), Latino & Caribbean 

arts organizations (16 percent), American Indian/Alaska Native arts 

organizations (7 percent), and Some Other Race arts organizations 

(6 percent) (see fig. 44). Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander arts 

organizations (2 percent) and Multiracial arts organizations (1 percent) 

comprise the smallest portions of the database. 

We are unable to directly compare the pan racial distribution of 

ethnocultural arts organizations to the racial distribution of the country’s 

general population due to differences between the manner in which we 

identified the “race” of organizations and the manner in which the US 

Census Bureau defined and identified the race of individuals in its most 

recent census. As indicated in the Methodology, such a comparison is 

problematic largely due to the separate treatment of the racial/ethnic 

category of Latino. In the 2010 US Census, individuals were asked two 

ethnicity/race-related questions: the first question asked whether an 

individual was of “Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin,” and then the 

second question requested that individuals identify as one (or more) of 

the following races: White, Black/African American/Negro, American 

Indian or Alaska Native, Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, 

Korean, Vietnamese, Native Hawaiian, Guamanian or Chamorro, 

Samoan, Other Pacific Islander, Other Asian, and Some Other Race. 

By contrast, we treated Latino as a race category separate from the 

other ethnic/racial groups, added Caribbean groups to this category, 

and treated groups identifying as Spanish as White, the collective result 

of which is that our Latino category and the US Latino population as 

characterized by the US Census may be markedly different, and our 

other ethnic/racial categories do not include Latino groups. 

With these notes of caution, we make the simple observation 

that the racial composition of ethnocultural arts organizations does not 

resemble the racial composition of the general US population, although 

in some categories there are similarities: Latino groups comprise 

approximately the same proportion in both groups (16 percent of the 

US database and 17 percent of the general population), and Native 

Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander and Multiracial groups comprise 

the smallest proportion in both groups. We further note that the 

racial distribution of the US database somewhat resembles the racial 
209 Part II

46%	
  

44%	
  

53%	
  

74%	
  

50%	
  

45%	
  

40%	
  

36%	
  

12%	
  

8%	
  

15%	
  

19%	
  

17%	
  

5%	
  

17%	
  

1%	
  

3%	
  

6%	
  

6%	
  

2%	
  

2%	
  

4%	
  

1%	
  

2%	
  

1%	
  

3%	
  

1%	
  

1%	
  

26%	
  

24%	
  

3%	
  

5%	
  

5%	
  

7%	
  

20%	
  

1%	
  

4%	
  

9%	
  

6%	
  

12%	
  

21%	
  

11%	
  

3%	
  

10%	
  

9%	
  

18%	
  

2%	
  

13%	
  

16%	
  

8%	
  

55%	
  

WHITE	
  

SOME	
  OTHER	
  RACE	
  

MULTIRACIAL	
  

NATIVE	
  HAWAIIAN/	
  

OTHER	
  PACIFIC	
  

ISLANDER	
  

LATINO	
  &	
  

CARIBBEAN	
  

BLACK	
  

ASIAN	
  

AMERICAN	
  INDIAN/	
  

ALASKA	
  NATIVE	
  

MulEdisciplinary	
   Dance	
   Film	
   HumaniEes	
   Music	
   Theater	
   Visual	
  Arts	
  

Figure 45. US organizations by pan racial group and artistic discipline

Source: US organizations database (n=2013). Figures are rounded.

distribution of nonprofit ethnic, culture, and folk organizations outlined 

in Cultural Heritage Organizations: in that study, European-affiliated and 

Asian/Pacific Islander-affiliated organizations were the two largest pan 

racial groups.

Pan Racial Group/Artistic Discipline 

Nearly identical to the findings reported in Overview of 

Characteristics, with the exception of American Indian/Alaska Native 

organizations, the largest percentage of organizations across the pan 

racial groups are engaged in multidisciplinary artistic practices (see 

fig. 45). Among American Indian/Alaska Native arts organizations, 

multidisciplinary organizations are second to the visual arts in comprising 

the most common artistic focus of this group. 

With respect to single artistic disciplines, the eight pan racial 

groups vary in their focus. We make the following observations for each 

specific pan racial group:

• American Indian/Alaska Native: The largest percentage of 

these organizations focus on programming in the visual arts 

(55 percent), followed by theater (3 percent). We identified 

very few American Indian/Alaska Native organizations 

focused on other artistic disciplines. 

• Asian: Music is the most common discipline of these 

organizations (20 percent), followed by dance (17 percent) 

and theater (11 percent). 

• Black: Theater is the most common discipline (21 percent), 

followed by the visual arts (16 percent) and music (7 percent).

• Latino & Caribbean: Dance is the most common discipline 

(17 percent), followed by the visual arts (13 percent) and 

theater (12 percent).

• Multiracial: The visual arts are the most common discipline 

(18 percent), followed by dance (15 percent). 

• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander: More 

multidisciplinary in focus than other pan racial groups, 

dance is the most common single discipline (19 percent); we 

identified few Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 

organizations focused on other artistic practices.

• Some Other Race: Music is the most common discipline 

(24 percent), followed by theater and the visual arts (both 9 

percent).

• White: Music is the most common single discipline (26 

percent), followed by dance (12 percent) and the visual arts 

(10 percent). 

Across all pan racial groups, only a small percentage of organizations 

focus on film as a single discipline. We identified no Native Hawaiian/

Other Pacific Islander, Multiracial, or White arts organization focused 

solely on the humanities, and this discipline represents only a tiny portion 

of single discipline focus of other pan racial groups.

Pan Racial Group/Age 

To analyze the pan racial distribution of the ethnocultural arts 

field’s age, we consider the reported decade of founding of US survey 
Characteristics by Pan Racial Group 210

4%	
  

5%	
  

2%	
  

18%	
  

3%	
  

4%	
  

3%	
  

4%	
  

28%	
  

13%	
  

17%	
  

15%	
  

29%	
  

13%	
  

10%	
  

14%	
  

20%	
  

11%	
  

23%	
  

12%	
  

43%	
  

13%	
  

14%	
  

23%	
  

36%	
  

34%	
  

26%	
  

24%	
  

14%	
  

25%	
  

24%	
  

13%	
  

12%	
  

34%	
  

28%	
  

46%	
  

14%	
  

50%	
  

52%	
  

29%	
  

American	
  Indian/Alaska	
  Na<ve	
  

Asian	
  

Black	
  

La<no	
  &	
  Caribbean	
  

Mul<racial	
  

Na<ve	
  Hawaiian/Other	
  Pacific	
  Islander	
  

Some	
  Other	
  Race	
  

White	
  

Pre-­‐1960s	
   1960s	
   1970s	
   1980s	
   1990s	
   2000-­‐11	
  

Figure 46. US organizations by pan racial group and decade founded

Source: US survey results (n=342). Figures are rounded. 

respondents. As previously discussed, US survey data may be treated as 

generally representative of US nonprofit ethnocultural arts organizations, 

and more specifically representative as to race and geography. These 

findings do, however, slightly underrepresent Black arts organizations.

Survey findings indicate that pan racial groups vary considerably 

in terms of organizational age. While all pan racial groups possess 

organizations founded in the 1970s or prior, the largest percentages of 

these first generation organizations appear to exist among White (36 

percent), American Indian/Alaska Native (32 percent), and Multiracial 

(29 percent) arts organizations (see fig. 46). On the other end of the 

spectrum, Some Other Race, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, 

and Latino arts organizations appear to be on average younger than 

other groups, with approximately half of survey respondents within 

these pan racial groups founded in the 2000s, and are joined by Asian 

arts organizations, which are also on average younger than other groups 

36%	
  

53%	
  

46%	
  

37%	
  

38%	
  

63%	
  

14%	
  

55%	
  

28%	
  

36%	
  

29%	
  

39%	
  

63%	
  

38%	
  

67%	
  

28%	
  

20%	
  

6%	
  

8%	
  

14%	
  

19%	
  

7%	
  

8%	
  

10%	
  

3%	
  

6%	
  

4%	
  

4%	
  

4%	
  

5%	
  

3%	
  

2%	
  

2%	
  

4%	
  

1%	
  

1%	
  

American	
  Indian/Alaska	
  Na<ve	
  

Asian	
  

Black	
  

La<no	
  &	
  Caribbean	
  

Mul<racial	
  

Na<ve	
  Hawaiian/Other	
  Pacific	
  

Islander	
  

Some	
  Other	
  Race	
  

White	
  

0	
   1-­‐5	
   6-­‐10	
   11-­‐20	
   21-­‐50	
   51-­‐100	
   More	
  than	
  100	
  

Figure 47. US survey respondents by number of paid employees and 

pan racial group

Source: US survey results (n=350). Figures are rounded.

(68 percent of respondents founded in the 1990s or later).

Pan Racial Group/Employees

Across pan racial groups, the majority of US survey respondents 

report that they operate with zero to five paid employees (full-time and 

part-time) (US-SQ-4). Respondents from Native Hawaiian/Other 

Pacific Islander arts organizations report the greatest percentage of no 

paid employees, and these respondents join respondents from Multiracial 

and Asian arts organizations in operating with the fewest number of 

paid employees. Respondents from American Indian/Alaska Native arts 

organizations report the greatest number of paid employees: slightly 

more than a third (36 percent) operate with six or more paid employees. 

In addition to operating with few to no paid employees, many 

respondents operate with little full-time assistance. A sizable percentage of 

all groups report that none of their paid employees are full-time (ranging 
Part II

from 42 percent to 75 percent) (US-SQ-5). With three-quarters of Native 

Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander respondents reporting no paid full-time 

employees, these organizations operate with the fewest number of fulltime human personnel. Among the eight pan racial groups, American 

Indian/Alaska Native respondents operate with the greatest number of 

full-time personnel, although such full-time assistance remains rare with 

this group as well: only a quarter of organizations report that 51 percent 

or more of their paid employees are full-time. More than three-quarters 

of respondents from all other groups report that less than 25 percent (or 

zero) of employees are full-time.

Pan racial groups vary in their reliance on volunteers (including 

interns) as a means to supplement their general lack of full-time staff, 

although the vast majority of respondents report working with volunteers 

in some capacity (US-SQ-6). More than two-thirds of respondents 

from all groups report six or more volunteers, with more than half of 

respondents from Asian (62 percent), Multiracial (87 percent), Native 

Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (74 percent), Some Other Race (51 

percent), and White (67 percent) reporting 11 or more volunteers. On 

the lower end, the greatest percentage of respondents reporting five or 

fewer volunteers are American Indian/Alaska Native (32 percent) and 

Latino & Caribbean (29 percent) arts organizations. Respondents from 

American Indian/Alaska Native arts organizations join Asian and White 

respondents in working with the greatest number of volunteers as well: 

16 percent of American Indian/Alaska Native respondents, 12 percent 

of Asian respondents, and 10 percent of White respondents report more 

than 100 volunteers, which are higher percentages than any other pan 

racial group. 

Pan Racial Group/Income 

There is great variation among pan racial groups with respect 

to average, median, and maximum annual gross incomes. Some Other 

Race arts organizations have the highest average annual gross income 

($2,553,640), with the average incomes of Black, Asian, and American 

Indian/Alaska Native arts organizations also falling above the field 

average of $701,358 (see table 6). Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific 

Islander arts organizations have the lowest average annual gross income 

($129,825), with Multiracial, Latino & Caribbean, and White arts 

211

organizations all also falling well below the field average. 

Asian arts organizations simultaneously have the lowest 

median annual gross income ($61,427) and the highest maximum gross 

income ($157,116,526), whereas American Indian/Alaska Native arts 

organizations have the highest median annual gross income ($173,598) 

but one of the lower maximum gross incomes ($13,985,154). These 

latter two findings comport with findings in Cultural Centers of Color, 

which found that Asian arts organizations possessed the lowest median 

annual income among all arts organizations of color, and Native arts 

organizations possessed one of the higher median annual incomes. With 

respect to American Indian/Alaska Native arts organizations, we repeat 

Bowles’ observation that many of these organizations operate as part of 

a cultural center or space that provides a variety of arts-specific and nonarts services, and thus the higher income figures for these organizations 

may be misleading as they frequently support general educational and 

Pan	
  Racial	
  Group Average	
  Gross	
  

Income

Median	
  Gross	
  

Income

Max	
  Gross	
  

Income

ECAOs	
  with	
  available	
  

Financial	
  Data	
  

(%	
  of	
  Total)

American	
  Indian/	
  Alaska	
  

Native $719,797 $173,598 $13,985,154 54%

Asian $748,631 $61,427 $157,116,526 65%

Black $779,276 $112,855 $105,285,609 70%

Latino	
  &	
  Caribbean $372,456 $80,507 $25,006,313 71%

Multiracial $344,584 $116,888 $4,726,676 88%

Native	
  Hawaiian/	
  Other	
  Pacific	
  

Islander $129,825 $66,615 $704,360 60%

Some	
  Other	
  Race $2,553,640 $147,393 $107,438,086 73%

White $430,139 $82,155 $24,653,123 63%

All	
  Groups $701,358 $86,487 $157,116,526 66%

Table 6. US organizations by average, median, and max annual gross 

income (2009-2012)

Source: US organizations database (n=2013). Average and median gross incomes 

calculated by first determining the average income for each organization for the 

4-year period (2009-2012) and then calculating the average and median for the 

field. Max gross income is the largest single value for any organization during 

the 4-year period. Figures are rounded.
Characteristics by Pan Racial Group 212

non-arts activities.

As noted in Overview of Characteristics, a significant number of 

organizations across all groups did not file any federal tax forms between 

2009 and 2012; if available, this missing data could change the income 

figures reported in this section.

An examination of the income distribution of ethnocultural 

arts organizations reveals great income disparities within pan racial 

groups. The overwhelming majority of organizations in all ethnocultural 

groups fall well below the field average, with all Native Hawaiian/Other 

Pacific Islander arts organizations reporting annual incomes under the 

field average (see table 6; fig. 47). Skewing the field average upwards 

are a few extremely high-income Asian, Some Other Race, and Black 

arts organizations; within these groups, only five percent of Asian arts 

organizations, 13 percent of Some Other Race arts organizations, and 

11 percent of Black arts organizations report incomes of $1,000,000 or 

more. As with their Canadian peers, the incomes of American Indian/

Alaska Native arts organizations are somewhat more evenly distributed 

then other pan racial groups, although these organizations also have a 

	
  $-­‐	
  	
  	
  	
  

	
  $100,000	
  	
  

	
  $200,000	
  	
  

	
  $300,000	
  	
  

	
  $400,000	
  	
  

American	
  

Indian/	
  

Alaska	
  

Na9ve	
  

Asian	
   Black	
   La9no	
  &	
  

Caribbean	
  

Mul9racial	
   Na9ve	
  

Hawaiian/	
  

Other	
  

Pacific	
  

Islander	
  

Some	
  Other	
  

Race	
  

White	
  

2009	
   2010	
   2011	
   2012	
  

Figure 49. US organizations by pan racial group and median annual 

gross income per year (2009-2012)

Source: US organizations database (n=2013).

42%

64%

48%

56%

43%

61%

40%

57% 55%

15% 17% 21%15%

40%

29% 28%

18% 19% 16%

3%

9%

4%

10%

0%

8% 7% 7%

12% 9% 12% 15%

3% 7%

13% 9% 11% 11%

6% 7% 7% 3% 4% 6% 8% 7% 3% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0%

5% 1% 2%

AMERICAN INDIAN/

ALASKA NATIVE

ASIAN BLACK LATINO & CARIBBEAN MULTIRACIAL NATIVE HAWAIIAN/

OTHER PACIFIC

ISLANDER

SOME OTHER RACE WHITE Total Field

<$100K $100K to $250K $250K to $500K $500K to $1MM $1MM to $5MM $5MM+

87% of organizations <

Field Avg ($701k)

92% of organizations < Field

Avg ($701k)

89% of organizations <

Field Avg ($701k)

87% of organizations <

Field Avg ($701k)

100% of organizations <

Field Avg ($701k)

88% of organizations < Field

Avg ($701k)

84% of organizations < Field

Avg ($701k)

75% of organizations <

Field Avg ($701k)

84% of organizations <

Field Avg ($701k)

Figure 48. US organizations by pan racial group and average annual gross income: frequency distribution (2009-2012)

Source: US organizations database (n=2013). Average annual gross income based on 4-year annual gross incomes (2009-2012). Figures are rounded.
213 Part II

American	
  

Indian/Alaska	
  

Native

0% 1	
  to	
  

10%

11	
  to	
  

20%

21	
  to	
  

30%

31	
  to	
  

40%

41	
  to	
  

50%

51	
  to	
  

60%

61	
  to	
  

70%

71	
  to	
  

80%

81	
  to	
  

90%

91	
  to	
  

100%

Percentage	
  

unknown

Federal 50.0% 13.6% 4.5% 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 22.7%

State 42.1% 21.1% 10.5% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 15.8%

Local 50.0% 20.0% 15.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15.0%

Foundation 31.8% 22.7% 18.2% 0.0% 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 4.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.6%

Corporate 38.9% 22.2% 11.1% 0.0% 0.0% 5.6% 5.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16.7%

Individual 4.8% 42.9% 9.5% 4.8% 9.5% 4.8% 0.0% 0.0% 4.8% 0.0% 4.8% 14.3%

Earned	
  Income 5.3% 36.8% 0.0% 0.0% 21.1% 5.3% 5.3% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0% 5.3% 15.8%

Other 17.6% 23.5% 11.8% 5.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.9% 0.0% 11.8% 23.5%

Asian 0% 1	
  to	
  

10%

11	
  to	
  

20%

21	
  to	
  

30%

31	
  to	
  

40%

41	
  to	
  

50%

51	
  to	
  

60%

61	
  to	
  

70%

71	
  to	
  

80%

81	
  to	
  

90%

91	
  to	
  

100%

Percentage	
  

unknown

Federal 70.6% 11.8% 5.9% 2.9% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.4%

State 52.1% 21.1% 15.5% 0.0% 2.8% 1.4% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.6%

Local 44.1% 22.1% 10.3% 16.2% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.9%

Foundation 42.2% 25.0% 15.6% 7.8% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 6.3%

Corporate 33.8% 36.6% 9.9% 5.6% 2.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 8.5%

Individual 3.8% 30.8% 16.7% 10.3% 9.0% 3.8% 3.8% 1.3% 1.3% 2.6% 10.3% 6.4%

Earned	
  Income 8.8% 11.8% 13.2% 10.3% 7.4% 8.8% 7.4% 10.3% 2.9% 4.4% 7.4% 7.4%

Other 29.6% 31.5% 9.3% 7.4% 3.7% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 14.8%

Figure 50. US survey respondents by pan racial group and income sources

Source: US survey results (n=345). Figures are rounded.

Black 0% 1	
  to	
  

10%

11	
  to	
  

20%

21	
  to	
  

30%

31	
  to	
  

40%

41	
  to	
  

50%

51	
  to	
  

60%

61	
  to	
  

70%

71	
  to	
  

80%

81	
  to	
  

90%

91	
  to	
  

100%

Percentage	
  

unknown

Federal 71.0% 12.9% 9.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2% 3.2%

State 32.4% 41.2% 20.6% 0.0% 2.9% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Local 28.6% 25.7% 14.3% 11.4% 2.9% 8.6% 0.0% 5.7% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Foundation 24.2% 21.2% 18.2% 3.0% 9.1% 3.0% 9.1% 6.1% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0%

Corporate 34.5% 24.1% 10.3% 13.8% 13.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.4%

Individual 5.3% 34.2% 15.8% 10.5% 2.6% 7.9% 2.6% 0.0% 2.6% 2.6% 13.2% 2.6%

Earned	
  Income 10.8% 13.5% 13.5% 13.5% 16.2% 2.7% 5.4% 5.4% 2.7% 5.4% 10.8% 0.0%

Other 25.0% 29.2% 16.7% 4.2% 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.8%

Latino	
  &	
  

Caribbean 0% 1	
  to	
  10%

11	
  to	
  

20%

21	
  to	
  

30%

31	
  to	
  

40%

41	
  to	
  

50%

51	
  to	
  

60%

61	
  to	
  

70%

71	
  to	
  

80%

81	
  to	
  

90%

91	
  to	
  

100%

Percentage	
  

unknown

Federal 61.7% 23.4% 8.5% 2.1% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1%

State 41.7% 20.8% 18.8% 6.3% 4.2% 0.0% 2.1% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 2.1%

Local 26.4% 35.8% 13.2% 7.5% 1.9% 5.7% 1.9% 3.8% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9%

Foundation 24.5% 26.5% 12.2% 16.3% 10.2% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0% 2.0%

Corporate 31.9% 38.3% 10.6% 10.6% 6.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1%

Individual 8.2% 51.0% 8.2% 4.1% 4.1% 6.1% 4.1% 2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 6.1% 4.1%

Earned	
  Income 15.4% 17.3% 11.5% 11.5% 11.5% 9.6% 9.6% 3.8% 1.9% 3.8% 1.9% 1.9%

Other 39.5% 42.1% 7.9% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.9%
Characteristics by Pan Racial Group 214

Multiracial 0% 1	
  to	
  

10%

11	
  to	
  

20%

21	
  to	
  

30%

31	
  to	
  

40%

41	
  to	
  

50%

51	
  to	
  

60%

61	
  to	
  

70%

71	
  to	
  

80%

81	
  to	
  

90%

91	
  to	
  

100%

Percentage	
  

unknown

Federal 85.7% 14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

State 42.9% 42.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Local 40.0% 60.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Foundation 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 28.6% 0.0% 14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Corporate 33.3% 33.3% 16.7% 0.0% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Individual 12.5% 37.5% 12.5% 12.5% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Earned	
  Income 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.5% 0.0%

Other 40.0% 20.0% 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0%

Native	
  

Hawaiian/Other	
  

Pacific	
  Islander

0% 1	
  to	
  

10%

11	
  to	
  

20%

21	
  to	
  

30%

31	
  to	
  

40%

41	
  to	
  

50%

51	
  to	
  

60%

61	
  to	
  

70%

71	
  to	
  

80%

81	
  to	
  

90%

91	
  to	
  

100%

Percentage	
  

unknown

Federal 85.7% 14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

State 71.4% 14.3% 0.0% 14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Local 71.4% 28.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Foundation 33.3% 33.3% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Corporate 33.3% 50.0% 0.0% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Individual 0.0% 28.6% 0.0% 14.3% 14.3% 0.0% 14.3% 0.0% 14.3% 0.0% 14.3% 0.0%

Earned	
  Income 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 0.0%

Other 28.6% 0.0% 42.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.3%

Some	
  Other	
  

Race 0% 1	
  to	
  10%

11	
  to	
  

20%

21	
  to	
  

30%

31	
  to	
  

40%

41	
  to	
  

50%

51	
  to	
  

60%

61	
  to	
  

70%

71	
  to	
  

80%

81	
  to	
  

90%

91	
  to	
  

100%

Percentage	
  

unknown

Federal 70.6% 17.6% 0.0% 0.0% 5.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.9%

State 76.5% 11.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.8%

Local 66.7% 11.1% 11.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.6% 5.6%

Foundation 27.8% 16.7% 22.2% 5.6% 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 5.6% 5.6% 0.0% 0.0% 5.6%

Corporate 58.8% 17.6% 11.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.9% 0.0% 5.9%

Individual 0.0% 15.8% 26.3% 0.0% 10.5% 5.3% 10.5% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0% 15.8% 10.5%

Earned	
  Income 16.7% 22.2% 5.6% 11.1% 16.7% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.6% 5.6%

Other 64.3% 7.1% 0.0% 7.1% 0.0% 0.0% 7.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.3%

White 0% 1	
  to	
  

10%

11	
  to	
  

20%

21	
  to	
  

30%

31	
  to	
  

40%

41	
  to	
  

50%

51	
  to	
  

60%

61	
  to	
  

70%

71	
  to	
  

80%

81	
  to	
  

90%

91	
  to	
  

100%

Percentage	
  

unknown

Federal 94.1% 4.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2%

State 78.8% 12.9% 3.5% 1.2% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 1.2%

Local 68.2% 20.5% 6.8% 1.1% 1.1% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1%

Foundation 64.6% 22.0% 4.9% 1.2% 1.2% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 2.4%

Corporate 54.3% 30.9% 4.9% 0.0% 3.7% 0.0% 1.2% 2.5% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2%

Individual 16.3% 20.9% 9.3% 5.8% 11.6% 5.8% 1.2% 0.0% 3.5% 8.1% 14.0% 3.5%

Earned	
  Income 21.4% 14.3% 8.3% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 3.6% 2.4% 7.1% 7.1% 16.7% 4.8%

Other 30.7% 24.0% 10.7% 4.0% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 4.0% 0.0% 2.7% 2.7% 13.3%
215 Part II

few high-income ($5 million or more) organizations that upwardly skew 

this group’s average.

With median income a better representation of the income of 

ethnocultural arts organizations, between 2009 and 2012 gross annual 

income greatly increased for Some Other Race arts organizations (285 

percent increase), American Indian/Alaska Native arts organizations 

(97 percent increase), and Latino & Caribbean arts organizations (61 

percent increase), somewhat increased for Asian and Native Hawaiian/

Other Pacific Islander arts organizations, and decreased for Multiracial 

and White arts organizations (see Fig. 49). While the median income of 

Black arts organizations increased on a whole between 2009 and 2012, 

between 2010 and 2012 incomes for these organizations has steadily 

decreased.

Pan Racial Group/Sources of Income

As discussed in Overview of Characteristics, US survey 

respondents currently rely somewhat more heavily on earned income 

and individual contributions than they do on any other income source; 

however, there is some variation among pan racial groups with respect 

to these and other significant sources of income (see fig. 50; US-SQ-8). 

We make the following observations for each specific pan racial group:

• American Indian/Alaska Native: Next to respondents from 

Latino & Caribbean arts organizations, respondents from 

American Indian/Alaska Native arts organizations report 

that a greater percentage of their income derives from 

federal sources than do respondents from other pan racial 

groups: more than a quarter (27 percent) of organizations 

report that 1-30 percent of income is from this source. 

The greatest income source for many American Indian/

Alaska Native respondents is earned income: 42 percent of 

respondents, more than for any other source, report that 

this source comprises 31 percent or more of income. We 

note that a sizable percentage (13.6 to 23.5 depending on 

the income source) of respondents from American Indian/

Alaska Native arts organizations report that their percentage 

of income deriving from various sources is unknown, and 

therefore the figures cited herein may not be representative 

of these organizations. 

• Asian: Almost half (49 percent) of respondents from Asian 

arts organizations, which is more than for any other source, 

report that 31 percent or more of income is due to earned 

income; almost a third (32 percent) of respondents report 

that 31 percent or more of income is due to individual 

contributions. 

• Black: Respondents from Black arts organizations report 

that a greater percentage of their income derives from local 

governmental sources than do respondents from other pan 

racial groups: 20 percent of respondents report that 31 

percent or more of income derives from this source. For 

almost half (49 percent) of respondents, 31 percent or more 

of income is due to earned income, which is more than for 

any other source. Other significant sources of income for a 

number of respondents are foundation support (30 percent 

of respondents report that 31 percent or more of income is 

due to this source) and individual contributions (32 percent 

of respondents report that 31 percent or more of income is 

due to this source).

• Latino & Caribbean: More so than respondents from 

any other pan racial group, respondents from Latino & 

Caribbean arts organizations report receiving some support 

from federal sources: more than one-third (36 percent) of 

organizations report that 1-40 percent of income is from 

this source. The greatest income source for many Latino 

& Caribbean respondents is earned income: 42 percent of 

respondents, more than for any other source, report that 31 

percent or more of income is due to this source.

• Multiracial: For the majority (60 percent) of respondents 

from Multiracial arts organizations, 31 percent or more of 

income is due to earned income, which is more than for any 

other source. Foundation support is also a significant source 

of income for many respondents: 43 percent of respondents 

report that this source comprises 31 percent or more of 

income, which is more than for any other pan racial group. 

• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander: More so than 
Characteristics by Pan Racial Group 216

respondents from any other pan racial group, respondents 

from Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander report that a 

significant component of income is due to earned income 

and individual contributions: 80 percent of respondents 

report that earned income comprises 31 percent or more of 

income, and 57 percent of respondents report that individual 

contributions comprise 31 percent or more of income.

• Some Other Race: For nearly half of respondents from 

Some Other Race arts organizations, earned income (45 

percent) and individual contributions (47 percent) comprise 

31 percent or more of income. Foundation support is also 

a significant source of support for a sizable number of 

respondents: 22 percent report that this source comprises 31 

percent or more of income.

• White: For nearly half of respondents from White arts 

organizations, earned income (47 percent) and individual 

contributions (44 percent) comprise 31 percent or more of 

income. Aside from “Other” income sources (18 percent), no 

other income source comprises such a significant source of 

support for more than 10 percent of these organizations. 

Pan Racial Group/Organizational Challenges 

Across all pan racial groups, the majority of survey respondents 

list financial resources as their most critical challenge or need (75 to 100 

percent of organizations ranked 1-2), followed by organizational capacity 

building (48 to 63 percent of organizations ranked 1-2) (US-SQ-18). 

Image 33. The Lira Ensemble performing at Orchestra 

Hall in Chicago, including the Lira Symphony; the 

Lira Singers in authentic garb from the Łowicz region

of Central Poland; Mina Zikri, Resident Conductor; 

and Lucyna Migala, Narrator, Artistic Director, and 

General Manager. Photograph by Warren Johnson. 

Reproduced by permission from The Lira Ensemble.
217 Part II

The third and fourth most critical challenges/needs identified across 

pan racial groups fluctuates between administrative/performance/

exhibition space (14 to 63 percent of organizations ranked 1-2) and 

audience development (zero to 30 percent of organizations ranked 1-2). 

Regarding audience development, our research suggests that 

there is particular variation among pan racial groups with respect to 

this challenge. For Black, American Indian, and Asian arts organizations 

in particular, open-ended survey responses and interviews indicate that 

a number of these organizations struggle with more internal audience 

development issues that are also connected to financial resource needs: 

for example, attracting audiences, board members, and/or donors from 

their own communities. For White arts organizations in particular, survey 

responses and interviews indicate that a number of these organizations 

struggle more with external audience development issues such as 

attracting audiences from outside their ethnocultural communities, 

which is related to difficulties in attracting mainstream media coverage. 

Organizations from all pan racial groups point to emerging audience 

development challenges due in part to gentrification and development 

(discussed in Characteristics by Province/Region), which have created 

new challenges for some of these community-based arts organizations 

as neighborhoods transition from one pan racial group to another. 

More broadly, survey and interview questions regarding organizations’ 

definition and composition of their communities and associated 

needs elicited a wide range of descriptions and opinions from project 

Image 34. Holly Calica. Mag-Anak – Family, 2013. Photo panel from the Kodakan: Pilipinos in the City exhibition. Presented by Kularts in partnership 

with the Filipino American Center at the San Francisco Public Library. Left: Calica family, c 1940 (left to right) Buddy Rillera, Rudy Caluza Calica 

(Holly’s father), unknown girl, Blas Cacdac Calica (Holly’s grandfather), and Ben Caluza Calica (Holly’s uncle). Right: Calica Family, 2013 (left to right) 

Sandino Calica Napolis (Holly’s eldest son), Rubén Darío Calica Napolis (Holly’s younger son), Amaya Tyler Napolis (daughter of Sandino), Holly 

Calica, and Aaliyah Sky Napolis (daughter of Ruben). Photograph by Wilfred Galila. Reproduced by permission from Kulintang Arts.
Characteristics by Pan Racial Group 

participants. Observes Brenda Wong, founder and artistic director of 

San Francisco-based First Voice, 

Community is now such a...the term means so many 

different things. Are you talking about our audience? 

Which is not necessarily all Asian? Or are you talking 

about where my parents are from? Which, you know, is 

not necessarily all Asian either...That becomes another 

thing about what are peoples’ community. Do you 

mean their birth community, or the community they’re 

generating?4

While audience development ranks as an important, but less critical, 

need than financial resources and capacity building, research for the 

Plural project indicates that, more so than other top needs, efforts aimed 

at addressing this need require particular attention to nuances between 

the ethnocultural (and geographic) context of organizations. 

With respect to the top financial resource needs of specific groups, 

respondents from all pan racial groups prioritize the need to increase 

contributed revenue (37 to 50 percent of organizations ranked 1) and to 

identify new funding sources (25 to 38 percent of organizations ranked 

1) (US-SQ-20). Specific capacity building needs among respondents 

are more varied, although all respondents except for respondents from 

American Indian/Alaska Native and White arts organizations prioritized 

the need for paid staff (US-SQ-19). We make the following observations 

for each specific pan racial group: 

• American Indian/Alaska Native: The top four capacity 

building needs are (i) board development (38 percent ranked 

1-2), (ii) maintaining and/or increasing the number of paid 

staff (33 percent ranked 1-2), (iii) marketing/promotional 

assistance (29 percent ranked 1-2), and (iv) a tie between 

obtaining appropriately skilled staff and professional 

development of existing staff (24 percent ranked 1-2). 

• Asian: The top four capacity building needs are (i) 

maintaining and/or increasing the number of paid staff 

(37 percent ranked 1-2), (ii) obtaining appropriately skilled 

staff (30 percent ranked 1-2), (iii) marketing/promotional 

assistance (25 percent ranked 1-2), and (iv) a tie between 

board development and leadership transition/succession 

planning (23 percent ranked 1-2).

• Black: The top four capacity building needs are (i) maintaining 

and/or increasing the number of paid staff (47 percent 

ranked 1-2), (ii) board development (42 percent ranked 1-2), 

(iii) leadership transition/succession planning (27 percent 

ranked 1-2), and (iv) a tie between financial management 

assistance and marketing/promotional assistance (20 percent 

ranked 1-2). 

• Latino & Caribbean: The top four capacity building needs 

are (i) maintaining and/or increasing the number of paid 

staff (64 percent ranked 1-2), (ii) board development (31 

percent ranked 1-2), (iii) obtaining appropriately skilled staff 

(29 percent ranked 1-2), and (iv) marketing/promotional 

assistance (17 percent ranked 1-2).

• Multiracial: The top three capacity building needs are (i) 

maintaining and/or increasing the number of paid staff 

(63 percent ranked 1-2), (ii) leadership transition/succession 

planning (50 percent ranked 1-2), and (iii) obtaining 

appropriately skilled staff (38 percent ranked 1-2). For 

the fourth most highly ranked need, there is a four-way 

tie between the following: (i) clarifying and/or refocusing 

organizational mission and identity; (ii) board development; 

(iii) financial management assistance; (iv) technical support 

(12.5 percent ranked 1-2).

• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander: The top four 

capacity building needs are (i) a tie between maintaining 

and/or increasing the number of paid staff and board 

development (38 percent ranked 1-2), (ii) a three-way tie 

between obtaining appropriately skilled staff, professional 

development of existing staff, and marketing/promotional 

assistance (25 percent ranked 1-2), and (iii) a four-way tie 

between leadership transition/succession planning, financial 

management assistance, technical support, and other (13 

percent ranked 1-2).

• Some Other Race: The top four capacity building needs 

are (i) maintaining and/or increasing the number of paid 

218
219 Part II

groups except Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander and White 

arts organizations accessed arts services related to financial support; 

however, for Latino & Caribbean and Multiracial arts organizations, 

these services were not the most commonly accessed service (see fig. 

51; US-SQ-23). For respondents from American Indian/Alaska Native 

and Asian arts organizations, the most frequently accessed services are 

financial support (68 and 51 percent of organizations, respectively), 

convening/networking (58 and 41 percent of organizations, respectively), 

and education/training (47 percent and 46 percent of organizations, 

respectively). For respondents from Black and Latino arts organizations, 

the most frequently accessed services are financial support (61 and 53 

percent of organizations, respectively), convening/networking (47 and 

60 percent of organizations, respectively), and promotion/audience 

development (51 and 47 percent of organizations, respectively).

For respondents from Some Other Race and White arts 

organizations, the most frequently accessed services are financial support 

(53 and 31 percent of organizations, respectively), promotion/audience 

11%	
  

16%	
  

21%	
   23%	
  

43%	
  

25%	
  

11%	
   7%	
   11%	
   14%	
   16%	
   17%	
   14%	
   13%	
  

5%	
   7%	
  

58%	
  

41%	
  

47%	
  

60%	
  

71%	
  

25%	
  

32%	
  

20%	
  

47%	
   46%	
  

42%	
   43%	
  

14%	
   13%	
  

37%	
  

29%	
  

68%	
  

51%	
  

60%	
  

53%	
   57%	
  

38%	
  

53%	
  

31%	
  

16%	
  

30%	
   28%	
  

34%	
  

29%	
  

13%	
  

37%	
  

19%	
   21%	
  

35%	
  

51%	
   47%	
  

29%	
  

50%	
   47%	
  

27%	
  

21%	
   25%	
  

35%	
   34%	
  

14%	
  

38%	
  

21%	
   18%	
   16%	
   17%	
   16%	
  

26%	
  

14%	
  

50%	
  

11%	
  

42%	
  

American	
  Indian/Alaska	
  

Na<ve	
  

Asian	
   Black	
   La<no	
  &	
  Caribbean	
   Mul<racial	
   Na<ve	
  Hawaiian/Other	
  Pacific	
  

Islander	
  

Some	
  Other	
  Race	
   White	
  

Advocacy/policy-­‐related	
  ac<on	
  	
   Contracted/group	
  services	
  	
   Convening/networking	
  	
  

Educa<on/training	
   Financial	
  support	
   Informa<on/research	
  	
  

Promo<on/audience	
  development	
  	
   Accessed	
  other	
  arts-­‐related	
  services	
   Not	
  Applicable	
  (have	
  not	
  accessed	
  arts-­‐related	
  services)	
  

Figure 51. US survey respondents by pan racial group and arts services accessed (2011-2013)

Source: US survey results (n=290). Figures are rounded.

staff (44 percent ranked 1-2), (ii) board development (33 

percent ranked 1-2), (iii) marketing/promotional assistance 

(28 percent ranked 1-2), and (iv) a three-way tie between 

leadership transition/succession planning, clarifying and/or 

refocusing organizational mission and identity, and financial 

management assistance (17 percent ranked 1-2).

• White: The top four capacity building needs are (i) 

marketing/promotional assistance (31 percent ranked 1-2), 

(ii) obtaining appropriately skilled staff (28 percent ranked 

1-2), (iii) maintaining and/or increasing the number of paid 

staff (26 percent ranked 1-2), and (iv) a tie between leadership 

transition/succession planning and board development (25 

percent ranked 1-2). 

Pan Racial Group/Organizational Supports

Arts Services. For survey respondents that accessed arts services 

between 2011 and 2013, the majority of respondents from all pan racial 
Characteristics by Pan Racial Group 

development (47 and 27 percent of organizations, respectively), and 

education/training (37 and 29 percent of organizations, respectively). 

A sizable percentage of respondents from Some Other Race arts 

organizations also report accessing services related to information/

research (37 percent of organizations).

A greater proportion of respondents from Multiracial arts 

organizations accessed services related to advocacy/policy than did 

respondents from other pan racial groups (43 percent of organizations); 

as with many other pan racial groups, a number of respondents from 

Multiracial arts organizations also report accessing services related to 

convening/networking and financial support (71 percent and 57 percent, 

respectively). Respondents from Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 

arts organizations most frequently accessed promotion/audience 

development (50 percent of organizations), financial support (38 

percent of organizations), and other arts-related services (38 percent of 

organizations). Half of respondents from Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific 

Islander, 42 percent of respondents from White arts organizations, and 

a quarter of respondents from Latino arts organizations did not access 

any arts-related services during this period (organizations reporting “not 

applicable”).

When they accessed arts services, at least half of survey 

respondents from all pan racial groups accessed at least some services 

provided by organizations exclusively dedicated to serving ethnocultural 

arts organizations (US-SQ-24). Respondents from American Indian/

Alaska Native arts organizations report the greatest use of such dedicated 

services: one-third of these organizations, more than any other pan racial 

group, report that more than half of the services they access are dedicated. 

Respondents from Black, Latino & Caribbean, and Some Other Race 

arts organizations also strongly interact with such services: 37 percent of 

respondents from Black organizations, 43 percent of respondents from 

Latino & Caribbean organizations, and 38 percent of respondents from 

Some Other Race organizations report that a quarter or more of artsrelated services are dedicated services. Interacting the least with such 

services are respondents from Multiracial arts organizations, with half 

reporting that they access no dedicated services and 83 percent reporting 

that zero to less than a quarter of services are dedicated.

In accessing both dedicated and non-dedicated arts services, 

220

Image 35. Merián Soto, Three Branch Songs, 2006. Pepatian. 

Photograph by Marisol Diaz. Reproduced by permission from 

Pepatian. 
Part II

survey respondents from all pan racial groups share the same main 

constraints of lack of time and finances; constraints relating to lack of 

knowledge of existing services and the lack of relevancy of such services 

also rank highly for all eight groups (US-SQ-31). 

Funding. In seeking grant support, the majority of survey 

respondents from all pan racial groups submit at least some percentage 

of their grant applications to funding programs with an explicit 

mandate to support specific cultural or ethnic communities (USSQ-34). Respondents from Some Other Race and Latino & Caribbean 

arts organizations frequently seek support from such programs: more 

than half (60 percent) of respondents from Some Other Race arts 

organizations and more than one-third (36 percent) of respondents 

from Latino & Caribbean arts organizations report that more than half 

of their grant applications are to dedicated funding programs. Sizable 

percentages of respondents from American Indian/Alaska Native, 

Asian, and Black arts organizations also regularly apply to dedicated 

programs: 30 percent of American Indian/Alaska Native, 32 percent 

of Asian, and 32 percent of Black respondents report that more than 

half of their grant applications are to dedicated funding programs. 

Respondents from Multiracial, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, 

and White are organizations report the least amount of interaction 

with dedicated funding programs: 43 percent (Multiracial and Native 

Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander) and 40 percent (White) report that 

none of their grant applications are to these programs, and another 43 

percent (Multiracial and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander) and 

21 percent (White) report that less than a quarter (but more than zero) 

of their applications are to these programs.

As is the case with our Canadian findings, a comparison of 

responses to CAN-SQ-24 with responses to CAN-SQ-34 suggests that 

dedicated funding programs are of high value to respondents, and 

possibly more so than other forms of dedicated arts services (see table 

7 and discussion in Overview of Characteristics regarding differences 

between the two questions). 

Collaboration. Across pan racial groups, survey respondents are 

generally familiar with other organizations that share their organizations’ 

artistic and cultural/ethnic focus (US-SQ-35). When asked to describe 

their current relationship with other arts organizations that share their 

organizations’ cultural/ethnic focus, the majority of respondents from 

all pan racial groups except for Asian and Native Hawaiian/Other 

Pacific Islander arts organizations report frequent interaction and good 

relationships with their local peers (ranging from 53 to 88 percent of 

organizations), and a sizable percentage of respondents from these two 

groups describe such a relationship with local peers (47 percent of Asian 

arts organizations and 38 percent of Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific 

Islander arts organizations) (US-SQ-36). Half of respondents from 

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander arts organizations and more 

than a third (34 percent) of respondents from Asian arts organizations 

report good relationships but infrequent interaction with their local 

peers, which is another common description of this relationship for 

other pan racial groups (24 percent for American Indian/Alaska Native 

respondents, 27 percent for Black respondents, 27 percent for Latino & 

Caribbean respondents, 17 percent for Some Other Race respondents, 

and 22 percent for White respondents). American Indian/Alaska Native 

(18 percent), Asian (13 percent), Multiracial (13 percent), and Native 

Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (13 percent) arts organizations have 

221

%	
  of	
  organizations	
  that	
  have	
  

more	
  than	
  0%	
  services	
  

provided	
  by	
  organizations

dedicated	
  to	
  serving	
  

culturally	
  specific	
  arts	
  

organizations

%	
  of	
  organizations	
  with	
  more	
  

than	
  0%	
  of	
  grant	
  apps	
  

submitted	
  to	
  funding	
  programs	
  

with	
  explicit	
  mandate	
  to	
  

support	
  specific	
  cultural	
  or	
  

ethnic	
  communities

American	
  Indian/Alaska	
  

Native 72% 80%

Asian 58% 77%

Black 61% 74%

Latino	
  &	
  Caribbean 64% 70%

Multiracial 50% 57%

Native	
  Hawaiian/Other	
  

Pacific	
  Islander 43% 57%

Some	
  Other	
  Race 75% 100%

White	
  	
   58% 60%

Table 7. Dedicated arts services and funding sources accessed by pan 

racial group

Source: US survey results (US-SQ-24 n=266, US-SQ-34 n=257). Figures have 

been rounded.
Characteristics by Pan Racial Group 

the highest percentage of respondents reporting poor relationships with 

local peers. 

There is greater variation among pan racial groups with respect 

to their relationships with peers based in other geographic areas. The 

greatest percentage of respondents from all groups except for Some 

Other Race arts organizations report good relationships but infrequent 

interaction with regional peers (ranging from 33 to 57 percent), and 

the greatest percentage of respondents from all groups except for 

Asian and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander arts organizations 

report good relationships but infrequent interaction with national 

peers (ranging from 33 to 61 percent of organizations). For these 

other organizations, a greater percentage of respondents from Some 

Other Race arts organizations report good relationships and frequent 

interaction with regional peers (41 percent), and a greater percentage of 

respondents from Asian and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 

arts organizations report having no relationship with national peers 

(44 and 57 percent, respectively). American Indian/Alaska Native and 

Multiracial arts organizations have the highest percentage of respondents 

reporting poor relationships with regional peers (17 percent and 13 

percent, respectively), and Latino & Caribbean, Multiracial, and Native 

Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander arts organizations have the highest 

percentage of respondents reporting poor relationships with national 

peers (14 percent of respondents for all three groups). A sizable number 

of respondents from all pan racial groups report having no relationships 

with national peers (ranging from 14 to 57 percent of organizations) 

and, except for Multiracial groups, having no relationships with regional 

peers (ranging from 15 to 35 percent of organizations; no Multiracial 

group reported having no relationship with regional peers).

With respect to cross-border relationships, the greatest 

percentage of respondents from all groups except for Native Hawaiian/

Other Pacific Islander and White arts organizations report having no 

relationship with international peers (ranging from 40 to 71 percent 

of organizations). For these groups, the greatest percentage of both 

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander and White respondents report 

infrequent interaction but good relationships with international peers 

(57 percent and 37 percent, respectively), which is the second most 

common description of this relationship by all other pan racial groups 

(ranging from 24 to 39 percent of organizations). 

222

Across pan racial groups, respondents report a variety of 

collaborating partners; however, respondents from all groups primarily 

collaborate with partners sharing similar interests. In particular, 

the highest percentage of respondents from Latino & Caribbean 

(82 percent), White (73 percent), Some Other Race (72 percent), 

Asian (63 percent), and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (50 

percent) arts organizations report collaborating with arts organizations 

sharing the same cultural/ethnic focus between 2012 and 2013 (USSQ-39). For American Indian/Alaska Native, Black, and Multiracial 

arts organizations, the highest level of respondents collaborated with 

educational organizations during this period (70 percent, 67 percent, 

and 100 percent, respectively). Respondents from Multiracial arts 

organizations more commonly collaborate with ethnocultural arts 

organizations possessing a different cultural/ethnic focus (71 percent) 

than do respondents from other pan racial groups (ranging from 

25 percent to 61 percent for other organizations), respondents from 

Black arts organizations more commonly collaborate with community 

based nonprofit organizations with no arts focus (62 percent) than do 

respondents from other groups (ranging from 38 percent to 58 percent 

for other organizations), and respondents from Some Other Race arts 

organizations more commonly collaborate with arts organizations with 

no cultural/ethnic focus (61 percent) than do respondents from other 

groups (ranging from 25 percent to 57 percent for other organizations). 

Support Programs. Overview of Characteristics discusses at 

length the arts service organizations and governmental agencies that 

we identified as offering targeted programs for US ethnocultural arts 

organizations. To more closely examine the distribution of these dedicated 

support programs by pan racial group, we considered the intended 

ethnocultural group, or groups, for each grant and/or service offered. 

In a number of cases, support organizations (arts service organizations 

and governmental agencies) direct dedicated programming toward more 

than one group (e.g., minorities); for these organizations, we counted 

such programs in each applicable pan racial group, thus resulting in a 

double, or multiple, counting of available programs. Other programs 

apply to all groups: for example, Folk and Traditional Arts programs 

are usually directed toward certain segments of all pan racial groups, 

and thus we counted these programs in categories under all pan racial 

groups. This method of organization is intended as another means 
223 Part II

of depicting the support field; however, as we stated in the Canadian 

section, it will also depict this field as significantly larger than it actually 

is. Moreover, whether ethnocultural arts organizations from various 

pan racial groups are actually able to access the services presented in 

this section depend on such factors as their geographic location, artistic 

discipline(s), the traditional or contemporary nature of the artistic 

discipline(s), “professional” or “amateur” status, and specific ethnic 

group.

With these caveats, analysis indicates that, of the 248 support 

organizations that we identified, the greatest percentages of these 

dedicated services are directed toward (or include) White and Asian 

arts organizations, which also comprise the greatest percentages of 

the ethnocultural arts field, and Latino arts organizations appear to be 

the only group where there is some alignment between the percentage 

of dedicated services and the percentage of Latino arts organizations 

within the ethnocultural arts field (see fig. 52). We observe that, while 

there appears to be an overrepresentation of dedicated arts services for 

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander and Some Other Race arts 

organizations, many of these services may in actuality be inaccessible 

to these groups. As discussed in Characteristics by Province/Region, 

infra, unlike most other pan racial groups Native Hawaiian/Other 

Pacific Islander arts organizations are heavily concentrated in the West, 

and Hawaii in particular. By contrast, the services included are for 

organizations dispersed throughout the country. Regarding Some Other 

Race arts organizations, the availability of specific programs depends on 

the specific ethnocultural group of the Some Other Race organization 

and how this group is viewed by specific support organizations. For 

example, depending on the funder, Middle Eastern arts organizations 

may or may not qualify for funding programs targeting minority or 

historically underrepresented groups.

Set forth below is a brief discussion of the types of dedicated 

services (governmental and non-governmental) by pan racial group 

(table 8). We make one final preliminary note that, as in Overview 

of Characteristics, we have counted each type of service offered by a 

support organization, and thus the service-related figures we provide 

herein reflect a multiple counting of organizations.

Regarding services to support American Indian/Alaska Native 

Image 36. MU, First Voice, Brenda Wong Aoki and Mark Izu, 2013. 

Background, Brenda Wong Aoki (playwright and performer) and 

foreground, Kai Kāne Aoki Izu (dancer.) Reproduced by permission 

from First Voice.
Characteristics by Pan Racial Group 224

arts organizations (including services specifically targeting these groups 

and services aimed at ethnocultural arts organizations more broadly), 

two-thirds of these services are in the area of financial support, and 

the remaining types of services are relatively evenly divided across the 

five other service areas. When comparing the top organizational needs 

identified by respondents from American Indian/Alaska Native arts 

organizations with targeted services, these needs appear to somewhat 

align with the types of services offered. Ninety percent of respondents 

from these organizations prioritize the need for financial resources, with 

the need for increased contributed revenue the primary concern of the 

greatest number of respondents, and financial support comprises the 

vast majority of targeted services. Similarly, professional developmentrelated concerns, the need for appropriately skilled staff, audience 

development, and marketing/promotional assistance rank relatively 

highly as needs, and there are targeted services in these areas (8 percent 

of services are education/training and 7 percent promotion/audience 

development). 

Regarding services to support Asian, Black, Latino, Some Other 

Race, and White arts organizations (including services specifically 

Financial	
  

support	
  

Advocacy/	
  

Policy-­‐

related	
  

action

Convening/	
  

networking	
  

Education/	
  

Training

Promotion/	
  

audience	
  

development	
  

Contracted/	
  

Group	
  

Services

American	
  Indian/Alaska	
  

Native 67% 7% 9% 8% 7% 3%

Asian 53% 6% 14% 6% 12% 8%

Black 58% 6% 13% 9% 12% 2%

Latino	
  &	
  Caribbean 52% 8% 11% 8% 14% 8%

Multiracial 85% 5% 1% 4% 3% 1%

Native	
  Hawaiian/Other	
  

Pacific	
  Islander	
   69% 8% 9% 5% 6% 3%

Some	
  Other	
  Race 62% 7% 12% 7% 10% 2%

White	
  	
   54% 1% 16% 4% 16% 8%

Table 8. US arts service organizations by services provided and pan 

racial group

Source: US supports database (based on programs offered by n=248 supports 

organizations).

7%	
  

24%	
  

18%	
  

16%	
  

2%	
   2%	
  

6%	
  

26%	
  

11%	
  

16%	
  

13%	
  

14%	
  

7%	
  

9%	
  

13%	
  

17%	
  

American	
  Indian/

Alaska	
  Na:ve	
  

Asian	
   Black	
   La:no	
  &	
  

Caribbean	
  

Mul:racial	
   Na:ve	
  Hawaiian/

Other	
  Pacific	
  

Islander	
  

Some	
  Other	
  Race	
   White	
  	
  	
  

US	
  ECAOs	
   ASO	
  dedicated	
  arts	
  services	
  

Figure 52. Comparison of US organizations and dedicated arts services by pan racial group

Source: US organizations database (n=2013) and US supports database (based on programs offered by n=248 supports organizations). Figures have been 

rounded. 
225 Part II

targeting one of these groups and services aimed at ethnocultural 

arts organizations more broadly), more than half but less than twothirds of these services are in the area of financial support (ranging 

from 52 to 62 percent), followed by services related to convening/

networking (ranging from 11 to 16 percent) and promotion and audience 

development (ranging from 10 to 16 percent). Among these services 

are services provided by NALAC, a national nonprofit organization 

exclusively dedicated to supporting Latino artists and arts organizations 

and referenced in Part I, and the only US national ethnocultural arts 

service organization that we identified as providing a vast range of 

services across service areas. Included in NALAC’s services are grants, 

advocacy, convening and networking opportunities through the NALAC 

National Conference, and education and training through the NALAC 

Leadership Institute, the NALAC Advocacy Institute, and regional arts 

training workshops.5

When comparing the distribution of targeted services to the top 

organizational needs identified by respondents from these pan racial 

groups, there appears to be less alignment between identified needs and 

the types of services offered. The overwhelming majority of respondents 

from these pan racial groups prioritize the need for financial resources 

(ranging from 78 to 91 percent), with the need for increased contributed 

revenue the primary concern of the greatest number of respondents, 

and while financial support comprises the majority of targeted services, 

its proportion of the service field falls well below the level of importance 

placed on these services by respondents. Respondents (and interview 

participants) in all five pan racial groups list audience developmentrelated concerns among their top needs, and a significant percentage 

of targeted services is directed toward this area. Very few respondents 

from any of these groups rank collaboration and networking as a top 

need, but services is this area comprise a sizable portion of the dedicated 

services for these organizations. 

Regarding services to support Multiracial arts organizations 

(including services specifically targeting this group and services aimed 

at ethnocultural arts organizations more broadly), the overwhelming 

majority of these services are in the area of financial support (85 

percent). Likewise, the vast majority of respondents from Multiracial 

arts organizations prioritize the need for financial resources, and thus 

identified needs and services offered appear to align. Although there 

appear to be few services in other service areas, we observe that, 

depending on a Multiracial arts organization’s various ethnocultural 

focus (e.g., Latino and Black communities), this group may be able 

to access not only dedicated support for ethnocultural groups or 

underrepresented groups as a whole, but also support targeting one of 

the other particular pan racial groups. 

Regarding services to support Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific 

Islander arts organizations (including services specifically targeting 

these groups and services aimed at ethnocultural arts organizations 

more broadly), slightly more than two-thirds of these services are in the 

area of financial support, with the next largest percentage of services 

related to convening/networking (9 percent). When comparing the top 

organizational needs identified by respondents from Native Hawaiian/

Other Pacific Islander arts organizations with targeted services, these 

needs appear to somewhat align with the types of services offered. All 

respondents from these organizations identify the need for financial 

resources, with the need for increased contributed revenue the primary 

concern of half of respondents, as their number one concern, and the 

vast majority of services offered are in this area. Less well aligned are 

services related to convening and networking, the second most commonly 

offered dedicated service and one that no respondent identified as a top 

challenge. In addition, in reality most of the services in existence may not 

be accessible to these organizations. As our previous comments suggest, 

relatively few of these dedicated services exist in the geographic location 

where the vast majority of Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander arts 

organizations are based.

In considering the available dedicated support programs by pan 

racial group, our examination has regarded the types of services offered by 

support organizations and found a certain degree of correlation between 

identified needs and types of services offered. We have not discussed 

the particular form such services have taken, however, which qualitative 

research for the Plural project indicates do not correlate with the specific 

needs of organizations, and which in turn has impacted the effectiveness 

of such services in addressing needs. In Needs and Supports: A Life 

Cycle Approach, we address the specific form(s) of programs aimed at 

the ethnocultural arts sector. 
Characteristics by Pan Racial Group 226

Notes

1. “Immigration and Ethnocultural Diversity in Canada,” Statistics 

Canada, last modified January 14, 2014, http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhsenm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/99-010-x2011001-eng.cfm#a2.

2. Percentages calculated from “2011 National Household Survey: 

Data tables,” Statistics Canada, last modified March 4, 2014, http://www12.

statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/dp-pd/dt-td/Rp-eng.cfm?lang=e&apath=3&det

ail=0&dim=0&fl=a&free=0&gc=0&gid=0&gk=0&grp=1&pid=107647&prid

=0&ptype=105277&s=0&showall=0&sub=0&temporal=2013&theme=95&v

id=0&vnamee=&vnamef.

3. “State & County QuickFacts,” U.S. Census Bureau, last accessed 

September 1, 2014, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html.

4. Brenda Wong (Founder/Artistic Director, First Voice), interview 

conducted by Mina Matlon at First Voice, June 24, 2013, audio recording on 

file with Plural project co-leads. 

5. “Programs,” National Association of Latino Arts and Cultures, last 

accessed August 28, 2014, http://www.nalac.org/. 
Image 37. Above Left, Wise.woman, b current, at The Theatre Centre in 

Toronto, Ontario, 2009. Written by Rebecca Fisseha, directed by Ahdri 

Zhina Mandiela, set and costume design by Julia Tribe, and lighting design 

by Michelle Ramsay. Left to right: Ash Knight and Cara Ricketts. Reproduced 

by permission from b current.

KRF

I’m talking about YOU... ...I’m talking about me! I’m talking about 

me. I am an artist. I make art. I don’t please crowds. I please myself. I 

make people laugh, and then I make them feel guilty for laughing. But 

I want to be like THEM. I want to make race secondary. Make it a joke 

and leave it there. That’s what I’d like to do. But I can’t. Because I’m 

angry. ANGRY. I’m angry because I’m not allowed a new expression. 

Everything I create can be categorized. It’s all just black. There’s 

nothing wrong with that, don’t get me wrong. But guess what? I was 

born BLACK. That’s not an aspiration. I wanted to be different. But 

I’m not different. Every play I’ve ever written was in service to some 

greater truth, and that greater truth was Whiteboy! I needed you, 

Blackboy, because I was afraid to say that all my stories are about 

me. But I’m finished with that. 

DONE.

BLACKBOY

What’s Happening? Are we okay?

KRF

I’m fine. I’m great. It’s time for me to start servicing myself. I should 

have done this long ago. Walking away from you was never the 

answer. KILLING YOU is.

Image 38. Above Right, Excerpt from A Raisin in the Salad: Black Plays 

for White People written by Kevin R. Free, Producing Artistic 

Director with Fire This Time Festival. Reproduced by permission 

from Kevin R. Free, A Raisin in the Salad: Black Plays for White People, 

39. © 2010, Kevin R. Free

227
Unpacking the Crisis Narrative of Black Theater

Unpacking the Crisis Narrative of Black Theater

by Jordanna Matlon

It is a peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense 

of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others, of 

measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world that looks on in 

amused contempt and pity. One ever feels his two-ness,—an 

American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled 

strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged 

strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder.1

Placing equality and difference in antithetical relationship 

has, then, a double effect. It denies the way in which 

difference has long figured in political notions of equality and 

it suggests that sameness is the only ground on which equality 

can be claimed...The only alternative, it seems to me, is to 

refuse to oppose equality to difference and insist continually 

on differences -- differences as the condition of individual 

and collective identities, differences as the constant challenge 

to the fixing of those identities, history as the repeated 

illustration of the play of differences, differences as the very 

meaning of equality itself.2

Black theater exists to tell stories that would otherwise be left untold. 

It is art because those stories offer one prism of the kaleidoscope that 

constitutes the human experience. It is political because its universality is 

a contested fact. 

In the Civil Rights era, the terrain of struggle centered on 

visibility and legitimacy, with activists pressing for resources to incubate 

their nascent field. In today’s “multicultural” and “post-racial” turn, 

mainstream theater has embraced Black theater’s best and most 

established. Although there are now spaces for Black theater professionals 

to showcase their art, the funding community has ceased attending to 

the conditions necessary to cultivate emerging Black artists on-stage and 

backstage. Reflecting upon the $1.2 million that the Ford Foundation 

granted Douglas Ward to start the Negro Ensemble Company in the 

1960s, writer Scott Walters asks, “What foundation today would commit 

such sums to a start-up venture in the first years of its existence?”3

Competing for money, artists, and plays, Black theater groups 

are underdogs to mainstream theaters’ diversity initiatives. However 

well-intentioned, the latter are not similarly invested in the mission of 

the ethnocultural arts organization, whose foremost commitment is to 

the community it represents. Thus interviewees for the Plural project 

differentiate between the boom of activity within Black theater and 

its severe lack of funding, especially in comparison to mainstream 

organizations of equivalent programming depth and quality; eighty 

percent of organizations surveyed list financial resources as their most 

critical challenge or need. In the Canadian context, those Black theater 

organizations that are thriving lack competition. As stated by the artistic 

development coordinator of Toronto-based Obsidian Theatre, “We 

don’t want to be a last stop for this art, we want to be the first stop for 

this art.”4 Moreover, the tokenism that results leads to artistic stifling. 

Several interviewees articulated that, in being asked to represent their 

entire race, individuals are afraid to be artists: to experiment, to push 

boundaries, and sometimes to fail. They are measured by whether their 

stories are authentic enough according to some standard that they did not 

set. And when the best move up and out, their mentorship potential is 

cut short. 

The ongoing narrative of Black theater is crisis, heard in W.E.B. 

DuBois and later August Wilson’s rallying cries, and absorbed into 

media accounts that regularly sound alarms as to the precarious state of 

the art.5 Formerly the crisis was an absence of Black theater; the crisis 

today is its disappearance. While generally agreeing with this narrative, 

interviewees for this project also contend that we are in a moment of 

unprecedented creative energy. Describing Black theater as “grassroots” 

rather than as a professional movement, General Manager Paul 

Kartcheske of Chicago-based Black Ensemble Theater explains that it 

“depends on how you are measuring crisis...There are companies out 

there that are producing wonderful work, but they don’t have a board 

of directors. [Rather, they have] an artistic person who wears a number 

of different hats, but doesn’t always have the ability to pull a number of 

228
Part II

people in.”6 Indeed, Plural has identified seventy-seven American and 

four Canadian registered nonprofit organizations that self-identify as 

Black (versus multicultural) theater, with at least a dozen reporting gross 

incomes over half a million dollars during one of the last three fiscal 

years, and in the US context, a number of emerging companies not yet 

registered as independent 501(c)(3)s. The great majority were founded in 

the twentieth century – now fifteen years ago. 

Let us consider that crisis is “constituted as an object of 

knowledge,” one that “implies a certain telos – that is, it is inevitably 

though most often implicitly directed toward a norm.”7 This norm is

professionalized theater, a model inconsistent with the challenges Black 

theater faces. In its traditional Western form, professional theater requires 

the leisure time, capital, and connections of a philanthropic population. 

By contrast, many Black theater organizations survive through flexible 

models such as co-producing or venue sharing. Often their orientation is 

towards the development of artists instead of productions for audiences. 

Staff and artists hold full-time jobs elsewhere. Some groups produce 

plays only when issues arise that inspire its members and their respective 

communities. The paradox is that while Black theater’s flexibility has 

emerged out of a survivalist imperative, those same characteristics have 

kept the field from growing beyond bare survival. Thus without a venue 

to showcase their work an organization might save on monthly rent and 

develop strong local collaborations but confronts difficulties in obtaining 

visibility, a confident donor base, and financial stability, or faces significant 

costs to rent performance and storage space. Like shadow economies in 

predominantly underprivileged minority neighborhoods, they function 

in response to formal regulatory regimes that take for granted a base 

level of stability that is untenable for those without enough time, capital 

or connections. 

Asking if American theater was “For whites only?” in 1966, 

Douglas Turner Ward wrote, “With rare exceptions...American legit 

theater, even at its most ambitious seriousness, is essentially a theater of the 

Bourgeois, by the Bourgeois, about the Bourgeois, and for the Bourgeois. 

A pretentious theater elevating the narrow preoccupations of restricted 

class interests to inflated universal significance, tacitly assuming that its 

middle-class, affluent-oriented absorptions are central to the dominant 

human condition.”8 It is difficult to imagine practical alternatives to 

the professional/Bourgeois theater when the conditions that enable 

its existence are bourgeois in their nature. But while the different 

origins, conditions, and models of Black theater are worth celebrating, 

practitioners are very much justified in demanding equivalent resources 

so their art can be both an expression of struggle and an experience of 

leisure. 

The challenges Black theater confronts today return to the 

original dilemma of achieving equality alongside difference. As indicated 

in many of these organizations’ mission statements, it is clear that one 

way of coping has been to move beyond the “for us” in DuBois’s 1926 

seminal statement on Black theater being about, by, for, and near us9 that 

Ward reads as both raced and classed. Although the majority describe 

the primary racial composition of their audiences as Black, what they 

seek is a full audience. It makes sense: there is a practical need for money 

and support that cannot be fulfilled by the Black community alone, and 

a genuine desire to share with and to educate a broad population. The 

problem, however, is that for whom a story is told includes who critiques, 

legitimates, and ultimately sustains its right to exist. We return to the 

problem of universality, a problem of recognition. The right to speak 

consists also of the right to be heard, to have one’s soul measured by the 

tape of a world that looks on with empathetic eyes. 

Art imitates life. So, too, does its funding. There will be a crisis 

in Black theater as long as Black people’s stories remain at the margins 

of the society in which they live. It is, as DuBois famously called it, “the 

problem of the color line.”10

229
Unpacking the Crisis Narrative of Black Theater

Notes

1. W.E.B DuBois, The Souls of Black Folk (Chicago: A.C. McClurg & 

Co., 1903), 3.

2. Joan W. Scott, Gender and the Politics of History, rev. ed. (New York: 

Columbia University Press, 1999), 174-175. Although Scott refers to equality 

and difference in gender relations, her words are highly relevant to the 

ethnocultural arts organization, and specifically Black theater.

3. Scott Walters, “About + For + By + Near = Diversity (Part 2),” 

Clyde Fitch Report (blog), November 5, 2013, <http://www.clydefitchreport.

com/2013/11/about-by-for-near-diversity-part-2/>.

4. Interview conducted by Mina Matlon at Obsidian Theatre’s 

administrative offices, May 3, 2013, transcript on file with Plural project coleads. Interviewee name is withheld according to terms of consent agreement.

5. W.E.B DuBois, “Krigwa Players Little Negro Theatre,” Crisis 32.3 

(1926): 134-136; Simon Saltzman and Nicole Plett, “August Wilson versus 

Robert Brustein,” AugustWilson.net (2013), <http://augustwilson.net/doc/

August_Wilson_versus_Robert_Brustein_by_Simon_Saltzman_and_Nicole_

Plett.pdf>. For an example of a recent media account on the “crisis” of Black 

theater, see Keli Goff, “Funding Crisis Threatens Black Theater,” The Root

(November 19, 2013), <http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2013/11/

black_theaters_struggling_to_survive.html>.

6. Paul Kartcheske (General Manager, Black Ensemble Theater), 

interview conducted by Mina Matlon at the Black Ensemble Theater, July 17, 

2013, audio recording on file with Plural project co-leads.

7.. Janet Roitman, “Crisis,” Political Concepts: A Critical Lexicon 1 (2011), 

<http://www.politicalconcepts.org/2011/crisis>.

8. Douglas Turner Ward, “American Theater: For Whites Only?” New 

York Times, August 14, 1966.

9. DuBois, “Krigwa Players Little Negro Theatre,” 134-136.

10. This oft-repeated phrase of DuBois’s initially appeared in “An 

Address to the Nations of the World,” which he prepared for the First PanAfrican Conference in London in 1900. While the full phrase is “The problem 

of the twentieth century is the problem of the color line,” this clearly remains a 

problem in the twenty-first century.

230
Image 39. A Cage of Fireflies, Kumu Kahua Theatre, 2013. Left to right: Kat Koshi and Dian Kobayashi. Written by Daniel Akiyama. 

Photograph by Sammie Choy. Reproduced by permission from Kumu Kahua Theatre.

231
Characteristics by Province/Region 

Characteristics by Province/Region

Do not know how someone from Chicago could 

possibly have a grasp on what is going on with Arts in 

Saskatchewan. You would actually have to be immersed 

in this unique province to understand the challenges 

we face – With at least 30 various immigrant cultural 

groups and the Aboriginal cultural groups there is very 

little money to go around – If you are a sports team it is 

different. If you deal with Culture - it is a hit and miss. 

– Plural project survey respondent (February 4, 2013)

On the morning of Wednesday, May 8, 2013, Mina was checking into a 

Canadian North flight at the Ottawa/Macdonald-Cartier International 

Airport when she was handed back her US passport with a small orange 

sticker affixed to the back. Assuming it had something to do with 

baggage claim, she didn’t look at it and instead continued onto her gate 

and a plane bound for Iqaluit, final destination Igloolik. A community 

of approximately 2,000 located in the Qikiqtaaluk region of Nunavut, 

Igloolik is home to the Rockin’ Walrus Arts Festival, Artcirq, and Isuma 

Productions; drawing us to the hamlet was the opportunity to meet with 

members from all three arts organizations. 

Halfway through the flight, the pilot announced that visibility 

had dropped in Iqaluit and that it might not be possible to land. He 

then reminded passengers of the orange ticket they had received, 

which informed them that the airline was not responsible for ensuring 

that they reach their intended destination. Through the subsequent 

eruption of conversation on the tiny plane, Mina discovered from her 

fellow travellers, almost all of whom appeared to be employees of 

mining and development companies, that the uncertainty of reaching 

a “North of 60” destination – as scheduled – is common and that the 

changing weather in May makes travel during this month particularly 

unpredictable and unadvisable. 

As the pilot had warned, upon reaching Iqaluit, lack of visibility 

prevented the plane from landing safely. First heading eastward to a 

private landing strip somewhere in Northern Québec to refuel, after 

several hours the plane departed west for Rankin Inlet, Nunavut. 

At Rankin Inlet, passengers disembarked for several hours and the 

employees from the mining company made arrangements to charter 

their own jet the next day, having found overnight accommodation in 

town. Re-boarding the Canadian North plane, which had returned to its 

scheduled flight path of Ottawa-Iqaluit-Yellowknife-Edmonton, Mina 

arrived just after midnight in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, where 

she spent the night.

The Plural project never made it to Igloolik. Working with 

Ingrid and Kait (both of whom were back in Chicago and attending 

our last term of classes) to cancel scheduled interviews and several 

nights accommodation in the hamlet, Mina called the Alianait Arts 

Festival’s Executive Director Heather Daley upon her arrival in Iqaluit 

on Thursday. Originally intending to meet Daley only briefly at the 

airport upon her return from Igloolik, Mina now spent two days in 

Nunavut’s capital speaking with local artists and visiting Alianait’s new 

administrative space.

 * * *

This section considers the characteristics of ethnocultural arts 

organizations by region. Our research suggests that an organization’s 

geographic specificity – not simply province or region, but the specific 

city or town or hamlet in which an organization is located – may 

be one of the most important considerations in understanding the 

characteristics and needs of ethnocultural arts organizations. When 

examining closed-ended survey responses alone, there appear to be many 

similarities between organizations located in vastly different places, and, 

not surprisingly, even more similarities between organizations located 

in similar “types” of places. Thus, regardless of location, most survey 

respondents report few to no paid staff and rank “financial resources,” 

“organizational capacity building,” “audience development,” and 

“administrative/performance/exhibition space,” in varying order but 

almost always with financial resources listed as number one, as their 

most critical organizational needs.

232
Part II

Comments provided in open-ended survey responses and 

conversations with formal and informal project participants tell a far more 

complex story. This more qualitative component of the Plural project 

reveals that an organization’s particular geographic situation translates 

into, for example, extremely different space concerns between Vancouver 

and New York City, although space, and real estate development more 

specifically, was almost always raised by project participants based in 

both cities. More obvious in the case of major cities, it is perhaps less 

obvious that real estate development would be the number one challenge 

facing the McIntosh County Shouters, located in coastal, southeastern 

Georgia (discussed herein).

Conscious of the great importance of geographic concerns, 

this final Characteristics chapter presents us with a dilemma. With time, 

resource, and more practical concerns about the growing size of this 

book, we simply cannot cover the many nuances of local and provincial/

state laws, regulations, governmental bodies, funding agencies, 

demographic makeup, existing cultural institutions, physical geography, 

and other features, all of which, collectively, shape and bring insight 

into ethnocultural arts organizations’ needs and supports. Instead, we 

provide information regarding the geographic distribution, age, and 

income of the field as viewed from a provincial/regional perspective. 

We then illustrate the range of organizational challenges emphasized by 

formal and informal interview participants located in different provinces 

and regions and highlight dedicated arts services.

Canada

Inhabited by immigrants from practically every country in the 

world and a distinctive Indigenous population, Canada is geographically 

the largest country in the Americas, with this land divided into 10 provinces 

and 3 territories (the Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut). The 

locations of many Canadian ethnocultural arts organizations generally 

mirror historic and current immigration settlement patterns and reflect 

internal movements by many individuals of First Nations and Métis 

descent to major urban centers. While located more heavily in certain 

provinces and cities, ethnocultural arts organizations may be found in 

many locations across the country, from north of the 60° latitude to 

the Arctic Circle (casually referred to as “North of 60°”), east to the 

Maritime provinces, west past the (Canadian) Rockies, and south to the 

Canadian-US border. 

Province/Ethnic Distribution

Canada has a population of approximately 35 million, with 

much of this population concentrated in the South, and within 100 

miles of the Canadian-US border.1

 The three most populous provinces 

are (i) Ontario with 13.5 million inhabitants (37 percent of the total 

population), (ii) Québec with 8 million inhabitants (23 percent of the 

total population), and (iii) British Columbia with 4.6 million inhabitants 

(14 percent of the total population).2 Population growth in these three 

provinces is heavily supported by immigration, as the provinces attract 

BC	
  

17%	
  

AB	
  

10%	
  

SK	
  

MB	
   5%	
  

11%	
  

ON	
  

42%	
  

QC	
  

9%	
  

NS	
  

3%	
  

NB	
  

2%	
   PE	
  

0.4%	
   NU	
  

1%	
  

NWT	
  

0.4%	
  

Figure 53. Canadian organizations by province

Source: Canadian organizations database (n=255). Figures are rounded.

Notes: We did not identify any registered organizations in the Yukon or 

Newfoundland and Labrador.

233
Characteristics by Province/Region 

Figure 54. Geographic distribution of Canadian organizations (Map)

Source: Canadian organizations database.

234
Part II

the greatest number of Canada’s more recent immigrants. In 2011, 94.8 

percent of the country’s foreign-born population resided in one of these 

provinces or in Alberta, the country’s fourth most populous province.3

Registered charity ethnocultural arts organizations are 

similarly concentrated and reflective of immigration trends. Of the 255 

ethnocultural arts organizations listed in the Plural project’s Canadian 

database, more than half (59 percent) are located in two provinces. 

Forty-two percent of organizations are located in Ontario, followed 

by British Columbia (17 percent), and Manitoba (11 percent) (see fig. 

53). In Ontario and British Columbia, the distribution of ethnocultural 

arts organizations nearly aligns with these provinces’ proportion of 

the country’s total population; however, with a 14 percent difference, 

the percentage of ethnocultural arts organizations based in Québec is 

significantly lower than the percentage of Canada’s population residing 

in this province.

Organizations are further concentrated in metropolitan areas. 

Many ethnocultural arts organizations are based or operate in the 

major urban centers of Toronto, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Edmonton, 

and Montréal (see fig. 54), cities that attract and serve as home to 70.7 

percent of new immigrants.4

We note that we identified no registered charity ethnocultural 

arts organizations in either the Yukon or Newfoundland & Labrador. We 

further note that we identified no equivalent information regarding the 

provincial distribution of Canadian arts and culture organizations and 

thus are unable to compare the ethnocultural arts field to the arts field as 

a whole with respect to this characteristic.

Although heavily centered in urban areas, Aboriginal arts 

organizations are more widely dispersed across the country than are 

culturally diverse and White arts organizations (see table 9). As with 

Aboriginal communities more generally, these organizations are located 

in rural and urban centers, including remote communities situated on 

Indian reserves (see fig. 55). In conversations with project participants 

located in the northern regions of Canada, participants referenced 

a North-South divide, wherein the North represents Nunavut, the 

Northwest Territories, the Yukon, Northern Québec (Nunavik), and 

Labrador, and the South represents the rest of the country. Highlighting 

the cultural and environmental differences between the two areas, 

Northern participants note that individuals located in the South often 

lack an understanding of the distinctive challenges under which Northern 

artists and arts organization operate and overlook the variations between 

Indigenous communities that are spread out across the vast Northern 

landscape. Many of these same participants describe networks and 

commonalities with other artists and organizations working in the 

“circumpolar” region, which includes Greenland, Iceland, Norway, 

Sweden, Finland, Alaska, and Russia, and minimal interaction with the 

South.

In the North, which is home to an Inuit population of 

approximately 50,000 as of 2006,5 we identified a few registered charity 

Aboriginal arts organizations. These organizations include the Yamozha 

Kue Society (formerly the Dene Cultural Institute), which is based on 

the Katlodeeche First Nation Reserve (Northwest Territories), and 

the Avataq Cultural Institute, which has locations in Westmount and 

Inukjuak, Québec. 

The majority of the country’s Aboriginal peoples are located 

in the South. Primarily First Nations and/or Métis, these Aboriginal 

communities are heavily concentrated in Ontario, British Columbia, and 

Alberta.6 As of 2011, the cities with the largest Aboriginal populations are 

Aboriginal Culturally	
  

Diverse White Grand	
  Total

BC 18% 24% 11% 17%

AB 8% 2% 19% 10%

SK 5% 0% 10% 5%

MB 13% 7% 14% 11%

ON 33% 55% 32% 42%

QC 13% 12% 5% 9%

NS 3% 1% 5% 3%

NB 0% 0% 4% 2%

PE 0% 0% 1% 0%

NU 5% 0% 0% 1%

NWT 3% 0% 0% 0%

Grand	
  Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

Table 9. Canadian organizations by pan group and region

Source: Canadian organizations database (n=255). Figures are rounded.

Notes: We did not identify any registered organizations in the Yukon or 

Newfoundland and Labrador.

235
Characteristics by Province/Region 

Figure 55. Geographic distribution of Aboriginal arts organizations (Map)

Figure 56. Geographic distribution of Culturally Diverse arts organizations 

(Map)

Figure 57. Geographic distribution of White arts organizations (Map)

Source: Canadian organizations database.

236
Part II

2%	
  

7%	
  

8%	
  

5%	
  

25%	
  

4%	
  

12%	
  

15%	
  

23%	
  

19%	
  

5%	
  

100%	
  

25%	
  

17%	
  

17%	
  

22%	
  

15%	
  

38%	
  

18%	
  

25%	
  

43%	
  

38%	
  

24%	
  

30%	
  

31%	
  

15%	
  

32%	
  

100%	
  

100%	
  

25%	
  

57%	
  

42%	
  

45%	
  

26%	
  

23%	
  

27%	
  

41%	
  

NU	
  

NWT	
  

PE	
  

NB	
  

NS	
  

QC	
  

ON	
  

MB	
  

SK	
  

AB	
  

BC	
  

1960s	
   1970s	
   1980s	
   1990s	
   2000-­‐12	
  

Figure 58. Canadian organizations by province and CRA effective year of status

Source: Canadian organizations database (n=255). Figures are rounded.

Notes: We did not identify any registered organizations in the Yukon or 

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Winnipeg, Edmonton, Vancouver, Toronto, Calgary, Ottawa-Gatineau, 

Montréal, Saskatoon, and Regina.7 The distribution of Aboriginal arts 

organizations reflects this population distribution.

Ninety-five percent of Canada’s culturally diverse, or visible 

minority, population resides in Ontario, British Columbia, Québec, and 

Alberta, with just over half of the total culturally diverse population 

residing in Ontario alone.8 Many culturally diverse groups have settled 

in Canada’s largest urban areas: Toronto, Vancouver, and Montréal.9

Resembling settlement patterns, culturally diverse arts organizations are 

primarily located in these metropolitan areas (see fig. 56). 

The country’s White population is distributed widely 

throughout the South. Located in both rural and urban areas, White 

arts organizations are also somewhat evenly distributed (see fig. 57); 

however, these organizations more closely follow historic immigration 

settlement patterns of White settlers originating from countries other 

than France and England. For example, “solicited [as] agricultural 

immigrants” by the Canadian government, early waves of Ukrainian 

immigrants settled mainly in Alberta and the Prairie provinces of 

Saskatchewan and Manitoba, with later waves of political and economic 

immigrants settling mainly in Ontario.10 Initially residing in more rural 

areas, first wave Ukrainian Canadians subsequently developed urban 

Ukrainian communities in select cities such as Winnipeg, Edmonton, 

and Saskatoon.11 Many Ukrainian arts organizations are located in these 

cities and provinces. Similarly, most Acadian and many Scottish arts 

organizations are located in the Maritime provinces, thereby mirroring 

the original settlement of Acadian and Scottish communities in these 

areas.12

Province/Age

Employing organizations’ registered charity date (CRA 

effective year of status) as a rough indicator of organizational “age,” 

there is considerable variation between provinces with respect to this 

characteristic (see fig. 58). Saskatchewan (SK), Manitoba (MB), British 

Columbia (BC), and Ontario (ON) appear to house the country’s oldest 

organizations; with 68 percent of organizations located in Ontario, 

British Columbia, and Québec (QC), these three provinces appear to 

house the majority of the country’s youngest organizations. Given the 

frequent time lag between year of founding and effective year of status, 

we re-emphasize our previous comments that usage of an organization’s 

registered charity date is an imperfect means of estimating organizational 

age and is instead best viewed as an indicator of when an organization 

began to further formalize operations.

Additional observations and comments regarding the age/

formalization distribution of ethnocultural arts organizations are as 

follows: 

• The overwhelming majority (80 percent) of organizations 

located in Québec, and all organizations located in Nova 

Scotia (NS), Prince Edward Island (PE), and Nunavut 

237
Characteristics by Province/Region 

(NU) obtained registered charity status in the 1990s or later 

(following the country’s enactment of the Multiculturalism 

Act). These numbers translate into 19 organizations for 

Québec, 7 organizations for Nova Scotia, 1 organization for 

Prince Edward Island, and 2 organizations for Nunavut.

• In absolute terms, Ontario houses the greatest number of 

ethnocultural arts organizations obtaining registered charity 

status in the 1990s or later (73 organizations). 

• The largest percentage of organizations located in Alberta 

(AB) obtained registered charity status during the 1980s, 

which is significantly higher than the percentage of 

1980s-registered charity organizations located in other 

provinces/territories.

• We identified one registered charity ethnocultural arts 

organization in the Northwest Territories (NWT) and four 

registered charities in New Brunswick (NB).

We identified no equivalent information regarding the age distribution 

of Canadian arts and culture organizations and thus are unable to 

compare the ethnocultural arts field to the arts field as a whole with 

respect to this characteristic.

Province/Income 

With respect to income, ethnocultural arts organizations located 

in New Brunswick, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Québec 

possess the highest average annual gross incomes between 2010 and 2012 

(see fig. 59). Collectively, these two provinces and two territories hold only 

12.4 percent of registered charity ethnocultural arts organizations in 

Canada and have an average annual gross income of $844,552, a figure 

that is much higher than the field average of $376,124. Aboriginal arts 

organizations, which have a higher field average of $828,558, represent 

just over a quarter of the organizations in the four provinces/territories, 

however, and the Aboriginal organizations in these provinces/territories 

report between $500,000 and $7 million in average annual gross 

income (see fig. 60), with the top-end figures supporting the activities 

of multipurpose cultural centers and collecting institutions. Moreover, 

	
  $0.5	
  	
  

	
  $0.2	
  	
  

	
  $0.3	
  	
  

	
  $0.2	
  	
  

	
  $0.3	
  	
  

	
  $0.8	
  	
  

	
  $0.9	
  	
  

	
  $0.1	
  	
  

	
  $-­‐	
  	
  	
  	
  

	
  $0.8	
  	
  

	
  $0.9	
  	
  

BC	
   AB	
   MB	
   SK	
   ON	
   QC	
   NB	
   NS	
   PE	
   NU	
   NWT	
  

Figure 59. Average annual gross income by province (2010-2012)

Source: Canadian organizations database (n=255). Average annual gross income 

based on 3-year annual gross incomes (2010-2012). Figures are rounded. Notes: 

Prince Edward Island has an annual average gross income of $9,263. We did 

not identify any registered organizations in the Yukon or Newfoundland and 

Labrador.

100%	
  

71%	
  

35%	
  

50%	
  

52%	
  

46%	
  

50%	
  

44%	
  

14%	
  

50%	
  

13%	
  

22%	
  

22%	
  

23%	
  

15%	
  

23%	
  

17%	
  

8%	
  

19%	
  

8%	
  

27%	
  

16%	
  

100%	
  

100%	
  

14%	
  

25%	
  

13%	
  

13%	
  

23%	
  

9%	
  

25%	
  

17%	
  

8%	
  

7%	
  

8%	
  

5%	
  

4%	
  

2%	
  

NWT	
  

NU	
  

PE	
  

NS	
  

NB	
  

QC	
  

ON	
  

MB	
  

SK	
  

AB	
  

BC	
  

<$100K	
   $100K	
  to	
  $250K	
   $250K	
  to	
  $500K	
  

$500K	
  to	
  $1MM	
   $1MM	
  to	
  $5MM	
   $5MM+	
  

Figure 60. Average annual gross income by province: frequency distribution 

(2010-2012)

Source: Canadian organizations database (n=255) Average annual gross income 

based on 3-year annual gross incomes (2010-2012). Figures are rounded. Notes: 

We did not identify any registered organizations in the Yukon or Newfoundland 

and Labrador.

238
Part II

not include organizations located in these provinces/territories. In 

addition, with the exception of Nova Scotia, we did not speak with any 

ethnocultural arts organization located in these provinces/territories.

Based on conversations with project participants, we believe that 

the cross-regional similarities of reported organizational challenges mask 

and oversimplify the many regionally influenced differences between 

organizations. As previously stated, these differences are too numerous 

and complicated to cover within this section. Instead, as a means of 

illustrating the manner in which organizational concerns differ by region, 

we highlight below recurring conversation topics raised by formal and 

informal interview participants located in a few of the different provinces 

and territories that we visited as part of the Plural project. 

Vancouver. Many conversations with Vancouver-based 

organizations revolved around challenges related to obtaining access 

to performance/exhibition/programming space and the detrimental 

impacts of real estate development leading up to and following the 2010 

Winter Olympics, which eliminated much affordable work (and living) 

space for artists and other low-income residents. Participants describe 

a byzantine governmental system that discourages rather than supports 

organizations attempting to finance acquisition of their own spaces, lack 

of support from elected city officials, and the limited number of available 

and affordable mid-size rehearsal and performance venues. We spoke 

with one organization that had successfully purchased its own space and 

was building an endowment: the grunt gallery, an artist-run centre that is 

not an ethnocultural arts organization but that regularly and consciously 

presents works by Aboriginal and culturally diverse artists. Program 

Director Glenn Alteen attributes his organization’s success in obtaining 

its own space to working directly with a real estate developer and good 

timing (before the city’s shift to its current more heavily bureaucratized 

structure).

Participants also speak of a highly limited pool of local and 

provincial arts funds, which, along with space concerns, has contributed 

to an atmosphere of competition rather than collaboration within the 

city’s arts community. Compared to their ethnocultural arts organization 

peers in other provinces and territories, comments from Vancouver-based 

organizations suggest that these organizations are operating in greater 

isolation both within the city itself and regionally and nationally; more so 

the greater incomes of organizations located in northern Québec, the 

Northwest Territories, and Nunavut are likely reflective of the overall 

high costs of living and operating in the North, and thus, in comparison 

to organizations located in the South, the “purchasing power” of such 

higher incomes may not extend as far.13

Despite Ontario and British Columbia housing, collectively, 

both the largest proportion of ethnocultural arts organizations and 

culturally diverse populations in the country, average annual gross 

incomes for organizations located in the two provinces are in the middle 

to lower end of the spectrum, with the average annual gross income for 

organizations located in Ontario falling below the field average. A closer 

examination of these figures reveal that 49 percent of ethnocultural arts 

organizations from both provinces have average annual gross incomes 

of less than $100,000; almost all of the organizations within this group 

are culturally diverse or White arts organizations. At the bottom end 

of the spectrum are organizations located in Nova Scotia and Prince 

Edward Island, which on average report annual gross incomes far below 

the field average and lower than organizations located in every other 

province or territory. The low incomes of Nova Scotian organizations 

may be attributed, at least in part, to the lack of a municipal arts 

council, a provincial arts council (Arts Nova Scotia) only more recently 

re-established by the provincial arts government in 2011,14 and general 

limited forms of structural support for the arts, and/or access to other 

existing forms of financial support. 

We identified no equivalent information regarding the 

provincial/income distribution of Canadian arts and culture 

organizations and thus are unable to compare the ethnocultural arts field 

to the arts field as a whole with respect to this characteristic.

Province/Organizational Challenges

The top four organizational challenges/needs reported by 

survey respondents across all responding regions are financial resources, 

organizational capacity building, audience development, and space 

(CAN-SQ-18; see Overview of Characteristics). As detailed in Appendix 

U, we received no confirmed survey responses from organizations located 

in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, or the Northwest 

Territories, and thus information derived from survey responses do 

239
Characteristics by Province/Region 

than participants based in other cities, most performing arts participants 

also mention challenges and needs with respect to touring. Vancouver 

is the only city where project participants reference the city’s beautiful 

natural environment as competition in attracting general audiences.

Winnipeg. There was little overlap in commentary between 

the Winnipeg-based artists and organizations with whom we spoke; 

however, the focus of conversations reflected the differing experiences 

of organizations due, in part, to the relative sizes of their origin ethnic 

communities in the city. For organizations with a small local origin 

ethnic community, conversations revolved around one or more of the 

following: a need to better reach and/or communicate organizational 

message to local audiences, concerns with a lack of support from an 

organization’s small culturally diverse community and the need for 

the organization within that community, and the challenges inherent 

in identifying and supporting local artists from an organization’s origin 

community. For organizations with a relatively large local origin ethnic 

community, conversations revolved around expanding organizational 

presence both nationally and internationally.

Montréal. Participants based outside of Montréal, but who 

have produced and toured in this city, speak of the supportive and 

adventuresome nature of Montréal audiences. Montréal based project 

participants similarly describe supportive audiences and speak well of 

the city’s arts council. More broadly, however, organizations describe 

a provincial support system geared toward bi-cultural (i.e. English and 

French) influenced and centered art rather than one supportive of 

multicultural work. 

Iqaluit. Echoing findings reported in previous needs assessments, 

artists and organizations report on the high costs of arts production in 

the North. These costs include the following: exorbitant costs of travel, 

which impacts the ability to bring artists to the region and to attract 

new/expanded audiences, steep local costs of living, which impact the 

ability to attract and retain staff, limited access to physical resources 

necessary for arts creation, and other practical concerns such as lack 

of suitable storage space in the area. Demonstrating the inventiveness 

of artists and organizations located in the North, the Alianait Arts 

Festival’s Daley both details and describes the organization’s solution to 

addressing one of these organizational challenges:

The challenge was – how do you bring artists from 

Greenland? There’s no direct flight; well, there wasn’t 

until last year. So what we did was we became a travel 

agent. We booked a plane, we chartered a plane, and we 

sold seats for people to go from Iqaluit to Nuuk so we 

could cover the costs to bring the artists from Greenland. 

Then all of a sudden Air Greenland started flying. But 

last year they weren’t interested in hearing from me at 

all about sponsorship. This year they gave me five free 

flights. And the band I booked, Rasmus Lyberth, who 

is Greenlandic, but he lives in Copenhagen...it was five 

people, five free flights, so I looked at how much it cost 

to fly from Copenhagen to Nuuk, and then I contacted 

the Katuaq Cultural Center in Nuuk, who is part of this 

whole partnership thing, and said, ‘This is who I am 

interested in bringing, are you interested in presenting 

them at your cultural center?’ ‘Yes.’ I said, ‘Okay, 

how about we split the airfare from Copenhagen?’ So 

basically they’re paying one way, I’m paying the other. 

You find creative ways like that to, as much as possible, 

minimize the costs so that you can put on a really rich 

festival.15

Halifax. Artists and organizations based in Halifax speak of 

an absence of any significant financial support for the arts from either 

provincial or private sources, particularly for Aboriginal, culturally 

diverse, and experimental work, and the lack of support for emerging 

Aboriginal and culturally diverse artists. As a result, it is difficult for 

organizations to retain and develop these young artists in the city. 

Explains Onelight Theatre’s Sayadi, 

The few that are here work together. And the rest leave. 

The rest who think they can make a living out of it, and 

they want to work in the field, they leave. They go to 

Toronto, they go to New York...Why we have stayed 

here? We stayed here, and we fought it, and every day 

has been a dinner table [conversation], every day, ‘Do 

we stay, or do we go?’ But then we stay, and we have 

all these good people that we’ve met, friends, and they 

become family. And our kids are born here. But most 

people they just leave. And I don’t blame them because 

there’s no money. There’s no support, there’s no money.16

240
Part II

Toronto. While conversations with participants in all areas covered 

an array of subjects, conversations with Toronto-based organizations 

were particularly wide-ranging, and we observed less overlap in 

commentary between organizations. One of the few recurring themes in 

these conversations relates to issues of recognition. Recognition-related 

challenges differ greatly between organizations and include difficulties 

(for some) in attracting the attention of, and coverage by Toronto’s 

mainstream media, difficulties (for some) in attracting private sector 

support, difficulties (for some) in attracting governmental support, and 

difficulties (for some) in gaining recognition of an organization’s art 

form from the greater arts community and arts funders. More so than 

organizations in other areas, Toronto-based participants comment on 

structural issues within the local, provincial, and national support system 

that impede organizational development and the discrepancy between 

the city’s increasing ethnic diversity and its support of the art produced 

by this diverse populace. In speaking of their particular recognitionrelated challenges, interview participants from one organization describe 

the city’s slow evolution on matters of cultural equity and the added 

work ethnocultural arts organizations undertake to obtain basic support 

for their work:17

Participant 1: I think Toronto is such a complicated 

place because the first line of every conference you go 

to on this stuff or every email you get is ‘Toronto is a 

changing [place].’ And it’s changed, and they’re 15 

years behind the time you know. And so they’re just in 

this mode of reconciling the fact that white people are a 

Image 40. Nigel Grenier, a spirit 

transforming, performs with Dancers of 

Damelahamid at Scotiabank Dance Centre. 

Photograph by Derek Dix. Reproduced by 

permission from Dancers of Damelahamid.

241
Characteristics by Province/Region 

minority in this town and they haven’t been able to deal 

with that and so there’s this fumbling that’s happening 

of trying to...but they recognize us in terms of our form 

and format. We fit within a really easy art world form 

and so they can come to us. Those creative new young 

things that are happening, they’re not – they don’t 

– they’re not even tuned into that, or there’s a lot of 

hesitation and resistance. There have been roundtables 

on cultural diversity at the Ontario Arts Council and the 

Toronto Arts Council and the stuff that’s coming out of 

peoples’ mouths in terms of how they’re viewing those 

really creative grassroots initiatives is really offensive.

For us, we fit within a paradigm and a parameter that 

they understand and so they’ll come to us for checking 

out their box or whatever it is with their good intentions, 

but I find it really difficult to deal with because we’re 

really in this middle ground area...Do you want to 

chime in?

Participant 2: Yeah, I mean I agree, but at the same 

time I also see the positive side of that about us being 

able to have a foot in each kind of space. And I think 

that to put a, in some way, positive spin on how we’re 

viewed generally is I feel like because we’re not stuck 

in this very – I feel like our organization has changed a 

lot over the last long decade. And even in terms of ...

interrogating identity constantly, I think that as much as 

we’re tokenized, we’re at least recognized as being a part 

of this space because there are a lot of organizations 

that get totally relegated to the work of the ‘cultural’ art. 

Which is a ‘lesser’ art in some way. So I think yeah there 

is space to go, but I...do think that especially recently 

we’ve gotten a lot of feedback generally that we’re well 

regarded. So I think we’re in a good place to direct 

where this conservation is going.

And I think that if we take a more active role in critically 

engaging with the way the art world – because I think 

that yeah generally it’s more of a reflection of the way 

the city thinks about multiculturalism right now, which 

is one of tolerance, it’s not engagement. It’s not an 

active, being self-critical about the way that people view 

works from [the organization’s origin community] or 

[artists from this community]. It’s about accepting that 

it’s art and then that’s it...

Participant 1: But I think that that puts more pressure 

on us to tow this line. I mean more work pressure in 

terms of being...I think so much of our workday is 

devoted to parsing through, and the three of us have to 

put our heads together several times a day to be able to 

traverse that line, which is unacknowledged work. It’s 

not just like you put together an art show, and then you 

– 

Participant 2: You think about translation. 

Participant 1: Yeah. In both worlds, right, in the art 

world – the mainstream white world – and then the 

mainstream brown world. And you – sometimes you 

have to pick who it is that you’re going to cater to. 

Province/Organizational Supports

Described in greater detail in preceding chapters, we identified 

95 funding agencies and arts service organizations with targeted 

programs to support Aboriginal, culturally diverse, and/or White arts 

organizations. As also previously described, some form of targeted 

support exists in all of the country’s provinces and territories with the 

exception of the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince 

Edward Island, where we identified no form of support either at the 

provincial governmental level or offered by arts service organizations 

operating out of these provinces and/or directed more specifically at 

ethnocultural arts organizations based in these provinces. 

Based on their provincial base of operations, the geographic 

distribution of arts service organizations/funding agencies offering 

targeted programming generally correlates with the geographic 

distribution of ethnocultural arts organizations (see fig. 61). We note, 

however, that the depiction of the geographic distribution of arts 

services in this manner may be somewhat misleading. As suggested in 

Overview of Characteristics, targeted programs of a given funding 

agency or arts service organization are often available to ethnocultural 

242
Part II

arts organizations located outside of the town, city, province, or territory 

in which an agency or service organization is situated. For example, the 

Canada Council is physically located in Ottawa, but this funding agency’s 

several targeted programs are open to organizations located throughout 

the country (that otherwise meet grant eligibility requirements).

We discuss elsewhere the challenges encountered by national 

service organizations in providing services that effectively meet the 

specific needs of arts organizations operating in a wide array of 

cultural communities, artistic disciplines, and geographic locations. 

Complementing, and in some cases supplanting, the roles of nationallevel organizations in supporting the arts field, in recent years a number 

of regional and local support organizations have emerged with or 

developed more tailored programs aimed at addressing the specific 

regional and local needs of ethnocultural arts organizations. We have 

identified a few national service organizations that have partnered with 

these more local organizations and initiatives to leverage the strengths of 

each. Examples of such partnerships include the following:

• As the nation’s largest arts presenting service organization, 

the Canadian Arts Presenting Association/l’Association 

canadienne des organismes artistiques (CAPACOA) “serves 

the performing arts touring and presenting community 

through its commitment to integrate the performing arts into 

the lives of all Canadians.”18 A national network, CAPACOA 

operates with regional representatives in each province 

and territory. To address the particular complex needs of 

performing artists and arts organizations in the North, 

improve collaboration between presenters, and to create 

more opportunities for artists and arts presentation, regional 

representatives from Nunavut, the Northwest Territories, 

and the Yukon have joined with other local (Northern) 

arts organizations to form a new, and currently informally 

operated, Northern presenting network, N3. 

• In 2013, the Canada Council partnered with Arts Nova Scotia 

to launch the Arts Equity Fund Program, which is aimed 

at supporting Nova Scotia-based Aboriginal and culturally 

diverse artists, artists with disabilities, and artists living with 

mental illness. Managed by the provincial arts agency, the pilot 

program is a three-year initiative that provides artists with a 

minimum of $500 and a maximum of $12,000 in grant funds 

in support of projects involving the creation of new work, the 

17%	
  

10%	
   11%	
  

5%	
  

42%	
  

9%	
  

2%	
   3%	
  

0%	
   1%	
   0%	
   0%	
   0%	
  

12%	
  

7%	
   9%	
  

4%	
  

37%	
  

13%	
  

4%	
   2%	
   0%	
  

4%	
   3%	
   2%	
   2%	
  

BC	
   AB	
   MB	
   SK	
   ON	
   QC	
   NB	
   NS	
   PE	
   NU	
   NWT	
   YK	
   Unknown	
  

ECAOs	
   ASOs	
  

Figure 61. Comparison of Canadian organizations with dedicated arts services by province

Source: Canadian organizations database (n=255) and Canadian support organizations database (n=95).

Notes: We did not identify any registered organizations in the Yukon or Newfoundland and Labrador.

243
Characteristics by Province/Region 

public presentation of work, certain artistic or administrative 

professional development activities, and funding for special 

travel related to the development of artistic activity.19

One unique cross-border partnership is between the First 

Peoples’ Cultural Council (FPCC) in British Columbia and the Margaret 

A. Cargill Foundation (MACF) located in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. In 

2012, MACF provided FPCC with over $250,000 in arts project funding 

to support Aboriginal arts in British Columbia.20 The FPCC partnership 

falls under the foundation’s first round of grants for its Native Arts and 

Cultures sub-program, which presently extends to the entire Pacific 

Northwest region (Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and British Columbia).21

With its borderless approach, the new MACF program and CanadianUS venture hold the potential for shared learning opportunities and of 

drawing from our countries’ respective systems to better support North 

American ethnocultural arts.

United States

Equally inhabited by immigrants from around the world and a 

distinctive Indigenous population, the United States is geographically 

the second largest country in the Americas. While direct comparisons 

are difficult to make as the manner in which we identified organizations 

differs from the manner in which US census data on race and ethnicity 

is collected, the geographic distribution of US ethnocultural arts 

organizations appears to generally reflect the current geographic 

distribution of the country’s racial populations. Located more heavily in 

certain states and cities, ethnocultural arts organizations may be found 

along the coastal shores of the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean in the far 

west, north to the Arctic Circle and south to the Caribbean. 

Research for the Plural project included all 50 states and the US 

Territories of Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands.22 To facilitate the 

interpretation and presentation of data on the geographic characteristics 

of US ethnocultural arts organizations, we employ the US Census 

Bureau’s four census regions, which are as follows:

• West: Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Montana, 

Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, 

Hawaii, Alaska

• Midwest: North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, 

Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, 

Michigan, Ohio

• South: Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, 

Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South 

Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, District 

of Columbia, Maryland, Delaware

• Northeast: Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Rhode 

Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, New 

Hampshire, Maine

We note that the US Census Bureau has not designated a “region” for 

the country’s nine Territories/ Associated States. In the Plural project 

database, we have identified organizations located in these Territories/

Associated States as “NONE,” meaning none assigned. In the US 

surveys, in addition to listing the four census regions, we added two 

response choices: (i) “U.S. Territory (American Samoa, Guam, Northern 

Marianas, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands)” and (ii) “More than one 

region” (US-SQ-3).

Region/Ethnic Distribution

The US Census Bureau estimates that the US population in 

2013 approximated 316 million, with current estimates placing the 

current US population at over 318.5 million.23 Heavily urbanized, this 

population is concentrated in the eastern and southern halves of the 

country and on the West Coast; specifically, the Northeast contains 17.7 

percent of the country’s population, the Midwest 21.4 percent, the West 

23.5 percent, and the South 37.4 percent.24

As of 2013, the country’s five most populous states are California 

with 38.3 million inhabitants (12 percent of the total population), Texas 

with 26.4 million inhabitants (8 percent of the total population), New York 

with 19.7 million inhabitants (6 percent of the total population), Florida 

with 19.6 million inhabitants (6 percent of the total population), and 

Illinois with 12.9 million inhabitants (4 percent of the total population).25

US ethnocultural arts organizations are somewhat similarly 

distributed and concentrated (see fig. 62). Of the 2,013 ethnocultural 

244
Part II

Figure 62. Geographic distribution of US organizations (Map)

Source: US organizations database.

245
Characteristics by Province/Region 

arts organizations listed in the Plural project’s US database, the West 

holds more than one-third of organizations and is the region with the 

greatest share of the field (see fig. 63). The top three states housing the 

biggest proportions of the field are California (20 percent), New York 

(15 percent), and Texas (7 percent); collectively, they hold 43 percent of 

incorporated tax-exempt ethnocultural arts organizations (see fig. 64). 

The distribution of ethnocultural arts organizations appears to resemble 

the distribution of arts organizations of color reported in Cultural Centers 

of Color as the West held the largest, and the Midwest appeared to hold 

the smallest, number of organizations of color at the time of the earlier 

study (see Part I).26

While mirroring the general distribution of the US population 

and concentrated in the country’s most heavily populated states, the 

concentration of ethnocultural arts organizations in California and New 

York is significantly higher than the US population’s concentration in 

these states. Moreover, the Northeast and West house, collectively, a far 

greater percentage (18.8 percent more) of organizations compared to 

these regions’ shares of the US population, and the South houses a far 

lesser percentage (14.4 percent less) of organizations than this region’s 

share of the US population.

We note that we identified four ethnocultural arts organizations 

located in Puerto Rico and one in the US Virgin Islands. We further note 

that we identified no sufficiently comprehensive information regarding 

the regional distribution of US arts and culture organizations and thus 

are unable to compare the ethnocultural arts field to the arts field as a 

whole with respect to this characteristic.

The geographic distribution of ethnocultural arts organizations 

by pan racial group resembles but does not appear to closely align 

with the racial distribution of the general US population (see figs. 65-

72 and table 10). As discussed in the Methodology and Characteristics 

by Pan Racial Group, the differences between the manner in which 

we defined and identified Latino & Caribbean organizations and 

the manner in which the US Census Bureau defined and identified 

individuals of “Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin” in the 2010 US 

Census renders a direct comparison between the geographic distribution 

of Latino (and Caribbean) arts organizations and the United States’ 

Latino (and Hispanic and Spanish) population highly problematic. In 

Midwest	
  

17%	
  

Northeast	
  

26%	
  

US	
  Territories/	
  

Associated	
  

States	
  

0.2%	
  

South	
  

23%	
  

West	
  

34%	
  

Figure 63. US organizations by region

Source: US organizations database (n=2013). Figures are rounded.

20%	
  

15%	
  

7%	
  

5%	
  

4%	
   3%	
   3%	
   3%	
   2%	
   2%	
  

CA	
   NY	
   TX	
   IL	
   PA	
   WA	
   FL	
   MN	
   NJ	
   MD	
  

Figure 64. Top 10 states with the greatest concentration of US 

organizations

Source: US organizations database (n=2013). Figures are rounded.

246
Part II

Figure 65. Geographic distribution of American Indian/ Alaska Native 

arts organizations (Map)

Figure 66. Geographic distribution of Asian arts organizations (Map)

Source for Figures 65 to 72: US organizations database. 

Figure 67. Geographic distribution of Black arts organizations (Map)

Figure 68. Geographic distribution of Latino & Caribbean arts 

organizations (Map)

247
Characteristics by Province/Region 

Figure 69. Geographic distribution of Multiracial arts organizations 

(Map)

Figure 70. Geographic distribution of Native Hawaiian/ Other Pacific 

Islander arts organizations (Map)

Figure 71. Geographic distribution of Some Other Race arts 

organizations (Map)

Figure 72. Geographic distribution of White arts organizations (Map)

248
Part II

addition, because the 2010 US Census asked individuals to identify as 

being of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin and then asked a separate 

question regarding race, comparisons with all other pan racial groups 

are problematic as it is possible that the geographic distribution of 

ethnocultural arts organizations by pan racial group would shift if 

Latino & Caribbean arts organizations were redistributed into such 

other categories as White, Black, American Indian, and Some Other 

Race. With these notes of caution, we make the following observations 

with respect to each specific pan racial group:27

• American Indian/Alaska Native: Slightly more than half 

of American Indian/Alaska Native arts organizations are 

located in the West, which is a greater proportion of any 

pan racial group based in this region with the exception of 

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander arts organizations. 

Similarly but to a lesser degree, a substantial proportion 

(45.6 percent) of the country’s American Indian/Alaska 

Native population resides in the West.28 Moreover, American 

Indian/Alaska Native arts organizations are predominantly 

located in states with relatively high Native populations. 

The top three states with the greatest proportions of these 

organizations are New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Arizona, 

which each house 10 percent of American Indian/Alaska 

Native arts organizations and collectively just under onethird of this segment of the ethnocultural arts field. These 

figures align with two of the top three states that hold the 

greatest proportions of the country’s American Indian/

Alaska Native peoples: California (12 percent of the total 

American Indian/Alaska Native population), Oklahoma (11 

percent of the total), and Arizona (10 percent of the total).29

• Asian: Both Asian arts organizations and the country’s 

Asian population are heavily concentrated in the West (42 

percent and 45.5 percent, respectively).30 The two states 

with the greatest proportions of organizations are California 

(31 percent of Asian arts organizations) and New York (18 

percent), which are also the two states that hold the greatest 

proportions of the country’s Asian population (33 percent 

in California and 10 percent in New York.31 As these figures 

indicate, New York appears to hold a significantly higher 

percentage of the country’s Asian arts organizations than its 

percentage of the country’s Asian population.

• Black: The region housing the largest number of Black arts 

organizations is the South, and at 38 percent, the South 

holds a greater proportion of Black arts organizations than 

it does of any other pan racial group. The Northeast also 

houses a substantial proportion of the country’s Black arts 

organizations (26 percent). The states with the greatest 

AMERICAN 

INDIAN/ 

ALASKA 

NATIVE

ASIAN BLACK LATINO & 

CARIBBEAN MULTIRACIAL

NATIVE 

HAWAIIAN/ 

OTHER 

PACIFIC 

ISLANDER

SOME OTHER 

RACE WHITE GRAND TOTAL

Midwest 13% 11% 20% 10% 6% 0% 15% 27% 17%

Northeast 15% 27% 26% 22% 35% 0% 32% 30% 26%

South 21% 20% 38% 32% 15% 5% 13% 16% 23%

West 51% 42% 17% 34% 44% 95% 41% 27% 34%

US Territories/ 

Associated States

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%

Grand Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Table 10. US organizations by pan racial group and region

Source: US organizations database (n=2013). Figures are rounded.

249
Characteristics by Province/Region 

proportions of Black arts organizations are New York (16 

percent), California (11 percent), Florida (6 percent), and 

Illinois (6 percent). These figures do not align with the 

geographic distribution of the country’s Black population. 

More than half (56.5 percent) of this population resides in 

the South, with Florida (8 percent), Georgia (8 percent), New 

York (8 percent), and Texas (8 percent) housing the greatest 

proportions of the country’s Black population.32 Thus, 

although the largest number of Black arts organizations 

are located in the South, as was the case at the time of 

Cultural Centers of Color, the South appears to be significantly 

underrepresented in its proportion of these organizations.

• Latino & Caribbean: Latino & Caribbean arts organizations 

are primarily located in the West (34 percent) and the South 

(32 percent). In terms of their geographic distribution by 

state, these organizations are concentrated in California (25 

percent), Texas (16.5 percent), and New York (13 percent). 

Similarly, more than three-quarters of the country’s 

Hispanic/Latino/Spanish population is located in the 

West (41 percent) or South (36 percent), with California 

(28 percent), Texas (19 percent), and Florida (8 percent) 

holding the greatest proportions of the Hispanic/Latino/

Spanish population.33 Re-emphasizing the problematic 

nature of comparing Latino & Caribbean arts organizations 

to the US population identifying as of Hispanic/Latino/

Spanish origin, we note that the geographic distribution of 

organizations appears to loosely align with this component 

of the US population, although the West and South appear 

to house disproportionately smaller numbers of Latino & 

Caribbean arts organizations and the Northeast appears 

to house a disproportionately greater number of these 

organizations.

• Multiracial: Multiracial arts organizations are primarily 

located in the West (44 percent) and the Northeast (35 percent), 

with the Northeast having a greater proportion of Multiracial 

arts organizations than it does of any other pan racial group. 

More than half of Multiracial arts organizations are located 

in California (32 percent) and New York (26.5 percent) with 

other substantial percentages of organizations located in 

Arizona (9 percent) and Texas (9 percent). These figures 

do not align with the geographic distribution of individuals 

identifying as Multiracial (“Two or More Races” in the 

US 2010 Census): the greatest proportion of the country’s 

Multiracial population resides in the West (38 percent) and 

the South (31 percent) and in California (20 percent) and 

Texas (7.5 percent).34 We note, however, the many problems 

in comparing Multiracial designations in this project, not 

the least of which are that, historically, Multiracial peoples 

have been discouraged and/or not permitted to identify as 

more than one race, and thus census data may undercount 

this population, and within the United States, our project’s 

definition of ethnocultural arts organization looked for 

organizations to explicitly identify as one or more pan racial 

or ethnic groups, and thus we generally excluded groups 

identifying simply as “multiracial.”

• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander: The overwhelming 

majority of Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander arts 

organizations are located in the West (95 percent) and 

specifically in Hawaii (65 percent) and California (26 percent). 

Similarly but to a lesser extent, the majority of the country’s 

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander population resides 

in the West (75 percent) with more than half residing in 

California (27 percent) and Hawaii (25 percent).35

• Some Other Race: Some Other Race organizations are 

heavily located in the West (41 percent) and the Northeast 

(32 percent) and in California (32 percent), New York (14 

percent) and Massachusetts (8.5 percent). Some Other Race 

is another category where different methodologies render 

comparisons between the Plural project data and US Census 

data highly problematic and thus any comparisons between 

Some Other Race arts organizations and the United States’ 

Some Other Race population should be treated cautiously. 

We did not identify census data regarding the regional 

distribution of the country’s Some Other Race population. 

250
Part II

We did identify data regarding the geographic distribution 

of this population by state and note that this population is 

more heavily concentrated in California (33 percent), Texas 

(14 percent), and New York (7.5 percent).36

• White: White arts organizations are more evenly distributed 

across the country than are other pan racial groups. These 

organizations are slightly more concentrated in the Northeast 

(30 percent) and the least concentrated in the South (16 

percent). At 27 percent, the Midwest holds the greatest 

proportion of this ethnocultural arts group than it does 

of any other pan racial group. In terms of the geographic 

distribution of these organizations by state, New York holds 

the greatest proportion (15 percent) followed by California 

(10 percent) and Illinois (7 percent). These figures do not 

align with the geographic distribution of the country’s White 

population, which is more heavily concentrated in the South 

(35 percent) and the Midwest (26 percent) and in California 

(7.6 percent), Texas (6 percent), and New York (6 percent).37

Region/Age

There is some variation among regions/territories with respect 

to organizational age (see fig. 73). The findings presented below are 

based on US survey questions 2 and 3 regarding respondents’ year of 

founding and location. As discussed in the Methodology and detailed in 

Appendix U, survey findings may be treated as generally representative 

of organizations listed in the US database; however, these same findings 

underrepresent organizations based in the South and, to a lesser degree, 

underrepresent organizations based in the Northeast.

All four regions and Puerto Rico house ethnocultural arts organizations founded prior to the 1960s. Complementing the field’s longevity is the field’s youth: except for the Northeast (46 percent), over half of 

organizations in all regions were founded in the 1990s and 2000s.

We make the following additional observations and comments 

regarding the age distribution of survey respondents by region:

• With a median founding year of 1987, Northeastern 

organizations tend to be older than other regions; 

organizations located in the Midwest and West tend to be 

similar in age with median founding years of 1992 and 1993, 

respectively. Southern organizations tend to be the youngest 

with a median founding year of 1997.

• The Midwest has the highest percentage of organizations 

founded pre-1960s (9 percent). 

• The Northeast has the highest percentage of organizations 

founded in the 1960s (4 percent) and 1970s (25 percent).

• The West (20 percent), South (19 percent), and Northeast 

(18 percent) all have similar percentages of organizations 

founded in the 1980s. 

• The South has the highest percentage of organizations 

founded in the 1990s and 2000s (67 percent).

33%	
  

25%	
  

6%	
  

5%	
  

6%	
  

9%	
  

3%	
  

2%	
  

4%	
  

3%	
  

14%	
  

7%	
  

25%	
  

14%	
  

25%	
  

20%	
  

19%	
  

18%	
  

14%	
  

33%	
  

26%	
  

25%	
  

11%	
  

34%	
  

33%	
  

50%	
  

31%	
  

42%	
  

35%	
  

26%	
  

US	
  Territories/	
  

Associated	
  States	
  

More	
  than	
  one	
  

region	
  

West	
  

South	
  

Northeast	
  

Midwest	
  

Pre-­‐1960s	
   1960s	
   1970s	
   1980s	
   1990s	
   2000-­‐11	
  

Figure 73. US organizations by region and decade founded

Source: US survey results (n=342). Figures are rounded.

251
Characteristics by Province/Region 

Figure 74. Average annual gross income by state (2009-2012)

Source: US organizations database.

252
Part II

25%	
  

36%	
  

44%	
  

35%	
  

38%	
  

33%	
  

25%	
  

29%	
  

34%	
  

22%	
  

15%	
  

33%	
  

25%	
  

25%	
  

16%	
  

28%	
  

24%	
  

33%	
  

25%	
  

2%	
  

1%	
  

1%	
  

9%	
  

5%	
  

14%	
  

22%	
  

US	
  Territories/	
  Associated	
  

States	
  

More	
  than	
  one	
  region	
  

West	
  

South	
  

Northeast	
  

Midwest	
  

<25K	
   25K-­‐100K	
   100K-­‐500K	
   500K-­‐1MM	
   1MM+	
  

Figure 75. Average annual operating budget by region: frequency distribution 

(2009-2012)

Source: US survey results (n=349). Figures are rounded.

• Two Puerto Rican-based organizations and the one US 

Virgin Islands organization that we identified in the Plural 

project (the Caribbean Museum Center for the Arts) 

participated in the survey. Four organizations reported that 

they are located in more than one region.

We note that we identified no equivalent information regarding the age 

distribution of US arts and culture organizations and thus are unable 

to compare the ethnocultural arts field to the arts field as a whole with 

respect to this characteristic.

Region/Income

There is significant variation among states with respect to 

average annual gross income (see fig. 74); however, variations may be 

explained, in part, by the presence in certain states of extremely highincome ethnocultural arts organizations that skew these states’ average 

incomes upwards. There are 23 ethnocultural arts organizations that 

reported annual gross incomes of $5 million or more in at least two of 

the four years between 2009 and 2012; of these organizations, 10 are 

located in New York, six in California, two in Illinois, and one each in 

Alaska, Minnesota, Arizona, Iowa, and Michigan. Nine of the top 10 

highest income organizations are located in either California or New 

York.

At $3.3 million, North Dakota is the state with the country’s 

highest average annual gross income; however, this average is calculated 

based on income reported by one of the two incorporated tax-exempt 

ethnocultural arts organizations we identified in the state (we identified 

no income related information for the other organization between 

2009-2012, which we believe may be a 7871 organization). With the 

largest concentrations of ethnocultural arts organizations in the country, 

California and New York are also among the states with the highest 

average annual gross incomes ($1.1 million and $1.4 million, respectively). 

Texas has the third largest concentration of organizations but lacks the 

extremely high-income organizations present in both California and 

New York; its average annual gross income of $200,000 is far below the 

field average of $701,358. Regarding regional variations, states based 

in the South have the lowest average annual gross incomes while states 

based in the Midwest have the highest average annual gross incomes. 

In figure 73, we note that states with $0.0 listed as the average 

annual gross income indicate averages falling below $100,000 and/or 

states where no organization reported income for the years 2009-2012 at 

the time we completed the US database. 

A consideration of ethnocultural arts organizations’ operating 

budgets provides another perspective on the financial size of organizations as these figures take into account organizational expenses. State 

variances with respect to average gross incomes also appear in the operating budgets reported by US survey respondents (see fig. 75; US-SQ-7). 

We highlight the following:

• The Midwest has the highest percentage of organizations 

reporting operating budgets over $1 million (22 percent) 

and the South has the smallest percentage (5 percent). The 

Midwest also has the smallest percentage of organizations 

reporting operating budgets under $100,000 (53 percent) and 

the South has the highest percentage (78 percent). 

• The South has the highest percentage of extremely lowbudget organizations: 44 percent of ethnocultural arts 

organizations located in this region report operating budgets 

under $25,000.

253
Characteristics by Province/Region 

• Sixty-five percent of organizations located in the West report 

annual operating budgets of less than $100,000, making the 

region second only to the South in its percentage of this 

group of low-budget organizations.

We note that very few survey respondents report operating budgets in 

the $500,000 to $1 million range. The ratio of $500,000 to $1 million 

budget organizations to over $1 million budget organizations does not 

resemble the ratio between these two groups with respect to average 

gross income. The discrepancy may be indicative of the underrepresentation in survey findings of organizations in the former group and/

or expenses greater than gross incomes for a number of these mid-size 

organizations that moved them to the higher budget group.

Regional variations similar to those seen in the annual operating 

budgets reported by survey respondents appear in the distribution of the 

number of paid employees (including full-time and part-time) reported 

by survey respondents (see fig. 76; US-SQ-24). Across all regions, 

more than three-quarters of survey respondents report five or fewer 

paid employees; however, slightly more survey respondents located in 

the South (87 percent) and West (83 percent) report five or fewer paid 

employees than do respondents located in the Northeast (76 percent) 

and the Midwest (79 percent). Greater variation among regions exists 

with respect to respondents reporting more than five paid employees: 

here, respondents in the Northeast report a wider range in the number 

of paid employees, and respondents in the South and West report few 

paid employees in the 11 or greater categories (4 percent and 5 percent 

of these regions, respectively). No more than one percent of respondents 

in any region report more than 100 paid employees.

We further note that we identified no equivalent information 

regarding the regional/income distribution of US arts and culture 

organizations and thus are unable to compare the ethnocultural arts 

field to the arts field as a whole with respect to this characteristic.

Region/Organizational Challenges

As detailed in Overview of Characteristics, the top four 

organizational challenges/needs reported by survey respondents across 

all regions are financial resources, organizational capacity building, space, 

and audience development (US-SQ-18). More specifically, the majority 

of organizations in all regions rank financial resources as their primary 

challenge/need (81 percent of Midwestern organizations, 90 percent 

of Northeastern organizations, 81 percent of Southern organizations, 

and 88 percent of Western organizations). Capacity building also ranks 

highly as a key challenge/need (55 percent of Midwestern organizations, 

59 percent of Northeastern organizations, 47 percent of Southern 

organizations, and 51 percent of Western organizations rank 1-2). 

Regarding space and audience development, there is somewhat 

greater regional variation among survey respondents. A slightly greater 

percentage of organizations located in the Midwest prioritize space (20 

percent rank 1-2) over audience development (17 percent rank 1-2) as a 

top challenge. In the Northeast, more organizations focus on audience 

development (21 percent rank 1-2) over space (13 percent rank 1-2) as 

an important challenge. A slightly greater percentage of organizations 

located in the South also view audience development (24 percent rank 

1-2) as a greater challenge/need than space (21 percent rank 1-2). In 

the West, more organizations prioritize space (28 percent rank 1-2) than 

audience development (19 percent rank 1-2) as a top challenge/need. 

33%	
  

75%	
  

49%	
  

35%	
  

62%	
  

39%	
  

67%	
  

34%	
  

41%	
  

25%	
  

40%	
  

12%	
  

6%	
  

10%	
  

8%	
  

25%	
  

3%	
  

5%	
  

2%	
  

7%	
  

1%	
  

9%	
  

2%	
  

4%	
  

3%	
  

1%	
  

1%	
  

1%	
  

US	
  Territories/	
  Associated	
  

States	
  

More	
  than	
  one	
  region	
  

West	
  

Northeast	
  

South	
  

Midwest	
  

0	
   1-­‐5	
   6-­‐10	
   11-­‐20	
   21-­‐50	
   51-­‐100	
   More	
  than	
  100	
  

Figure 76. US survey respondents by number of paid employees and region

Source: US survey results (n=350). Figures are rounded.

254
Image 41. Immigrants 3.0, Arlekin Players Theatre, 2013. Left to right: Julia Shikh, Victoria Kovalenko, Eduard Snitkovsky, Irina Rubinshtein, and Boris 

Berdnikov. Photograph by Natalia Berdnikov. Reproduced by permission from Arlekin Players Theatre.

255
Characteristics by Province/Region 

As is the case with Canadian ethnocultural arts organizations, 

the cross-regional similarities of reported organizational challenges 

mask differences in how these broad challenges translate into the 

particular operating environments of organizations located in different 

towns, cities, states, and regions. Based on research into state-specific 

support environments and conversations with project participants, we 

highlight below a few of these differences.

With respect to financial resource concerns, we observe that 

the funding levels for state and local arts agencies, both historically and 

currently an important source of financial support for ethnocultural 

arts organizations, do not align with the geographic concentration 

of ethnocultural arts organizations. For example, California holds 

the greatest number of the country’s ethnocultural arts organizations 

and is also the state that, since the budget cuts of 2003 (see Part I), 

consistently ranks lowest or second lowest in the country in its per capita 

funding for its state arts agency.38 In FY 2014, total arts agency revenue 

for California is $0.18 per capita, which is the lowest in the country 

second only to Georgia, which ranks last (50th) at $0.15 per capita.39

Among the three other states holding sizable portions of ethnocultural 

arts organizations – New York, Texas, and Illinois – New York ranks 

the highest at 10th with $2.07 per capita, Illinois is 32nd with $0.85, 

and Texas joins California at the bottom in 48th place with $0.25 per 

capita.40 In contrast, Minnesota ranks first in the nation with $6.45 

per capita and is followed by Delaware in second place with $4.33 per 

capita and Hawaii in third place with $4.18 per capita.41 Collectively, 

these three states hold five percent of the country’s ethnocultural arts 

organizations (Minnesota – three percent, Delaware – zero percent but 

housing three incorporated tax-exempt organizations, Hawaii – two 

percent). 

With a voter-approved increase in taxes during the recent 

recession to create a special fund dedicated to financing arts and culture 

(see Needs and Supports: A Life Cycle Approach) and a number of 

innovative arts service organizations such as Springboard for the Arts, 

Minnesota has developed a broader reputation as a state that is highly 

supportive of the arts. Not surprisingly, the average annual gross income 

for ethnocultural arts organizations located in this state is approximately 

$500,000, which places Minnesota among the states with the higher 

average annual incomes and represents a figure less skewed by extremely 

high-income organizations as we identified only one such organization 

in the state. The somewhat more even distribution of gross income 

is reflected in the median annual gross income level for Minnesotan 

ethnocultural arts organizations, which at $120,361 is higher than the 

field median of $86,487.

Discussions with interview participants covered a range of 

challenges, many of which are not specific to organizations operating in a 

particular city, state, or region and yet at the same time reflect the different 

environments in which organizations operate. Conversations with Twin 

Cities-based participants generally centered around needs related 

to sustaining recent growth and/or continuing a growth trajectory, 

transitioning leadership, and/or addressing more general issues related 

to increasing the visibility of the state’s ethnocultural arts organizations, 

art forms, and artists, the (mis)representation of these organizations, art 

forms, and artists, and the complicated cross-sector/cross-disciplinary 

work undertaken by organizations which is not always understood by 

funders. Participants directly link several of these challenges to revenuerelated concerns. For example, employees of the American Swedish 

Institute (ASI) speak highly of the organization’s current funders and 

these funders’ support of ASI’s expanding shift in mission and vision and 

subsequent expansion of programming into new areas and communities. 

However, employees also speak of the tensions inherent in engaging in 

process-oriented work while operating in a product-oriented funding 

environment. Referencing ASI’s long relationship building period 

with its local Oromo community that eventually led to several projects 

between ASI and members of the community, including a collaborative 

art exhibition, ASI’s Christy Stolpestad, Director of Development & 

Membership, and Ingrid Nyholm-Lange, Youth & Family Programs 

Coordinator, explain,42

Nyholm-Lange: [Funders] also want us to have 

measurables. ‘What are you measuring and how are you 

measuring it?’...What I would say a need is is to be able 

to articulate these intangible returns on investment. It is 

really about social change. And social change does not 

happen overnight...generally it’s working at a grassroots 

level that takes time. 

256
Part II

Stolpestad: I hope that this gains traction in the 

funding community. The National Committee for 

Responsive Philanthropy had done some research 

about making the case for general operating support 

by funders. It’s a relatively small percentage that will 

contribute a majority of their funds available for general 

operating support. And so we were thrilled when the 

Minnesota State Arts Board created a new program 

for general operating support, recognizing that it takes 

some years to cultivate community partnerships, and 

our exhibits and programming are very rich and part 

of our annual work. And so to have funding that just 

supports what we’re already doing is so valuable. More 

funders recognizing what general operating support can 

do would be wonderful.

While articulating the need for greater systemic change, on balance, 

comments from Twin Cities-based participants reflect a consciousness 

of the state’s generally supportive environment for the arts. In discussing 

her organization’s growing financial resource and space concerns, 

Dakota Hoska, Gallery Assistant for All My Relations Arts, observes,

I think it’s really easy to say fundraising [is a need], but I 

also feel like we do have funds available and we haven’t 

explored a lot of other options...One thing about living 

in Minnesota is we do have some resources available...I 

feel like we have a lot of things [here] that probably 

aren’t available if we were trying to do this same thing 

in another state. Although, maybe if you asked me 

that in a year after I’ve been trying to work on getting 

marketing funds and getting some fundraising I might 

have a different opinion...but right now I feel like there 

are things out there we haven’t really utilized yet but will 

probably help us out when we get to that point.43

Participants located in Hawaii, another state with a 

comparatively high level of government support for the arts, speak 

of somewhat different concerns within their geographic operating 

environment although concerns overlap considerably with those raised 

by Minnesotan participants and participants located elsewhere (e.g., 

leadership transition and supporting a new generation of artists). None 

of these participants, all of whom are based in Honolulu, describe 

financial support for the arts as particularly robust. Instead, these 

participants note that state and other sources of local funding for the 

arts have decreased over the past several years and that, before this time, 

support was generally stronger for artists affiliated with local universities 

rather than for freestanding organizations and independent artists. 

Both in survey responses and in interviews, project participants speak 

of having few local arts services of any kind and many service gaps; 

more so than in any other state, Honolulu participants describe the 

need for a full range of arts services. Services implicitly and explicitly 

identified by participants as needed and helpful include (i) assistance 

in identifying and applying for grants, (ii) the creation and increased 

availability of networking and shared learning opportunities, especially 

in such organizational management areas as board development, (iii) 

the dissemination of information on performance opportunities, artist 

residencies, potential collaborators, and (iv) arts advocacy. With respect 

to the latter, Michael Pili Pang, Artistic Director and Kumu Hula of 

Mu’olaulani, describes a particular challenge faced by halaus and hula 

dance companies due to legal anti-nepotism clauses that (inadvertently) 

directly impact practitioners of the state’s famous art form,

In the traditional school we also have generations of 

people. We pass our heritage down from generation 

to generation, so we will have in the school relatives. 

It’s very difficult to get the state to understand that the 

nepotism clause that they have in there is a contradiction 

to tradition. We have a very difficult time telling them 

that we don’t want to throw the nepotism clause into 

our bylaws that’s required by the state.44

Pang notes that such legal requirements have only more recently become 

a widespread issue as it has only been within the past few years that 

increasing numbers of halaus have formed nonprofits:

When I created a nonprofit company, my first one, in 

’91, I was the only organization that was a hula school 

that was a nonprofit. And so I went around asking all 

the other hula schools, ‘How are you doing it?’ And they 

were like, ‘Michael, you tell us after you’re done.’ I ended 

257
Characteristics by Province/Region 

get whomever is reviewing it to just think of it as ‘create 

art.’ Stop pigeonholing us into a certain category. 

Organizations located throughout the country voice Pang’s 

frustration with issues related to categorization. In San Francisco, for 

example, several interview participants describe financial and capacity 

building challenges related to stereotypical notions of ethnocultural 

arts organizations and a lack of understanding of the shared, but also 

diverse, needs of this segment of the arts community, both of which 

further problematize the current one-dimensional approach to serving 

arts organizations. This lack of a more multidimensional approach to 

servicing the arts field leaves some ethnocultural arts members without 

support while shortchanging the creative process of others. Observes 

Alleluia Panis, Director of Kulintang Arts,

Arts service organizations are usually divided among 

genres...there’s a very large dance community in San 

Francisco, but still very, I don’t want to say segregated, 

but for example...it’s still very much ‘Here are the 

contemporary dancers that deal with contemporary 

works,’ and then there are the ethnic dancers, but ethnic 

dancers are really only under the ethnic dance festival...

Unfortunately for the folkloric dancers, they’re not 

necessarily part of that scene. Because really a lot of the 

folkloric dancers, yes they are there for the dance, but 

they’re also there to find their Filipino-ness, or whatever 

ethnic group. There are always going to be dancers that 

are really – they’re dancers first. But a lot of the members 

of a folkloric group, who are amazing dancers, really 

are there because it’s close to home. They find some 

solace and nurturing in that. But they’re not necessarily 

into being part of a larger dance community...although 

they do have their own larger community, but it is 

informal...for dancers who do this because they want 

to get connected with themselves, with their roots, with 

their cultures, [general arts service organizations] are 

not important. But of course it’s a detriment all around 

because they don’t necessarily get funding, or they don’t 

get the share of funding.45

up going to Pittsburgh and working with a Pittsburgh 

dance company on how to structure my school and my 

company, following a Western package. That’s the kind 

of situation we deal with in Hawaii.

Neither ethnically nor geographically specific, Pang highlights 

a number of other financial resource and capacity building challenges 

that are echoed by participants located throughout the United States 

and Canada whose art form places them in a situation of constantly 

negotiating traditional/contemporary distinctions and considerations in 

organizational management practices. One of these challenges relates to 

shifts required due to the nonprofit incorporation process itself:

This diagram, or this formula, of traditional halau, loses 

that traditional hierarchy when you create a business like 

a nonprofit, because now you have a board of directors 

that you answer to...We’re constantly struggling on how 

to maintain the traditional value and how to maintain 

a working administration. So in that sense...that’s 

what we’re trying to do is create this new generation 

of practitioners that have the ability to understand the 

business side, and what it takes to run a company...and 

run the traditional practice and the protocols that are 

involved in the traditional hula school.

Separate but related are challenges related to identifying appropriate 

funding sources:

One of the problems that we have sometimes...

when we apply for grants, because sometimes we 

do a new creation, we apply in the dance section, in 

choreography. And then whomever is reviewing it tells 

us, ‘Oh, but you’re a traditional ethnic group, so you 

should be in Heritage.’ So they send us to Heritage. 

And then the Heritage people say, ‘Wait a minute, this 

is brand new,’ so they tell us to go back to dance. We 

have a very difficult time. We did in 1999, I think it 

was ‘98, was one of the first halaus, or hula schools, to 

receive an NEA dance [grant] to create something new. 

So we did receive one once. But like I said, every time 

we apply, we’re chasing our tails... It’s very difficult to 

258
Part II

Echoing comments made by ASI, First Voice’s Co-founder and 

Co-Artistic Director Brenda Wong notes one of the challenges her 

organization (and similarly situated organizations) face in finding support 

for their collaborative artistic development processes: 

The stuff that they think is chitchat or whatever, ‘It’s 

so useless?’ There’s so much information that we’re 

gleaning at this time...We’re finding out how each other 

operates, we’re finding out what we have in common so 

we can have a basis to start some sort of trajectory. If 

we’re going to go forward, what is our base, you know? 

There’s a lot going on there that people don’t realize. 

They think that CP time, right, Colored People time, 

we’re just wasting all this time. But actually we’re doing 

all kinds of groundwork.46

San Francisco participants generally speak well of local funders 

and programs such as the San Francisco Arts Commission’s Cultural 

Equity Grants; conversations in this city revolved somewhat less around 

issues with specific existing programs and more around needs to access 

greater amounts of unrestricted financial support and more structural 

concerns within the arts ecosystem. Within the context of capacity 

building, participants are aware of and point to the city’s many existing 

arts services; capacity building concerns for most regard the need for 

increased operating support to hire staff and to take other structural 

measures to stabilize organizational capacity. Related, participants also 

speak of the escalating costs of real estate in the city and difficulties 

in finding affordable and stable rehearsal and performance/exhibition 

space as a major challenge. Audience development needs raised by 

participants both in San Francisco and the broader Bay Area range 

widely, from a focus on reconnecting with an organization’s source 

community to better leveraging the area’s diverse ethnic demographics 

by diversifying both programming and audiences. With respect to the 

latter, Panis highlights Kulintang Arts’ particular audience development 

needs:

We’re missing the connection with other arts 

organizations of color. Because now in California, 

and particularly in San Francisco, the critical mass of 

the population has shifted. So we can do things on our 

own within our community, but what’s missing is that 

[larger connection], at least for us. We’re so focused on 

the community that we’re not connecting with folks that 

would really appreciate the work that we do. I think 

that’s really the major thing that we’re grappling with 

right now. 

Discussions with organizations located in other cities and states 

also frequently covered shifting ethnic demographics in organizations’ 

neighborhoods, the impact of which, depending on organizations’ 

ethnocultural group and geographic location, has led to new audience 

development and space/development needs or empowered approaches 

to addressing these needs. For example, interview participants located 

in Houston and San Antonio describe area development and the 

displacement and/or migration of origin communities to other 

geographic areas. Such movements have resulted in emerging needs to 

build relationships with these new communities and to increase outreach 

with organizations’ origin community/ies. Explains Cassandra ParkerNowicki, Cultural Center Supervisor for the San Antonio-based Carver 

Community Cultural Center,

The majority of our audience doesn’t come from our 

neighborhood any longer, whereas it used to be...not only 

in our artistic presentations but also in our educational 

programs. People will travel from all over San Antonio 

to come to the Carver for any of those offerings, but we 

find most often that it’s not the people who live right 

here. We’ve been trying to put a lot of focus on who is in 

our neighborhood now? Who is our community? ...We 

feel like the fact that the majority of the residents living 

closest to the Carver are no longer African American 

doesn’t change the fact that we have a desire and an 

obligation, we feel, to support this community, whatever 

it has changed to be. I would say that that probably is 

one of our biggest struggles right now, in addition to the 

things that I think all arts organizations face that a lot of 

times, especially when you’re working with communities 

that are struggling on so many levels. It’s not just about 

access, it’s not just about the fact that parents are 

working multiple jobs just to make sure that they have a 

259
Characteristics by Province/Region 

roof over their heads and food on the table, it’s not just 

the fact that they’re doing everything they can just to 

keep their kids in schools and dealing with all the things 

that the schools are having to deal with too, but it’s also 

an education process that we... are constantly having to 

explain why it’s important, and why it’s significant that 

you not only support this arts organization, but that you 

participate and that you let us into your lives.47

Similar to participants located throughout the United States and 

Canada, Texas participants also tie financial resource concerns to the 

inequitable distribution of arts funds within the state, which has resulted 

in the underfunding of ethnocultural arts organizations, and audience 

development concerns to the local mainstream media’s general lack of 

knowledge and lack of coverage of ethnic art forms.

New York City is another area where participant commentary 

focused on the city’s diverse ethnic landscape and the lack of 

representation of this diversity in the distribution of arts funding 

within the city. Financial resource concerns are often directly tied to 

space concerns. As with Vancouver participants, many New York City 

participants are well-versed in city rules and regulations pertaining to real 

estate development; however, in comparison to Vancouver participants, 

participants in New York City describe city council members that are 

more receptive to organizational concerns, and several participants 

provide examples of working in partnership with council members to take 

advantage of existing city government programs that have assisted them 

in the identification, purchase, and/or financing of their own spaces. 

The city’s Latino arts organizations have been particularly successful in 

leveraging their growing visibility and political power to tackle systemic 

inequities. Jose Oliveras, Artistic Director of Teatro Círculo, describes 

his organization’s fundraising process in renovating its own space:

The reality is that not too many Latino groups were 

asking for capital needs because, in order to ask for 

capital needs, you have to have a building, you have 

to have a facility. And that’s something that – not just 

Image 42. Wanda Ortiz and Arthur Aviles in Ring, 

produced by Pepatian in collaboration with the 

Bronx Museum of the Arts in 2002. Photograph 

by G. Giraldo. Reproduced by permission from 

Pepatian.

260
Part II

Latino – the majority of companies in the city don’t 

have a building. So the demand for that is much less than 

the demand for programming and operating [funds]. I 

have to say that I was surprised that it was relatively 

easy to raise $5 million from the [city’s] capital budget. 

How we did it? We targeted specifically the Latino 

elected officials in the city. The reality is that the Latino 

population is 33 percent of the population in the city. 

And the money that is allocated to services to Latinos 

is so disproportionate, we are so undercapitalized as a 

population, it’s not a difficult argument to make...we 

went to almost every single Latino elected official in the 

city, and there are plenty of them, and we were able to 

create coalitions, and we were able to create political 

alliances among city council people to allocate money 

for this project...the conditions were right for us.48

The majority of funds for the renovation of Teatro Círculo’s space 

came from city sources. Underlining a point made by numerous project 

participants in both countries as to the importance of local and state/

provincial financial support, he adds, 

If we were to do this with private money, forget it. No way. 

Out of $5 million dollars, we raised probably $100,000 

in private money. This would not happen if we were 

counting on private money. Because of the economic 

situation and because foundations and corporations 

don’t give money to tiny organizations. They go for the 

safe bet, they go to the big institutions...we had to go 

with public funding...We know that the numbers are 

in our favor, we are a not for profit community-based 

organization. This is exactly the [type of] project that 

the city is supposed to be funding.49

In New York City more than in any other location in either the United 

States or Canada, project participants emphasize arts advocacy and 

working as a liaison with city and state government as an important and 

needed role of general and ethnocultural arts service organizations. 

It is not surprising that participants based in larger cities point to 

changing demographics, real estate development, and gentrification as 

greater changes that are impacting organizational challenges of obtaining 

adequate financial resources and space and in developing audiences. In 

contrast, when considering arts organizations operating in rural areas, 

literature often centers more around organizational challenges related 

to the absence of (localized) arts services as well as other resources and 

opportunities. Our smaller city and more rural project participants did 

discuss such challenges. However, for some of these participants whose 

work is directly connected with their geographic environment as well 

as their local community and its deep history in the area, concerns 

surrounding space, and more specifically real estate development, are of 

utmost importance as they translate into greater cultural shifts that are 

endangering the continued existence of their artistic traditions.

The McIntosh County Shouters

Goodbye, members/Goodbye, members/

I hate to leave you/I hope to see you/

Goodbye, members/Goodbye, members/

This is the las’/This is the las’/

We had a good time/I hate to leave you/

I hope to see you/Another time/ ...

- From Farewell, Last Day Goin,’ sung by the McIntosh County 

Shouters at the close of the ‘Watch Night Shout’ and to 

conclude public performances; recorded by Art Rosenbaum 

in Shout Because You’re Free

The Southeastern coastal Ring Shout

Located in McIntosh County, Georgia, the McIntosh County 

Shouters, or the Shouters, are a performance group with a mission 

“to preserve and protect the rich Georgia Gullah Geechee heritage by 

educating audiences young and old about the ring shout and life during 

slavery along the Georgia coast.”50 The Shouters obtained their federal 

tax-exempt status in 2009, a date that belies the long history from which 

the group evolved. 

Dating back from the time the first African slaves were brought to 

the coasts of Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida, the country’s earliest 

261
Characteristics by Province/Region 

Black inhabitants wove African traditions with Christian beliefs to create 

a uniquely American tradition that celebrates spirituality, ancestors, 

and community: the “ring shout” or simply the “shout.” A combination 

of counterclockwise movement (the shout), call and response singing, 

hand clapping, and the rhythmic drumming of a stick on a wooden 

floor, the ring shout involves the collective contributions of a stickman, 

basers, clappers, a lead songster, and a group of women who serve as the 

shouters. One account of the art form describes how these individuals 

and elements work in unison: 

The lead songster begins or ‘sets’ the song. The 

‘stickman’ beats a broomstick on the floor to add 

rhythm, and the ‘basers’ respond to the songster, adding 

handclapping and feet patting to the stick beat and song. 

The female shouters complement the song with small, 

incremental steps in a counterclockwise circle, never 

crossing their feet, and sometimes gesturing with their 

arms to pantomime the song. Though the term ‘shout’ 

is collectively applied to this folk tradition, performers 

distinguish between the shouters (those who step in a 

ring), basers, and stickmen.51

Adds another source:

The shouters of Bolden also clearly differentiate between 

the shout songs and other types of religious songs, such 

as spirituals, hymns, and the more recent jubilee and 

gospel songs. The shout songs...begin slowly at times 

but quickly accelerate to the brisk tempo of the shout. 

Most of them date back to slavery times, and many of 

the melodies hint at African and Afro-Caribbean origins. 

The texts, while occasionally prosaic and even secular 

(“Hold the Baby”), carry biblical messages (“Pharoah’s 

Host Got Lost”), coded references to the hardships of 

slavery (“Move, Daniel”), and often rise to impressive 

heights of apocalyptic poetry (“Time Drawin’ Nigh”).52

Historically performed in churches, homes, barns, and praise houses in 

the woods, the ring shout traditionally occurred after church services 

and in celebration of days of particular importance, such as to welcome 

in the New Year (the Watch Night Shout). 

After an initial period where slave owners encouraged, or at least 

permitted, more secular music and dance among slaves, in the 1800s 

White attitudes shifted to the elimination and marginalization of both 

secular and religious African derived cultural/artistic practices.53 The 

ring shout was among the several indigenous and hybridized practices 

actively discouraged by plantation owners, White clergymen, and by 

some members of the Black clergy; as musician Art Rosenbaum notes in 

Shout Because You’re Free,

It was not only the ring shout and the songs associated 

with it, but also other black spirituals that were 

suppressed by white missionaries, such as Charles 

Colcock Jones, who were attempting to instill more 

orthodox forms of worship into the beliefs of converted 

slaves. In Liberty County, Georgia (just to the north 

of McIntosh County) in the 1840s, Jones found the 

slave songs “too African, dangerously extravagant...

And perhaps...he heard hidden within these songs 

both resistance to subordination and profound spiritual 

insights that cut through his pretensions, that his own 

heart could not face...At any rate, Jones rejected 

them all and sought to replace them with the hymns 

of white Protestantism. ‘One great advantage,’ he had 

told the planters, ‘in teaching them good psalms and 

hymns, is that they are thereby induced to lay aside the 

extravagant and nonsensical chants, and catches and 

hallelujah songs of their own composing; and when 

they sing...they will have something profitable to sing.’” 

Jones disapproved of ‘boistrous singing immediately 

at the close’ of divine worship. This stricture may well 

have been directed specifically at the singing of shout 

songs and the ring shout, which were typically practiced 

after formal worship services.54

Thus forced into secret practice in some areas, the ring shout developed 

and flourished within Gullah/Geechee communities. Observes Robert 

Darden, author of People Get Reedy: A New History of Black Gospel Music,

262
Image 43. McIntosh Country Shouters performing at the Savannah Music Festival, 2011. Shouters left to right: Carletha Sullivan, Rebecca Wahlin, 

Venus McIver, seated: Brenton Jordan (Stickman), L.C. Scott (Baser and Clapper), and Freddie Palmer (Lead Singer). Photograph by Frank 

Stewart. Reproduced by permission McIntosh County Shouters.

263
Characteristics by Province/Region 

It endured in part because in most states the slaves 

worked ferociously to keep its presence hidden from 

their masters, devising elaborate plans and early warning 

systems. Regardless of its specific origin, the ring shout 

became an integral part of the African-American 

services in the South long before the Civil War, when it 

became a mainstay of Sunday afternoons.55

The end of slavery brought new freedoms but also new threats 

to the tradition. Beginning in the 20th century, the ring shout faced 

internal challenges as the African American communities in which the 

shout was practiced began to disperse, with younger generations moving 

to bigger towns and cities within their region or relocating entirely to 

other parts of the country as part of the Great Migration. The breakup of formerly close-knit communities in turn disrupted the manner in 

which knowledge and continued practice of the shout relied: passage 

from generation to generation through observation and emulation of, 

repeated exposure to, and practice alongside elder practitioners within 

a given community. By the middle to late 20th century, anthropologists 

believed that the shout had died out in private practice. Then, in 1980, 

a group of outsiders were introduced to members of the Mount Calvary 

Baptist Church and the shouters of Bolden, a community in McIntosh 

County. 

Unaware at the time that they were, and are, among the few 

remaining practitioners of what is arguably the oldest surviving African 

American performance tradition, the Bolden shouters, most of whom 

are related by blood or marriage, have continuously practiced the ring 

shout in the McIntosh County area since their ancestors created the 

hybrid art form on US shores; in their own words, “We never did let it 

go by.”56 A mix of factors may be attributed to why the shout survived 

in Bolden when the practice ceased to exist elsewhere. In Shout Because 

You’re Free, Rosenbaum emphasizes that “[t]he shout...demands a 

sizeable, cohesive, and dedicated group of participants in the tradition,” 

and “at least in this century, the ring shout has become dependent on 

special received knowledge of songs, the shout movements, and a shared 

understanding of its history. A few people in a community were not 

enough to keep the shout going.”57 The necessary conditions existed in 

Bolden: 

[M]ost important in the sustaining of old traditional 

practices is community cohesiveness and sufficient 

economic support for community survival, particularly 

with regard to such a tradition as the ring shout, that 

requires...a relatively large group steeped in the 

tradition. In inland rural areas in Georgia, the demise of 

cotton-farming because of the boll weevil and the Great 

Depression decimated communities and caused largescale emigration to the North. In Bolden, members 

of the community owned their land and could grow 

subsistence crops; they could not be evicted as could 

sharecroppers elsewhere.58

Again stressing the importance of a cohesive community environment, 

Rosenbaum and two Bolden shouters add in a separate interview 

regarding the shout:

Rosenbaum points out that families were able to 

establish stability in Bolden. It was a cohesive mainland 

community where steady work and property ownership 

was possible. As other black coastal communities began 

to disperse, says [Bolden shouter] Sullivan, many 

residents of Bolden stayed put, adhering to the values 

of community, tradition, family and honoring ancestors 

through the shout.

... ‘I didn’t know it was something unique,’ Sullivan says. 

‘I thought it was something everyone did. It’s simple to 

us because it’s just like eating to us. It’s something we 

grew up doing so it’s not a big deal.’

Says Sullivan’s grandson, Brenton Jordan, 26, the 

group’s stickman since 2010, ‘It’s literally something 

you’re born into.’59

Alerted to the uniqueness of their cultural legacy, in 1980 a group of 

the Bolden shouters made the decision to increase the visibility of, and 

educate a broader community about, the ring shout. Led by the late 

elder songster Lawrence McKiver,60 they organized as a performance 

group and named themselves the “McIntosh County Shouters.” 

264
Part II

The same year, the Shouters made their first public appearance 

at the Georgia-Sea Islands Festival on nearby St. Simons Island; shortly 

thereafter, they began attracting regional and national attention. In 1984, 

the Smithsonian’s nonprofit record label Folkways Records released 

recordings of their music in the album The McIntosh County Shouters: Slave 

Shout Songs From the Coast of Georgia (later reissued in 2003). In 1988, the 

Shouters were featured on the PBS special Down Yonder with Rosenbaum; 

this documentary was the first of several to feature the group, with others 

including PBS’s The American Experience; Roots of Resistance: The Story of 

the Underground Railroad (1989) and HBO’s Unchained Memories (2002). In 

1998, the University of Georgia Press published Shout Because You’re Free, 

a book regarding the history and current practice of the ring shout that 

is largely based on the Shouters and contains their first voice narratives; 

in addition to this written work, the group has been referenced multiple 

times in local, regional, and national press coverage of the ring shout.61

In 2009, the Shouters were featured on Rosenbaum’s Grammy award 

winning album The Art of Field Recording – Volume I (Best Historical 

Album). The Shouters have also received numerous honors and awards, 

including the NEA’s National Heritage Fellowship (1993), designation 

as “Master Artists” by the NEA (2003), the NAACP’s Founders’ Day 

Award (2010), Georgia’s Governor’s Award in the Humanities (2010), 

and the American Legacy Magazine’s American Heritage Award (2011).

Over the 34 years of the McIntosh County Shouters’ 

public presence, they have performed at regional and international 

performance venues such as the National Folk Festival/Wolf Trap 

National Park for the Performing Arts (Vienna, Virginia), the Black Arts 

Festival (Atlanta), the John F. Kennedy Center (DC), and Lincoln Center 

(New York), at numerous schools and colleges, and at smaller events, 

festivals, churches, and other venues around the country. Among their 

many accomplishments during this time, only a few of which are related 

here, the group has served to introduce a wider public to the Gullah/

Geechee and the rich heritage and legacy of these founding members 

of US society. 

Having achieved a certain degree of broader recognition and 

celebration of an art form borne out of this country’s dark past, the 

Shouters face a future where the conditions that have supported the art 

form’s survival may no longer exist. Sustained for centuries by familial 

bonds and a relatively stable and tight-knit community, intimately 

connected to the area’s geographic location, persisting through slavery 

and the many economic, political, and cultural shifts and movements of 

the 20th century, the incredibly resilient ring shout now faces extinction 

as a result of real estate development and coastal Georgia’s rapidly 

escalating property taxes. 

The Gullah/Geechee Heritage Corridor

Following the displacement of the region’s Native peoples, White 

slaveholders took possession of what are now St. Simons Island, Sapelo 

Island, and other islands and land in the surrounding McIntosh County 

area. These new owners preferred the more temperate climate and less 

mosquito-ridden environment of other cities and regions, however, 

and thus largely left the area to its new inhabitants: slaves who had 

been shipped in to work the local rice and cotton plantations. During 

Reconstruction, the former slaves purchased the land they had long 

worked and occupied, and by the turn of the 19th century, freedmen and 

their descendents owned, for example, nearly 90 percent of St. Simons 

Island.62 Finding jobs as farmers, farmhands, sawmill workers, engineers, 

fishermen, blacksmiths, carpenters, dressmakers, domestic workers, 

grocers, cooks, basketmakers, teachers, and various other professions, 

the area’s Gullah/Geechee communities settled into their new lives.63

Around the 1920s, greater cultural and local area developments 

started to transform the ethnic and socioeconomic demographics of the 

region. First came the invention of the automobile and the construction 

of bridges and roads in McIntosh County and nearby areas, which 

improved the accessibility of area islands, and the advent of air 

conditioning, which made the areas’ muggy climate more hospitable to 

the “city-born and bred citizen looking for a little getaway cottage on 

the ocean.”64 Following these inventions, developers began building new 

homes on area islands and the mainland aimed at attracting a wealthier 

class of individual. The collective impact of all the new construction in 

turn led to a slow rise in the value and price of real estate, especially on the 

islands, and a subsequent increase in real estate taxes.65 Simultaneously, 

previous economic opportunities available to (Black) area residents 

began to disappear.

Then, coinciding with the “discovery” of the shouters of Bolden, 

came the great bull market of the 1980s, and with it a rapid increase 

in tourism and the sale and purchase of real estate at record levels, 

265
Characteristics by Province/Region 

particularly on the country’s coasts, which spurred massive development 

along the Georgia coast that continues to this day.66 Over the years, and 

with the approval of local government, these waves of area development 

have involved the razing of numerous local homes in favor of “high end 

luxury homes and condominiums, strip malls, and shops,”67 the creation 

of gated communities and resorts, and transforming other features in the 

area’s physical landscape that make it a more palatable vacation spot. 

For example, on St. Simons, the once famous cotton plantation formerly 

known as “Retreat Plantation” now serves as the Sea Island Golf Club, 

a private club that is host to the PGA Tour’s McGladrey Classic and that 

ranks as one of the top golf courses in the country. It is also home to a 

former slave cemetery, which is mixed into the golf course’s ninth green, 

a slave cabin, which has been converted into a gift shop, and the ruins 

of what once served as a slave hospital, which stands just back from the 

club’s spectacular “Avenue of the Oaks” entrance; these sites contain 

little to no interpretive information and are only accessible to members 

of the club, their guests, and – for the cemetery only – descendents of 

those who labored on the plantation and are buried on the grounds. On 

a different part of St. Simons lies another cotton plantation known as 

the Hamilton Plantation, the remains of which include two well-kept 

tabby slave cabins and Epworth By The Sea, a conference and retreat 

center owned by the United Methodist Church. The Cassina Garden 

Club, whose mission is “to promote love of gardening among amateurs, 

to protect native shrubs, trees, flowers and birds, and to encourage 

beauty,” is responsible for the maintenance of the cabins, and for two 

hours on Wednesday mornings for the months of June through August, 

they are open to visitors.68 Outside the cabins, the Cassina Garden Club 

has erected a sign, which reads: 

Cassina Garden Club Houses

These houses were slave cabins on the Gascoigne Bluff 

section of Hamilton Plantation, which was developed in 

1793 by James Hamilton into one of the largest estates 

on St. Simons Island. Eventually this Gascoigne Bluff 

area was given to Glynn County for a park honoring 

the first naval site in America. These cabins were given 

to the Cassina Garden Club in 1931 for preservation 

purposes. 

Image 44. Slave cemetery on the Sea Island Golf Club. Photograph by 

Mina Matlon. Reproduced by permission from Mina Matlon.

266
Part II

current projects is the restoration of the Harrington School House, a 

one-room schoolhouse built in the 1920s to educate the island’s Black 

children during segregation.72 Recent census data has added urgency 

to the Coalition’s efforts: according to the 2010 census, the racial 

demographics of St. Simons has reversed, with only 352 of the island’s 

12,438 residents reporting African American descent, which amounts to 

less than three percent of the island.73

Today, the region’s islands have turned into popular tourist 

destinations that attract numerous visitors as well as a continuous stream 

of new, wealthy, and primarily White full-year and part-time residents. 

The rising fortunes of the region have largely not found their way to 

the region’s Gullah/Geechee communities, however, for whom regional 

economic development has mainly translated into continual, and more 

drastic, hikes in property taxes. The same process that has taken place 

on St. Simons is echoing throughout the other islands and towns in the 

area: in recent years, the New York Times (the Times) and other media 

sources have detailed the impact soaring real estate taxes are having on 

nearby Sapelo Island, which now holds the “largest community of people 

who identify themselves as saltwater Geechees.”74 Having fought “the 

kind of development that turned Hilton Head and St. Simons Islands 

into vacation destinations,” Sapelo Island’s Geechee residents are now 

confronted with “stiff county tax increases driven by a shifting economy, 

bureaucratic bumbling, and the unyielding desire for a house on the water 

[which] have them wondering if their community will finally succumb 

to cultural erosion.”75 The Times provides an example of one of these 

residents, a 73 year-old woman who “still owns the three-room house 

with a tin roof that she grew up in” and who saw McIntosh County 

officials increase her property taxes by nearly 540 percent between 2011 

and 2012, from $362 to $2,312.76 For Gullah/Geechee whose limited 

financial circumstances render them unable to pay such exorbitant fees, 

development has led to involuntary migration and the forced sale and 

abandonment of their ancestors’ legacy. 

In 2004, due to these and other consequences of rapid and 

unchecked real estate development along the southeastern coastal 

region, the National Trust for Historic Preservation (the National Trust) 

placed the Gullah/Geechee Heritage Corridor on its list of the country’s 

11 Most Endangered Historic Places. Describing the urgency of the 

The Hamilton slave cabins also serve as the club’s meeting place and 

the site of such fundraising events as the “Christmas Tour of Homes 

& Gardens,” “the Tabby & Tillandsia” garden walk, a garden market, 

and a photographic exhibition entitled “Flowers”; these events are 

aimed at supporting the club’s preservation activities.69 For both the 

Sea Island Golf Club and the Cassina Garden Club Slave Cabins, the 

slave buildings situated on these private properties currently function 

primarily as decorative elements that enhance the striking beauty of the 

former plantation grounds.

At the same time local government has supported the 

gentrification of McIntosh County and area islands, it has permitted 

landmarks of historic and continuing cultural importance that are 

located on government-owned property to fall into disrepair. Including 

Black school buildings, constructed during the country’s post Civil War 

segregationist era, and cemeteries housing the remains of former slaves 

and their descendents, the poor state of these markers of the region’s 

history displays a general lack of respect for the individuals who labored 

under slavery and segregation, serves as a staging ground for further 

real estate development, and contributes to a process that is literally 

erasing this history. Amy Roberts, Executive Director of the St. Simons 

African American Heritage Coalition, relates one incident from several 

years ago where the St. Simons/Sea Island Council approved, with no 

consultation with its area residents, of the renaming of a number of 

streets on St. Simons that had been named and were associated with 

the island’s once large Gullah/Geechee community.70 “Now,” notes one 

local news source with respect to changes on St. Simons, “there is hardly 

a trace that features African American history; yet that history was so 

much a part of this island.”71

With the aim of maintaining the vibrancy of the area’s Gullah/

Geechee culture and supporting its Gullah/Geechee communities, 

members from these communities founded the Georgia-Sea Islands 

Festival in 1977 and the St. Simons Island African American Heritage 

Coalition (the Coalition) in 2000. The Coalition was specifically formed 

to address land loss prevention, historic preservation of the island’s 

African American landmarks, and to focus on education and economic 

development opportunities that will make remaining in the area more 

economically viable for current African American residents; one of its 

267
Characteristics by Province/Region 

worsening situation, the National Trust states on its website,

Extending for hundreds of miles between Cape Fear and 

the St. Johns River, this stretch of coastline is home to 

one of America’s most distinctive cultures: the Gullah or 

Geechee people, descendants of slaves who have stoutly 

maintained lifeways, crafts, traditions – even a language 

– whose origins can be traced back over the centuries 

to their homelands in West Africa. Until fairly recently, 

the coastal region of islands, marshes, placid rivers 

and oak-shaded roads had seen relatively little change 

– but now change is widespread, often overwhelming 

and sometimes devastating. Unless something is done 

to halt the destruction, Gullah/Geechee culture will 

be relegated to museums and history books, and our 

nation’s unique cultural mosaic will lose one of its 

richest and most colorful pieces...

Community activists throughout the area are working to 

preserve small sites within their communities, but they 

are unable to raise enough funds to make a significant 

difference. Although county governments and real 

estate developers are becoming more sensitive to the 

need for preservation, they may not understand the 

historical significance of what is being lost...77

The McIntosh County Shouters are not specifically mentioned 

in media coverage related to the ongoing demolition of the tangible 

and intangible markers of the Gullah/Geechee, and yet the challenges 

confronting the ring shout cannot be separated from the struggles of the 

communities in which this tradition is so deeply rooted. Overcoming 

multiple obstacles over the centuries to carry on a practice that is “a 

proud assertion of human spirit and supportive community over the 

degradations of slavery and oppression,”78 the ring shout’s practitioners 

are now witness to the environment that has long sustained this unique 

practice being replaced with spas and vacation homes. Thus, despite the 

group’s many successes in capturing the attention of a broader public, 

as with other Gullahs and Geechees, their future is uncertain. Hinting at 

this uncertainty, the Shouters observe in their mission statement,

Over time, interest in the rich heritage passed down 

from slavery times in the coastal Georgia region 

continues to grow, but the slender threads of memory 

and information will remain strong only as long as we 

continue the tradition of ‘passing down’ the unique 

culture of our ancestors from Africa’s Rice Coast who 

were brought here in bondage just a few generations 

ago. Through the telling of stories, the memories and 

heritage are kept alive.79

While the Shouters’ situation is singular, it is not unique. Native 

and African American ash and sweetgrass basketmakers are among 

the other artists working within art forms that have seen real estate 

development and other construction projects, higher property taxes, the 

dispersal of community, and/or environmental factors emerge as more 

recent challenges that threaten their art and livelihoods.80 These and 

other concerns were among the galvanizing factors that led to the creation 

of such arts service organizations as the Maine Indian Basketmakers 

Alliance and the Sweetgrass Cultural Arts Festival Association.81

Region/Organizational Supports

Discussed in Overview of Characteristics and Characteristics 

by Pan Racial Group, we identified 248 funding agencies and arts 

service organizations with targeted programs to support ethnocultural 

arts organizations. Based on their regional base of operations, the 

geographic distribution of funding agencies/arts service organizations 

closely correlates with the geographic distribution of ethnocultural arts 

organizations, although there are slightly more arts service organizations 

located in the Northeast and slightly less located in the South (see fig. 

77). The depiction of the geographic distribution of arts services in 

this manner may be misleading as targeted programs of a given service 

organization may be available to ethnocultural arts organizations located 

outside of the region in which the service organization is physically 

located. By way of example, programs offered by the Dearborn-based 

Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services (ACCESS), 

the New York-based Ford Foundation and Surdna Foundation, the 

DC-based National Hellenic Society, and the Native Arts and Cultures 

Foundation, based in Vancouver (Washington), are open to ethnocultural 

268
Part II

arts organizations around the country (that otherwise meet program 

eligibility requirements).

Although there are a number of national-level, and for some 

ethnocultural groups international-level, support programs, arts services 

aimed at the ethnocultural arts field in the United States tend to be 

regionally focused. Approximately two-thirds of state arts councils 

provide targeted support for ethnocultural arts organizations, including 

general project funding for community initiatives and events for 

underserved communities, specific programs for ethnocultural groups 

(e.g., the Alaska State Council offers a Traditional Native Arts Program 

to serve rural Alaska Natives, contemporary artists, and Native arts 

organizations), presenting and apprenticeship grants, and Traditional 

and Folk Arts programs to identify, preserve, and promote folk arts, which 

often include ethnocultural arts, within the state. In addition to these 

state agencies, several foundations have developed programs expressly 

including ethnocultural arts organizations operating within the state(s) 

in which these foundations are located. For example, in partnership with 

the Menlo Park-based William & Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Los 

Altos-based David & Lucile Packard Foundation, the San Franciscobased James Irvine Foundation’s Community Leadership (Special 

Initiatives) Project offers grants, leadership development opportunities, 

and technical assistance training aimed at building “the capacity of 

small and midsize organizations serving low-income communities and 

communities of color in the greater San Francisco Bay Area, Central 

Coast, and San Joaquin Valley.”82 The majority of dedicated programs 

offered by service organizations are focused on assisting specific 

ethnocultural communities situated in organizations’ local areas. We 

note that many ethnocultural service organizations have broad-based 

missions and programs that, in addition to supporting arts and culture, 

include support for language, education, youth, and other community 

activities and needs. As previously discussed, NALAC is the only 

national ethnocultural arts service organization identified during our 

research that provides a range of arts services from grants to education 

and training to advocacy and research. 

Providing effective programs across a wide service area presents 

a challenge for arts service organizations. To address the complex and 

particular needs of artists and organizations operating in a range of 

physical and cultural environments, some organizations have developed 

models that employ regional representatives to customize and/or deliver 

services. Founded in 1997, the Latino Arts Network (LAN) is one such 

service organization. A professional network of artists and organizations 

dedicated to strengthening and promoting California’s Latino arts, LAN 

offers services in four program areas: (i) communications and networking; 

(ii) capacity building; (iii) advocacy; and (iv) touring and presenting.83

These services are developed and implemented in partnership with the 

state’s Latino arts and cultural organizations and through the assistance 

of LAN’s northern and southern representatives, who are located 

throughout California’s 42 counties.84

To address specific local challenges faced by ethnocultural 

arts organizations and their communities, some of these communities, 

ethnocultural arts organizations, and other community-based 

organizations are joining forces to form dedicated arts advocacy 

organizations and initiatives. One interesting model is New York 

City’s Naturally Occurring Cultural Districts (NOCD-NY), which is a 

working alliance of ethnocultural and geographically specific cultural 

organizations, governmental agencies, real estate developers, related 

17%	
  

26%	
  

23%	
  

34%	
  

16%	
  

30%	
  

20%	
  

34%	
  

Midwest	
   Northeast	
   South	
   West	
  

ECAOs	
  	
   ASOs	
  	
  

Figure 77. Comparison of US organizations with dedicated arts services by 

region

Source: US organizations database (n=2013) and US supports database (n=248).

269
Characteristics by Province/Region 

groups, and interested New York citizens that emerged in the summer 

of 2011 following a series of roundtable conversations focused on the 

intersections between arts and culture and community development.85

“[A]imed at revitalizing NYC from the neighborhood up,” NOCDNY engages in advocacy for policies supporting “asset-based cultural 

work” in these neighborhoods, promotes the value of local practices 

and neighborhood alliance building, and conducts research to expand 

knowledge and capacity among member organizations, as well as 

participates in other work that highlights innovative practices and local 

efforts that more generally support naturally occurring cultural districts 

and local cultural economies in the city.86 Describing the motivation 

behind the group’s work, NOCD-NY states on its website,

New York has many nascent creative economies 

and cultural districts. It is our vision that these assets 

are nurtured to grow in ways that transform our city, 

strengthening local economies, creating jobs, building 

locally sustainable and diverse communities and 

enriching the quality of our lives. When fully realized, 

we witness a city comprised of equitable, sustainable 

and culturally rich communities for all residents, which 

are both distinct and connected.87

In its early stages, NOCD-NY offers a promising community-driven 

and partnership-based approach to encouraging area growth and 

development.

Notes

1. “Population by year, by province and territory,” Statistics Canada, 

last modified November 25, 2013, http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/

sum-som/l01/cst01/demo02a-eng.htm; “Canada Facts,” National Geographic, 

last accessed July 27, 2014, http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/travel/

countries/canada-facts/. Population as of July 1, 2013; the number has been 

rounded.

2. Percentages calculated and rounded from “Population by year, by 

province and territory,” Statistics Canada.

3. “Immigration and Ethnocultural Diversity in Canada,” Statistics 

Canada, last modified January 14, 2014, http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhsenm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/99-010-x2011001-eng.cfm#a2. 4. Ibid.

5. Tonina Simeone, The Arctic: Northern Aboriginal Peoples (Parliament 

of Canada, October 2008), 1, http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/

researchpublications/prb0810-e.pdf.

6. Statistics Canada, Aboriginal Peoples in Canada: First Nations People, Métis 

and Inuit; National Household Survey, 2011 (Minister of Industry, 2013), 8-9, http://

www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-011-x/99-011-x2011001-eng.

pdf.

7. “Urban Aboriginal Peoples,” Aboriginal Affairs and Northern 

Development Canada, last modified April 2, 2014, https://www.aadnc-aandc.

gc.ca/eng/1100100014265/1369225120949.

8. “Immigration and Ethnocultural Diversity in Canada,” Statistics 

Canada.

9. “Table 2: Visible minority population and top three visible minority 

groups, selected census metropolitan areas, Canada, 2011,” Statistics Canada, 

last modified April 24, 2013, http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/

as-sa/99-010-x/2011001/tbl/tbl2-eng.cfm; “Immigration and Ethnocultural 

Diversity in Canada,” Statistics Canada.

10. Frances A. Swyripa, “Ukrainian Canadians,” Canadian 

Encyclopedia, April 4, 2012, last edited December 15, 2013, http://www.

thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/ukrainian-canadians/. According to 

2006 census figures, Ukrainian Canadians form Canada’s ninth largest ethnic 

group.

11. Ibid.

12. Evan Heimlich, “Acadians,” Countries and Their Cultures, last 

accessed July 28, 2014, http://www.everyculture.com/multi/A-Br/Acadians.

html#b; J.M. Bumsted, “Scottish Canadians,” Canadian Encyclopedia, August 27, 

2013, last edited June 20, 2014, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/

article/scots/.

13. See, e.g., Bob Weber, “High Cost of Northern Living: Arctic 

Premiers Urge Feds to Invest in Infrastructure to Bring Down Costs,” Huffington 

Post Canada, June 27, 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/27/

northern-canada-high-cost-food-infastructure_n_1631181.html.

270
Part II

14. “About Arts Nova Scotia,” Arts Nova Scotia, last accessed July 28, 

2014, http://www.artsns.ca/about.

15. Heather Daley (Cofounder & Festival Director, Alianait Arts 

Festival), interview conducted by Mina Matlon at the Alianait Arts Festival, May 

10, 2013, audio recording on file with Plural project co-leads.

16. Shahin Sayadi (Artistic Director, Onelight Theatre & Prismatic 

Festival), interview conducted by Mina Matlon at Onelight Theatre, May 13, 

2013, audio recording on file with Plural project co-leads. 

17. Group interview conducted by Mina Matlon with artists and arts 

administrators of a Toronto-based organization, May 15, 2013, audio recording 

on file with Plural project co-leads. Interviewee names are withheld according 

to terms of consent agreement.

18. “About: Mission and Objectives,” CAPACOA, last accessed July 

30, 2014, http://www.capacoa.ca/en/about/mission-and-objectives.

19. Arts Nova Scotia, “Program to Support Diverse Artists; 

Communities, Culture and Heritage,” news release, June 24, 2013, http://

novascotia.ca/news/release/?id=20130624004; “Arts Nova Scotia Funding 

Equity Funding Programs; Program Guidelines,” Arts Nova Scotia, last 

accessed July 30, 2014, http://www.artsns.ca/grants-awards/grants/equityfunding-programs.

20. Cathi Charles Wherry (Arts Program Manager, First Peoples’ 

Cultural Council), phone interview conducted by Ingrid Van Haastrecht, 

October 17, 2013, audio recording on file with Plural project co-leads; First 

Peoples’ Cultural Council, Annual Report 2012/13 (Brentwood Bay, BC: First 

Peoples’ Cultural Council, 2013), 20, http://www.fpcc.ca/files/PDF/General/

FPCC_Annual_Report_July_2013.pdf. 21. “Our Programs: Arts and Cultures,” Margaret A. Cargill 

Foundation, last accessed June 21, 2014, http://macphilanthropies.org/

macfoundation/our-programs/arts-and-cultures/. 22. In addition to Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands, the US 

Territories and Associated States include American Samoa, the Federated States 

of Micronesia, Guam, the Midway Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, 

the Republic of Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Our focus 

on Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands was due solely to limitations in the 

sources on which we relied to construct our US ethnocultural arts organizations 

database.

23. “State & County QuickFacts,” U.S. Census Bureau, last accessed 

July 29, 2014, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html; “U.S. and 

World Population Clock,” U.S. Census Bureau, last accessed July 29, 2014, 

http://www.census.gov/popclock/. Estimated population as of July 1, 2013; 

the number has been rounded.

24. “2012 Maps; Population for States and Puerto Rico: July 1, 

2012,” U.S. Census Bureau, last accessed July 29, 2014, https://www.census.

gov/popest/data/maps/2012/pop_size2012.pdf; “U.S. and World Population 

Clock; United States Regional Population by Year,” U.S. Census Bureau, last 

accessed July 29, 2014, http://www.census.gov/popclock/.

25. Percentages calculated and rounded from “U.S. and World 

Population Clock; Most Populous States,” U.S. Census Bureau, last accessed 

July 29, 2014, http://www.census.gov/popclock/.

26. Among the differences between the Plural project and the research 

conducted for Cultural Centers of Color are different approaches to the regional 

division of the country in the two studies. For example, our definition of the 

Midwest and the South is more expansive (i.e., includes a greater number of 

states) than the one used by Bowles. Based on the service areas of six regional arts 

service organizations, she divides the country into six, rather than four, regions. 

Employing this regional division, she reports New England as possessing the 

fewest number of organizations followed by the South. Her definition of the 

South excludes Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas (instead placing them in “MidAmerica”). 

27. All figures regarding the racial distribution of the country’s 

population are as of 2010, which is the year of the most recent census.

28. Tina Norris, Paula L. Vines, and Elizabeth M. Hoeffel, The American 

Indian and Alaska Native Population: 2010; 2010 Census Briefs (U.S. Census Bureau, 

January 2012), 5, http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-10.

pdf. Percentages are for the American Indian/Alaska Native population alone 

(not in combination with other races).

29. Percentages calculated and rounded from the U.S. Census Bureau, 

Population; Table 19. Resident Population by Race and State: 2010, last accessed July 

29, 2014, http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0019.

pdf. 30. Elizabeth M. Hoeffel, Sonya Rastogi, Myoung Ouk Kim, and 

Hasan Shahid, The Asian Population: 2010; 2010 Census Briefs (U.S. Census Bureau, 

March 2012), 6, http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-11.

pdf. Percentages are for the Asian population alone (not in combination with 

other races).

31. U.S. Census Bureau, Population; Table 19. Resident Population by Race 

and State: 2010. We calculated and rounded state percentages.

32. Sonya Rastogi, Tallese D. Johnson, Elizabeth M. Hoeffel, and 

Malcolm P. Drewery, Jr., The Black Population: 2010; 2010 Census Briefs (U.S. 

Census Bureau, September 2011), 7, http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/

briefs/c2010br-06.pdf, U.S. Census Bureau, Population; Table 19. Resident 

Population by Race and State: 2010. Percentages are for the Black population 

alone (not in combination with other races). We calculated and rounded state 

percentages.

33. Sharon R. Ennis, Merarys Rios-Vargas, and Nora G. Albert, The 

Hispanic Population: 2010; 2010 Census Briefs (U.S. Census Bureau, May 2011), 

4-7, http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-04.pdf. 34. Nicholas A. Jones and Jungmiwha Bullock, The Two or More Races 

Population: 2010; 2010 Census Briefs (U.S. Census Bureau, September 2012), 

10-12, http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-13.pdf. We 

calculated and rounded state percentages.

35. Percentages calculated and rounded from Lindsay Hixson, 

Bradford B. Hepler, and Myoung Ouk Kim, The Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific 

Islander Population: 2010; 2010 Census Briefs (U.S. Census Bureau, May 2012), 5-7, 

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-12.pdf. Percentages 

271
Characteristics by Province/Region 

are for the Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander population alone (not in 

combination with other races).

36. Percentages calculated and rounded from the U.S. Census Bureau, 

Population; Table 19. Resident Population by Race and State: 2010. 37. Percentages calculated and rounded from Lindsay Hixson, 

Bradford B. Hepler, and Myoung Ouk Kim, The White Population: 2010; 2010 

Census Briefs (U.S. Census Bureau, September 2011), http://www.census.gov/

prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-05.pdf. Percentages are for the White population 

alone (not in combination with other races).

38. Mike Boehm, “California’s new state budget reduced arts 

funding 7.6%,” Los Angeles Times, June 15, 2013, http://articles.latimes.

com/2013/jun/15/entertainment/la-et-cm-california-state-budget-artsfunding-20130614; National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, State Arts 

Agency Revenues; Fiscal Year 2014 (National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, 

February 2014), 11, http://www.nasaa-arts.org/Research/Funding/

NASAAFY2014SAARevenuesReport.pdf

39. National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, State Arts Agency Revenues; 

Fiscal Year 2014, 11.

40. Ibid.

41. Ibid.

42. Korsmo-Kennon/Nyholm-Lange/Stolpestad, interview.

43. Dakota Hoska (Gallery Assistant, All My Relations Arts), phone 

interview conducted by Mina Matlon, September 5, 2013, audio recording on 

file with Plural project co-leads. 

44. All quotes and information regarding Mu’olaulani and from Pang 

are based on an interview conducted with Michael Pili Pang (Artistic Director 

& Kumu Hula, Mu’olaulani), phone interview conducted by Mina Matlon, 

September 16, 2013, audio recording on file with Plural project co-leads.

45. Alleluia Panis (Director, Kulintang Arts), interview conducted by 

Mina Matlon at Kulintang Arts, June 26, 2013, audio recording on file with 

Plural project co-leads.

46. Brenda Wong (Co-founder & Co-Artistic Director, First Voice), 

interview conducted by Mina Matlon at First Voice, June 24, 2013, audio 

recording on file with Plural project co-leads.

47. Cassandra Parker-Nowicki (Cultural Center Supervisor, Carver 

Community Cultural Center), interview conducted by Patricia Morris Alava at 

the Carver Community Cultural Center, June 28, 2013, audio recording on file 

with Plural project co-leads.

48. Jose Oliveras (Artistic Director, Teatro Círculo), interview 

conducted by Mina Matlon at Teatro Círculo, July 31, 2013, audio recording 

on file with Plural project co-leads.

49. Ibid.

50. “History,” McIntosh County Shouters, last accessed August 

6, 2014, http://mcintoshcountyshouters.com. Unless otherwise stated, 

information regarding the McIntosh County Shouters is based on a review 

of the group’s website, an interview conducted by Mina Matlon at St. Simons 

Island with Susan Durkes (Grant Writer & Artist Agent, McIntosh County 

Shouters), July 26, 2013, audio recording on file with Plural project co-leads, 

the McIntosh County Shouters’ response to the Plural project survey, and 

miscellaneous written materials prepared by Durkes regarding the Shouters and 

on file with the Plural project. For additional information on the Shouters, see 

Art Rosenbaum, Shout Because You’re Free: The African American Ring Shout Tradition 

in Coastal Georgia (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1998). The “Gullah” 

or the “Geechee” are the descendents of the enslaved Africans who live(d) in 

the southeastern coastal regions of the United States; today, this region mainly 

consists of Georgia and South Carolina. 

51. Georgia African American Historic Preservation Network, 

“Celebrating Georgia’s Gullah/Geechee Culture; Shoutin’ in Briar Patch” 

(undated), materials received from the files of the McIntosh County Shouters 

and on file with the Plural project co-leads.

52. Rosenbaum, Shout Because You’re Free: The African American Ring Shout 

Tradition in Coastal Georgia, 3.

53. Ibid., 22-23.

54. Ibid., 23.

55. Alan Sverdlik, “A Little Bit Louder Now; The McIntosh County 

Shouters Bring Tradition Alive,” Georgia Music Magazine (Spring 2010), 17.

56. Georgia African American Historic Preservation Network, 

“Celebrating Georgia’s Gullah/Geechee Culture; Shoutin’ in Briar Patch”; 

Rosenbaum, Shout Because You’re Free: The African American Ring Shout Tradition in 

Coastal Georgia, 1.

57. Rosenbaum, Shout Because You’re Free: The African American Ring Shout 

Tradition in Coastal Georgia, 68.

58. Ibid., 69.

59. Andrew Alexander, “McIntosh County Shouters preserve African 

traditions,” Atlanta Journal Constitution, February 14, 2013.

60. McKiver died on March 27, 2013, on St. Simons Island at the 

age of 97. His obituary appeared in the New York Times. See Margalit Fox, 

“Lawrence McKiver, a Singer In Long Tradition, Dies at 97,” Obituaries, New 

York Times, April 2, 2013.

61. See, e.g., “McIntosh Shouters Recognized,” Brunswick News, 

October 6, 1993; “McIntosh County Shouters Will Bring Slave Shout Songs to 

Macon,” Tubman News 4, no. 3 (Winter 1994-95); “Something to Shout About,” 

Southern Living (June 2000); “McIntosh County Shouters win humanities award,” 

Savannah Morning News, April 17, 2010; Alan Sverdlik, “A Little Bit Louder Now; 

The McIntosh County Shouters Bring Tradition Alive,” Georgia Music Magazine

(Spring 2010), 16; Brittany Tate, “Ancestors’ sounds resonate; Ring shouts 

preserve cultural practice dating back more than 300 years,” Life, Brunswick 

News, February 21, 2013.

62. Bob Swinehart, “On My Mind; Lest We Forget,” Coastal Illustrated, January 25, 2012, 4.

63. “Forgotten Past; Restoring the Island’s African American Heritage,” 

Coastal Illustrated, January 25, 2012, 12.

64. “Timeline of the African American Decline of St. Simons Island,” 

Coastal Illustrated, January 25, 2012, 13.

272
Part II

65. Ibid.

66. Ibid.; Mark Wexler, “Sweet Tradition: African Americans have 

been weaving sweetgrass baskets for 300 years in the Southeast, now coastal 

development threatens that tradition,” National Wildlife, April 1, 1993 (“By the 

mid-1980s, about half of the country’s population lived in coastal counties, 

where development proceeded at a record pace.”), http://www.nwf.org/

news-and-magazines/national-wildlife/news-and-views/archives/1993/sweettradition.aspx.

67. “Passing Along History; Gullah Geechee Tours Led by Amy Lotson 

Roberts,” Coastal Illustrated, January 25, 2012, 13.

68. “Home,” Cassina Garden Club, last accessed August 9, 2014, 

http://www.cassinagardenclub.org; “Cassina Garden Club Slave Cabins,” 

Golden Isles Georgia, last accessed August 9, 2014, http://www.goldenisles.

com/listing/cassina-garden-club-slave-cabins. Private tours can also be 

scheduled.

69. “Home,” Cassina Garden Club.

70. Amy Roberts (Executive Director, St. Simons African American 

Heritage Coalition), conversation with Mina Matlon and Susan Durkes on 

a tour of St. Simons Island, July 26, 2013; “Passing Along History; Gullah 

Geechee Tours Led by Amy Lotson Roberts,” 13. For example, one of the main 

streets now known as “Mallory Ext.” was previously named Proctor Lane after 

a prominent African American family long resident on the island and that once 

owned a number of buildings on the street.

71. “Passing Along History; Gullah Geechee Tours Led by Amy 

Lotson Roberts,” 13.

72. “History of SSAAHC” and “Harrington School House History,” 

St. Simons African American Heritage Coalition, last accessed August 8, 2014, 

http://www.ssiheritagecoalition.org/our-history.html.

73. “Timeline of the African American Decline of St. Simons Island,” 

13; Bob Swinehart, “On My Mind; Lest We Forget,” 4.

74. Kim Severson, “Taxes Threaten an Island Culture in Georgia,” 

New York Times, September 25, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/

us/on-an-island-in-georgia-geechees-fear-losing-land.html?pagewanted=all&_

r=0; see also Editorial, “Surviving Where Slaves Held Fast,” New York Times, 

September 26, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/27/opinion/

surviving-where-slaves-held-fast.html?_r=2&; Imara Jones, “On Sapelo Island, 

Another Case Study in How Black Exploitation Fuels Wealth,” Colorlines, 

October 1, 2012, http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/10/on_sapelo_island_

another_case_study_in_how_black_exploitation_fuels_wealth.html. 75. Kim Severson, “Taxes Threaten an Island Culture in Georgia.”

76. Ibid.

77. “11 Most Endangered Historic Places; Gullah/Geechee Coast,” 

National Trust for Historic Preservation, last accessed August 8, 2014, http://

www.preservationnation.org/issues/11-most-endangered/locations/gullahgeechee-coast.html.

78. Rosenbaum, Shout Because You’re Free: The African American Ring Shout 

Tradition in Coastal Georgia, 6.

79. “History,” McIntosh County Shouters.

80. Stratton Lawrence, “Mt. Pleasant’s sweetgrass basket makers 

go further afield to obtain materials,” Charleston City Paper, July 30, 2008 

(“‘Artistically, sweetgrass basket making is at its highest point, ever...What’s 

endangered is the roadside basket stands...and the communities that produce 

them, due to new suburbs and higher property taxes. This is not a tradition that 

can exist in isolated, nuclear families, but instead requires a village structure 

among relatives.’”), http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/charleston/mtpleasants-sweetgrass-basket-makers-go-further-afield-to-obtain-materials/

Content?oid=1115313; Robert Behre, “Mount Pleasant’s sweetgrass basket 

makers try to adjust to widened Highway 17,” Post and Courier, June 15, 2014, 

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20140615/PC16/140619575; Mark 

Wexler, “Sweet Tradition: African Americans have been weaving sweetgrass 

baskets for 300 years in the Southeast, now coastal development threatens 

that tradition”; Lauren Reeves, “Largest Indian artist gathering features 

basketmaking, art,” Maine Campus, December 10, 2012 (describing a recent 

threat to basketmakers working with ash as their raw material due to an invasive 

species that is killing ash trees), http://mainecampus.com/2012/12/10/

largest-indian-artist-gathering-features-basketmaking-art/; Deborah Gabriel 

Brooks, “History of Maine Indian Passamaquoddy Basketmaking” and “Trees 

to Treasures: Materials,” Sweetgrass Maine Indian Baskets; Passamaquoddy Native 

American Brown Ash Splint Basketry (blog), last accessed August 1, 2014, http://

www.sweetgrassbasketry.org/index.html.

81. “About MIBA,” Maine Indian Basketmakers Alliance, last accessed 

August 1, 2014, http://maineindianbaskets.org/about-miba/; “Mission 

Statement,” Sweetgrass Festival, last accessed August 1, 2014, http://www.

sweetgrassfestival.org/index.html.

82. “Special Initiatives,” James Irvine Foundation, last accessed August 

5, 2014, http://irvine.org/grantmaking/our-programs/specialinitiatives.

83. “About,” Latino Arts Network, last accessed August 5, 2014, 

http://latinoarts.net/?page_id=47.

84. Rebecca Nevarez (Executive Director, Latino Arts Network), 

phone interview conducted by Ingrid Van Haastrecht, February 3, 2014, audio 

recording on file with Plural project co-leads.

85. “What We Do,” NOCD-NY, last accessed August 9, 2014,

http://nocdny.org/nocd-ny-what-we-do/. Current NOCD-NY organizational 

members are the Arts & Democracy Project, the Bronx Council on the Arts, 

Dance Theatre Etcetera, El Museo del Barrio, El Puente, Fourth Arts Block 

(FABnyc), Greenpoint Manufacturing and Design Center, The Laundromat 

Project, the New York Chinatown History Project, THE POINT Community 

Development Corporation, the Queens Museum of Art, Staten Island Arts, 

and Urban Bush Women.

86. Ibid.; “Vision and Policy,” NOCD-NY.

87. “Vision and Policy,” NOCD-NY.

273

Image 45. El Jinete - A Mariachi Opera, Puente Theater, 2013. Written and Directed by Mercedes Bátiz-Benét. Pictured: Alex Alegría, Alexandra Wever, 

Mario Sota, Stefan Thordarson, Jeffrey Chow, and Luis Melgar. Photograph by Itai Erdal. Reproduced by permission from Puente Theatre.

275
Latino Arts Organizations in Smaller and Younger Immigrant Neighborhoods

Latino Arts Organizations in Smaller and Younger 

Immigrant Neighborhoods

by Margaret Smith

At Puente Theatre workshops in the city of Victoria, British Columbia, 

participants aren’t just spectators, they’re “spect-actors.”

On Vancouver Island, which has a population of just over 

80,0001

 and is about seventy miles and a ferry ride away from the city 

of Vancouver, Puente is the only immigrant theater and the only group 

to present workshops based on “Theatre of the Oppressed,” the famous 

work of Brazilian director, writer, and activist Augusto Boal. Working 

with universities, police forces, and high schools, Puente’s workshops help 

groups develop strategies for change that address issues of diversity, antiracism, and multicultural awareness. Workshop participants are asked 

to join the performance and become their own “spect-actors,” in the 

process developing real-time solutions to problems. It’s a program that 

has been a consistent part of Puente’s programming since the group’s 

inception in 1988, and one that’s grown by 300 percent in the past three 

years.2

 It’s also run by only one person: Puente’s Mexican-born Artistic 

Director Mercedes Bátiz-Benét. Bátiz-Benét is part of Victoria’s, and 

Canada’s, small Latino population, and at Puente, she aims to bring 

together Latinos and immigrants of all backgrounds through theater. 

Although not growing as rapidly as in the United States – 

where Latinos are America’s largest racial minority3 – Canada’s Latino 

population is increasing markedly faster than the country’s overall 

population.4 A majority of Latinos in both Canada and the United 

States reside in major cities however, and those individuals who settle in 

places like Victoria can struggle to find a sense of community.

It’s one reason why Latino art spaces in smaller urban and 

rural environments are so important. In cities where the Latino 

population comprises a tiny percentage of the community, these arts 

organizations provide an arena for new immigrants and young Latinos 

to connect, discuss their experiences, and share their culture through 

art. Performances and programs such as the Theatre of the Oppressed 

illuminate the opportunities that these ethnocultural arts organizations 

have to improve the experience of minority groups in smaller cities and 

to translate Latino issues to a wider community by encouraging open 

dialogue. However, Puente’s limited resources, despite the high demand 

for its services, highlights the formidable challenges of establishing 

organizations in places where the pull to migrate is weak.

While there has been increased attention, if not necessarily 

support for, Latino arts organizations nationally,5 organizations in 

smaller cities with lower Latino populations have less support than 

their peers in major urban centers such as New York, Los Angeles, 

Toronto, or Vancouver. Lacking the more established presence, political 

power, and demographic visibility they might have in these larger cities, 

organizations like Puente have difficulty garnering the local resources 

they need. 

As with the ethnocultural arts field as a whole, funding presents 

the most critical challenge. Whereas organizations in cities with 

proportionately larger Latino populations are in a stronger position to 

leverage governmental, individual, and corporate monetary support, 

in places where the Latino community can be viewed as insignificant, 

finding such support is far more difficult. 

In Columbia, South Carolina, multidisciplinary art space 

Palmetto & Luna has been working since 2003 with the city’s Latinos, 

4.3 percent of the overall population,6 to foster Latino culture in South 

Carolina and introduce this community to the greater Columbia public. 

Executive Director Ivan Segura says the Latino community is still new 

and very isolated in the state. As there are few Latino community groups 

or agencies Palmetto & Luna can work with, they turn to other forms 

of partnership. “Businesses and some people might consider Hispanics 

unique in this, and you have to really find the ones that are going to be 

friendly to the Hispanic community,” says Segura. “It’s the same with 

state and local funding. We have to fight a lot just to try and get a little 

bit of money.”7

Although more established and operating in Canada’s different 

funding environment, funding is also a challenge for Puente. Originally 

276
Part II

started as a community theater group, Puente is shifting towards a more 

“professional” model involving the use of trained theater artists, as well as 

the many tools, technologies, and materials required by professionalized 

theater and the subsequent increase in operating expenses. This shift 

is partly due to funder pressure and partly due to an internal desire to 

support professional immigrant artists and evolve the organization’s 

work while maintaining their founding mandate. Like Palmetto & Luna, 

however, their cultural and geographic uniqueness makes achieving this 

vision difficult.

 As both organizations seek to further develop their programming 

and increase their impact, staffing presents a key challenge. With a 

plethora of opportunities in bigger cites and the inability to offer much 

payment, if any, it’s hard to find trained immigrant artists, general 

managers, and additional support staff. And without people to manage 

day-to-day operations, apply for grants or produce the work, potential 

financial, collaboration, and artistic opportunities fall through the cracks. 

Currently, Palmetto & Luna employs no paid staff members, 

with the bulk of the work being completed free of charge by volunteers, 

their 10-person board of directors, and Segura. At Puente, Bátiz-Benét 

is the organization’s only person on payroll, and while she works fulltime, she’s paid as a part-timer. “An immigrant artist, when they move 

to Canada, they’re not going to come to Victoria. They’re going to go 

to a larger city where there is work,” she says.8 And it’s not simply an 

issue of finding people, but of providing an incentive for them to stay. 

As Bátiz-Benét observes, “We train people and then they move – once 

they’re trained – to Vancouver or to Toronto.”9 Opportunities and salary 

increases in major cities are a powerful draw. 

Latino art spaces in places like Victoria and Columbia need 

additional support in the form of trained artists, general managers, 

community liaisons, and location and culturally specific guidance to build 

their capacity. Addressing these needs, Palmetto & Luna already has 

plans to hire an assistant event organizer. Puente collaborates with larger 

theater companies, and last year co-hosted the Professional Association 

of Canadian Theatre’s Annual General Meeting, an event that helped 

them gain recognition on a national level. They’ve also started to tour. 

Despite their challenges, organizations like Palmetto & Luna and 

Puente remain invested in their communities. “I think we’re very needed 

here,” says Bátiz-Benét. “I would never relocate it to anywhere.”10

Notes

1. Statistics Canada, Census Profile, 2011 Census: Victoria, British Columbia 

and British Columbia, (Statistics Canada, 2012), http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/

census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CS

D&Code1=5917034&Geo2=PR&Code2=59&Data=Count&SearchText=Vi

ctoria&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&GeoLevel=PR&GeoCo

de=5917034.

2. Mercedes Bátiz-Benét (Artistic Director, Puente Theatre), phone 

interview conducted by Mina Matlon, September 20, 2013, audio recording on 

file with Plural project co-leads.

3. U.S. Census Bureau News, Hispanic Heritage Month 2013: Sept. 15 – 

Oct. 15 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, 2013), https://www.

census.gov/newsroom/releases/pdf/cb13ff-19_hispanicheritage.pdf.

4. Statistics Canada, The Latin American Community in Canada (Statistics 

Canada, 2007), http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-621-x/89-621-x2007008-

eng.htm.

5. For example, recent research has found that US foundation giving 

explicitly designated to benefit Latinos has remained steady at one percent of 

total foundation funding despite the dramatic growth in the country’s Latino 

population. The Foundation Center/Hispanics in Philanthropy, Foundation 

Funding for Hispanics/Latinos in the United States and for Latin America (Foundation 

Center, 2011), v, http://foundationcenter.org/gainknowledge/research/pdf/

fc_hip2011.pdf.

6. United States Census Bureau, State and County QuickFacts, Columbia 

(city), South Carolina (United States Census Bureau, 2014), http://quickfacts.

census.gov/qfd/states/45/4516000.html.

7. Ivan Segura (Executive Director, Palmetto & Luna), phone interview 

conducted by Mina Matlon, October 11, 2013, audio recording on file with 

Plural project co-leads.

8. Bátiz-Benét, interview.

9. Ibid.

10. Ibid.

277
Image 46. Enrique Castrejon / Self-Help Graphics & Art. 

Heart Measured in Inches, 2013. Serigraph, 35 x 27 in. Re-

produced by permission from Self-Help Graphics & Art.

278
Image 47. Pavlychenko Folklorique Ensemble. Photo collage by Serhij Koroliuk. Reproduced by permission from Pavlychenko Folklorique Ensemble.

279
Affirming and Innovating Tradition in North American Ukrainian Dance

Affirming and Innovating Tradition in North American 

Ukrainian Dance

by Yaryna Klimchak 

Dancers bounce in rhythm to a modern rendition of a traditional 

Ukrainian song, Holubka, meaning dove or sweetheart. Women wear 

black dresses that flare out as they spin in unison and the men match 

them in black shirts and pants. Red embroidered flowers line the women’s 

dresses; geometrical designs embellish the men’s shirts and the strikingly 

scarlet boots demonstrate the union of modernity with tradition in 

the dance and the costumes. The Hromovytsia Dance Ensemble has 

performed at various Ukrainian festivals in Chicago every year for 

over thirty years, showing that even generations later these Ukrainian 

Americans identify themselves with the roots of their ancestors. 

“You don’t just see dancers turn in unison, you feel it,” explains 

Hromovytsia artistic director and one of the original founders Roxana 

Pylypczak. “Their heart is on the stage and they show you the inside of 

their souls and that to me is Ukrainian dance.”1

Ukrainian dance has been a vital part of Ukrainian culture 

since at least the third millennium BC,2

 and the evolution of the dance 

has inspired generations of Ukrainians to uphold tradition at home 

and abroad. As Ukrainian communities formed in the United States 

and Canada as early as the 1880s, Ukrainian immigrants continued 

their tradition of dance on new soil. The new diasporic communities 

established dance and other performing arts groups as a way to create 

camaraderie and stay connected with the community. For example, the 

group now known as Desna Ukrainian Dance Company of Toronto 

started as a choir in 1972 before adding a dance ensemble in 1976 

to further its mission to preserve tradition from the homeland and to 

interact with countrymen and women on a new continent. 

Ukrainian dance performance on stage has evolved to 

incorporate aspects of ballet, technical choreography, modern music, and 

often a storyline while still holding onto traditional elements. The Virsky 

Ukrainian National Dance Company was the first Ukrainian folk dance 

group to move the art form to the stage and perform internationally. 

Possibly the best known stage group in North America is the Edmontonbased Ukrainian Shumka Dancers, which was founded in 1959 and has 

collaborated with Virsky, the Kiev Ballet, and performed alongside such 

individuals as Andrea Bocelli and Julie Andrews. Although Shumka’s 

work is rooted in the Ukrainian dance tradition, it has developed a style 

of its own. Shumka’s unique incorporation of theater and other forms 

of artistic expression has been somewhat controversial, resulting in 

certain members of the North American Ukrainian dance community 

questioning Shumka’s authenticity. 

“Many companies have modeled themselves after Virsky, with 

that academic style of dance,” notes Dave Ganert, the recent former 

artistic director of Shumka.3

 “However, it is not the only style of 

Ukrainian dance. You need to be relevant to youth, the country, and 

the context of societal values you live in. Unless you are changing and 

growing, you’re going to die.”4

 Recognizing this ever-pressing need to maintain the 

contemporary significance of their tradition, other Ukrainian groups 

throughout North America have gone beyond the very basic traditional 

dances to captivate new generations of dancers and audiences and to 

establish themselves within the cultural fabric of North America. For 

example, the Pavlychenko Folklorique Ensemble, based in Saskatoon, 

Saskatchewan, and Hromovytsia have choreographed to music by 

modern Ukrainian pop star Ruslana, who won Eurovision in 2004 

for her traditional yet rock–like performance. Pavlychenko’s work 

Canadian Kaleidoscope incorporates various ethnic dances to celebrate and 

demonstrate that it is a part of Canada’s diverse heritage. 

Today Shumka incorporates lifts and grand jetés into their 

choreography, whereas before females never lifted their legs above six 

inches. Shumka observes that the evolution of the dance is part of the 

aesthetic that keeps non-Ukrainian and even older audiences who are 

used to a more traditional dance coming back. 

280
Part II

While Ukrainian dance as an art form has advanced, it faces 

major challenges in financial support and lack of recognition in the arts 

community. Despite the existence of a number of arts agencies and arts 

service organizations dedicated to supporting art in North America, 

Ukrainian dance remains under resourced in part because it is neither 

treated as part of the “mainstream” nor does it fit under most programs 

aimed at supporting historically and currently underserved groups. 

While certain organizations like the Canada Council for the Arts have 

developed funding programs that target ethnocultural groups based in 

communities of color, there are few such programs for ethnocultural arts 

organizations based in White immigrant communities. In theory, these 

arts organizations are able to receive support from general arts funding 

programs. As observed by one Ukrainian arts administrator, however, in 

reality such support is rare. 

“[The Canada Council] they support only, we’ll say not ethnic 

culture...If it’s a ballet, for example, you are fine. If it’s some no name, 

no ethnic behind [it], fine.”5

Ukrainian dance groups are at a disadvantage as funders lack 

knowledge of their art form and funding criteria often require these 

groups to operate as “professional” organizations. Although each of the 

Ukrainian dance companies interviewed for the Plural project aspired 

to professional status, they described structural and economic barriers 

to achieving this goal. In addition to working with paid artistic and 

administrative staff who dedicate their careers to the art form, professional 

dance companies must meet certain expressed and unexpressed funder 

determined standards of costuming, lighting, and set design, and possess 

the administrative structures to market their work. Most Ukrainian 

dance companies lack the resources to operate at this level, especially 

as the practice of their art has particular requirements. For example, 

Ukrainian costumes, which are region and dance specific, are difficult 

and expensive to obtain. Lack of funds has hindered groups like Desna 

from creating high quality promotional material to showcase their work 

to potential donors, sponsors, and presenters, and to reach audiences 

outside of the local Ukrainian community. 

“I know we would like to be more of a professional group, but 

we are semi professional because we are here three times a week and 

don’t get paid to do it,” says another Plural project interviewee.6 “But it’s 

also very hard to get funding, it’s limited to what funds you can get...”7

Based on Plural project research findings, there are a minimum 

of 8 registered nonprofit Ukrainian dance companies in the United 

States and 25 in Canada. Of the 33 organizations, only 11 reported a 

gross income of over $100,000 in 2011 and/or 2012. With a reported 

annual gross income of $1.2 million in 2012, by financial measurements 

Shumka stands out as the largest of these companies in North America 

and is able to pay its artistic director and dancers for various projects 

and performances. However, although Shumka has received grants 

from organizations like the Canada Council, Alberta Foundation for 

the Arts, and Edmonton Arts Council, and is recognized for its artistic 

excellence, until recently this funding has largely come in the form of 

project, rather than operating, support. As Shumka makes the shift 

toward professionalizing the organization, it is looking to diversify its 

sources of revenue, a focus that is tied to its increasing need for assistance 

in raising awareness about Ukrainian dance to compete with such pop 

culture offerings as Phantom of the Opera and Jersey Boys; their ambition to 

be recognized next to big Broadway names motivates them to work even 

harder to educate the public about the art form.

Due in part to the lack of support from general arts funding 

sources, Plural project findings indicate that a number of Ukrainian 

dance companies in North America self-fund through community-wide 

grassroots efforts. In addition to earned income obtained by offering 

classes and through ticket sales, the Ukrainian companies interviewed 

for the Plural project described a heavy reliance on volunteerism and the 

monetary and marketing support of dancers, their families, and their 

local Ukrainian communities. Hromovytsia dancers pay a small stipend 

each year to help cover expenses related to studio rental and costuming.

Pavlychenko dancers pay for classes, and Desna dancers stitch the 

intricate embroidery on their costumes when necessary. Pavlychenko 

and Hromovytsia hold community fundraisers where they sell traditional 

food such as pierogies to help finance national and international tours 

and productions. Dancers and their families volunteer at these fundraisers 

so that they can continue to express their culture through dance and 

uphold Ukrainian customs. 

When earned income and personal contributions are insufficient 

to meet the financial needs of these growing groups, Ukrainian dance 

281
Affirming and Innovating Tradition in North American Ukrainian Dance

companies compete with other Ukrainian nonprofit organizations as 

they seek the support of local businesses and cultural networks to help 

with expenses. Selfreliance Ukrainian American Federal Credit Union, 

which possesses a specific interest in upholding Ukrainian traditions, 

is one of these community-based businesses that is often solicited for 

funding from various Ukrainian nonprofits and events. Selfreliance is 

Hromovytsia’s main sponsor and has shown financial and moral support 

by attending the ensemble’s fundraisers and shows. 

In Canada, Ukrainian arts and cultural organizations obtain 

support from such organizations as the nonprofit Ukrainian National 

Federation of Canada (UNF) and the Shevchenko Foundation. Devoted 

to supporting Ukrainian culture, UNF and Shevchenko provide 

funding and other forms of assistance to Ukrainian Canadian groups. 

Pavlychenko is one of the many organizations that receives UNF grants; 

however, while needed and appreciated, grant amounts are small, usually 

amounting to less than $1000. 

Despite limited resources and the lack of general arts service 

support, today groups like Shumka, Pavlychenko, and Desna attract 

dancers of non-Ukrainian descent, showing that the art form is 

spreading outside of small circles within Ukrainian communities 

and that Ukrainian dance has become a part of the culture of North 

America while still holding onto its roots. Generations of Ukrainian 

Canadians and Ukrainian Americans continue to teach their children 

and grandchildren Ukrainian traditions. They preserve their culture and 

remember where they came from by participating in traditional dance 

while contemporizing it so it stays relevant for each generation.

“If you show your love for your country, for your history and 

tradition and in our instance it is through dance,” says Pylypczak, “then 

we really do our part to make sure no one forgets who we are, where we 

came from and what we stand for now.”8

Notes

1. Roxana Pylypczak (Artistic Director, Hromovytsia Dance 

Ensemble), phone interview conducted by author, February 24, 2014, notes on 

file with author.

2. International encyclopedia of dance: a project of Dance Perspectives 

Foundation, Inc. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 220-226.

3. Dave Ganert (former Artistic Director, Ukrainian Shumka 

Dancers), phone interview conducted by Mina Matlon, October 10, 2013, 

audio recording on file with Plural project co-leads.

4. Ibid.

5. Group interview conducted by Mina Matlon with Ukrainian 

dancers and arts administrators, April 22, 2013, transcript on file with Plural 

project co-leads. Interviewee names are withheld according to terms of 

consent agreement.

6. Ibid. 

7. Ibid.

8. Pylypczak, interview.

282
Image 48. Company members and staff of the Desna Ukrainian Dance Company of Toronto following a rehearsal in 2013. Photograph by Mina 

Matlon. Reproduced by permission from Mina Matlon. 

283
Needs and Supports: A Life Cycle Approach 

Needs and Supports: A Life Cycle Approach

Do the services offered by support systems correlate with the 

needs of ethnocultural arts organizations?

In searching for a more holistic manner to consider the needs and 

supports of ethnocultural arts organizations, we were inspired by a visit 

to an artist’s studio in Phoenix. In 1978, this artist, Jim Covarrubias, 

had organized the Movimiento Artistico del Rio Salado (MARS) to 

create a space for Arizona-based artists largely unsupported by existing 

arts institutions to make and showcase their work.1 MARS and similar 

initiatives resulted in the founding of a local Chicano art gallery, greater 

national recognition of Arizona’s Chicano arts community, and several 

international cultural exchanges.2 In 2013, we met with Covarrubias 

both to learn more about this earlier work and Ariztlan Studios, an 

organization he had also founded in 1978 and which had evolved over 

the years into a space aimed more specifically at supporting art produced 

by Latino and Native war veterans. 

During the interview, as we had with all other interview 

participants, we asked Covarrubias what he thought was missing, if 

anything, from the current support system for ethnocultural artists and 

arts organizations. In response, Covarrubias took out a pen and piece 

of paper and began to draw. Working clockwise, at the top center he 

drew an image of clouds and rain; slightly below and to the right he 

drew a spiral; centered at the bottom he drew what appeared to be a 

crossroads; above left – opposite the spiral – he drew an edged, half 

circle. He then went over each image and named them. The clouds 

represent the North, Air, and Wisdom, the spiral is the East, Water, and 

Love, the crossroads image is the South, Fire, and Respect, and the half 

circle is the West, Earth, and Discipline. Collectively, they form the Four 

Directions, which are used in a number of Native cultures to symbolize 

health and life cycles. Translating these images to the question posed 

to him, Covarrubias explained that in the beginning (East), artists (and 

organizations) need encouragement and mentorship to develop. Next 

is an environment that fosters self-confidence, respect from peers, and 

stability, which in turn leads to greater development and, ultimately, 

We are in a very exciting moment because we 

have a festival coming, and a very busy season 

and very interesting work that’s going to be 

produced, and the dialogue and everything. 

And at the same time we really don’t have 

much money. Financially, we’re in dire straits, 

and artistically we are in a very exciting time. 

But this has been historically what we have 

experienced.

 – US Plural project participant (July 2, 2013)

I think we’ve really grown and had a very 

dynamic period...at least from the presenting 

side, the curation side, from the ‘what are 

we actually doing in the community’ side. 

Internally, there’s been a lot of challenge 

around issues of governance, around issues of 

fundraising, around issues of staffing. Those 

have been the challenges...The problem has 

never been the content.

– Canadian Plural project participant (May 16, 2013)

284
Part II

Image 49. The Gathering VII: A Night of 

African Music, Dance, and Dialogue, New 

York African Chorus Ensemble, 2013. 

Joyce Adewumi (right), Founder, Director, 

and Lead Singer with members of the 

ensemble. Photograph by Kenji Mori. 

Reproduced by permission from New York 

African Chorus Ensemble.

maturity (North). What is needed is a system that significantly empowers 

artists and organizations at crucial points during this cycle. This support 

needs to be equitable and built in a manner that spreads opportunity 

beyond a select number of urban centers. Responding to our question 

with a question, Covarrubias asked us how we get beyond an accessbased system that relies on chance?

Both our literature review and primary research for the Plural 

project point to numerous external and internal organizational needs 

that vary greatly depending on an organization’s size, discipline, 

geographic location, cultural specificity, and length of time in operation, 

among other factors. Most of the needs identified through our own 

research had been identified in previous periods by existing literature 

and needs assessments (discussed in Part I), many are shared with the 

arts community as a whole, and several are particularly prominent 

and specific to the ethnocultural field. With respect to the latter, Plural 

project ethnocultural arts organization interview participants describe 

operating in an ecosystem that, to different degrees, involves the following 

challenges discussed in the chapters and essays contained throughout 

this book: 

• Addressing origin and broader community questions of 

“authenticity”

• Media disinterest, misrepresentation, and/or 

misunderstanding of the practiced art form

• Negotiating traditional/contemporary distinctions and 

designations in funding programs and arts services

• Negotiating differing programming and management 

demands of origin and broader communities

• Negotiating an externally imposed quality versus community 

dichotomy

• Negotiating issues of cultural appropriation

285
Needs and Supports: A Life Cycle Approach 

It is the overwhelming sentiment of ethnocultural arts organization 

participants that support needs to be structured to account for the 

diversity of organizational mandates and situations and provided at a 

time and in a manner specifically aimed at assisting organizations with 

achieving their desired size and operating model. 

Guided by the approach articulated by Covarrubias, which struck 

us as particularly well-suited to discussing a wide array of context specific 

needs, we attempted to arrange the experiences and recommendations 

of ethnocultural arts organization interview participants by the life cycle 

stages that are a standard component of arts management programs. 

As had repeatedly been the case throughout the course of the Plural 

project, however, we soon came to the conclusion that the traditional 

(Anglo-American) organizational model was inadequate in capturing 

the situation of many of our participants. First, the small to no paid 

staffs and relatively flat management structures of the majority of both 

Canadian and US organizations suggests, according to this model, that 

virtually the entire field is in “Startup” or “Emerging” phases. This 

model, largely derivative of for-profit business models that presume that 

product development closely tracks business infrastructure, allows for no 

distinction between newly incorporated organizations and organizations 

in existence for decades with a deep community history and a record 

of programmatic achievements. The inadequacy of the model is also 

reflected in an analysis of expressed and perceived needs: many of these 

older “Startup” organizations are experiencing challenges that more 

closely correspond with the identified traditional challenges facing forprofit and nonprofit organizations in later stages.

Second, both interview and open-ended survey responses 

indicate a split between the mission-driven and administrative 

development cycles of many organizations. For most of these 

organizations, programming and artistry is growing or at a stage of 

maturity while internal infrastructure is lagging behind, has stopped 

developing, and in a few cases, is collapsing. This situation holds for 

organizations located in both countries and across artistic disciplines, 

regions, and ethnic groups. Notably, when examining the administrative 

structures of organizations alone through such metrics as the number 

of paid staff, the diversity of staff positions, and the size of gross annual 

income, it is almost impossible to predict the size, reach, and – the 

dangerously subjective concept – “quality” of programming. Considered 

alternatively, with a few exceptions, organizations ranging greatly in 

programmatic complexity, activity, and depth (e.g., entirely locally-based 

versus a history of international touring, award winning versus largely 

unknown, dozens of annual events and programs versus a few discreet 

events) generally possess similar administrative features. 

Finding our textbook organizational life cycle model insufficient 

but also finding validity in its basic concept, we researched models 

designed more specifically for small organizations. Integrating ideas from 

this research, particularly an article published in the Harvard Business 

Review entitled The Five Stages of Small Business Growth,

3

 we developed a 

modified model (see fig. 78) that incorporated organizational comments 

on the ethnocultural growth trajectory being more akin to a “spiral” or 

“hills and valleys” and our own observations on project findings. Next, 

we created separate “artistic” and “administrative” life cycle charts and, 

based on descriptions of organizational experiences,4 for each chart 

re-arranged interview participants into the stages outlined in the new 

model. We then considered the needs expressed by organizations in 

the administrative chart with the support environment as described by 

organizations, our literature review, the supports databases created for 

the Plural project, and our support systems interviews. 

With this new arrangement, we found that organizations in 

similar administrative life cycle stages appear to share key needs and/or 

share comments regarding the means to address those needs. Conscious 

that conclusions drawn from this component of the project may not be 

representative of the field,5 and stressing that our objective here is not to 

add to the over-categorization already prevalent in the arts community 

but simply to serve as a frame for discussion, we proffer this alternative 

approach to assessing the needs and supports of ethnocultural arts 

organizations.

Set forth below are stages arranged into four groups: (i) Startup; 

Formalization (Administrative); (ii) Survival-1; Stagnation; Growth; 

Renewal; Decline (Administrative); (iii) Artistic Life Cycle – Endings and 

New Beginnings; and (iv) Survival-2; Sustainable (Administrative). We 

provide a general description of organizations we encountered within 

each group, the types of needs expressed by interview participants, an 

evaluation of the supports available to meet these organizational needs, 

286
Part II

and recommendations based on project findings and suggestions by 

project participants.

We note that our evaluation of the support system draws from 

systemic components of the for-profit sector. Over the past decade, 

there has been an increasing pull to implement business models and 

approaches into nonprofit governance, a move which is part of a 

greater trend toward professionalization and that has for good reason 

been met with resistance from some members of the nonprofit sector: 

nonprofits are simply not altruistic for-profits.6 As recent graduates 

of an arts management program, with two of us in receipt of prior 

professional degrees (an MBA and a JD), what repeatedly strikes us is 

not that the long commercialized art world is importing features of the 

business world, however, but that too often it seems to be importing the 

wrong features. We are provided with guidelines used to run for-profit 

organizations, but omitted is the allocation of resources to attract and 

compensate staff. Moreover, we continue to perpetuate a top heavy, 

segregated support system, with the overwhelming majority of funds 

concentrated on wealthy, established institutions. In for-profit terms, it 

is the equivalent of virtually all public and private financing invested in 

publicly held companies such as General Electric. While there are limits 

to the comparison, in addition to the structure of support for publicly 

held entities, the for-profit world has designed a system with multiple 

entry points of significant financial commitment, from “seed-stage” 

and “angel” investors to venture capital to growth and private equity 

investors, intended to identify and assist promising ideas attain their full 

potential. 

Our interest in certain structural aspects of the for-profit 

support system in our analysis of the support system for ethnocultural 

arts organizations is not intended as an endorsement of the application 

of for-profit models in the nonprofit sector. Observing that the for-profit 

model “functions on networks and pattern recognition,” one of our 

corporate sector friends points to the failure of this system in supporting, 

for example, minority owned businesses. Neither the for-profit nor 

nonprofit sectors are valuing the contributions of all members of our 

society.

A final preliminary note: with a few exceptions, we have 

intentionally omitted the names of project participants in this final 

chapter. The Plural project’s overall objective is to strengthen and improve 

support for ethnocultural arts organizations. To understand needs and 

evaluate existing supports, we asked organizations a host of questions 

aimed at determining internal weaknesses and their opinions of funders, 

funding programs, and other support organizations; the observations 

herein draw heavily from the views and experiences discussed in these 

interviews. An invaluable source of information, we are also aware 

that the public presentation of the current challenges and opinions 

of specific organizations could jeopardize continued support for these 

organizations. All quotations and examples are therefore anonymous 

with the sole exception of organizations profiled to illustrate means of 

addressing certain shared challenges.

1. Startup; Formalization (Administrative)

There were probably 12 other theaters that were [at the 

festival meeting], theaters that have been around for 50 

years, 30 years, and with staff. Everyone knows them, 

and they were asking all these smart technical questions. 

I wasn’t asking anything because I wasn’t – I’m not a 

287

Startup

Survival	
  – 1	
  

Sustainable

Decline

Winding	
  

down	
  to	
  

close

Growth

Growth

Renewal

Stagnant

Survival	
  -­‐ 2

Formalization

Figure 78. Diagram of life cycle stages
Needs and Supports: A Life Cycle Approach 

tech person, so I don’t know what to ask of them 

during the initial meeting. The festival is held at one 

specific theater, everyone performs there, and there’s 

adjudication...everyone needs to transform their show 

that they’ve already performed into the space of the 

festival and fit into the guidelines of the festival. And so 

there’s a lot of technical questions that need to be asked: 

whether they can light the show the same way they could 

light it at their theater...first of all, I didn’t have a show, 

I didn’t have a theater, and I didn’t have a lighting guy 

or sound guy. After feeling the pressure of me not asking 

any questions and everyone else asking smart questions, 

I decided to ask a couple of questions. And quickly 

realized that these questions were very ‘amateur’ let’s 

say...The lighting person for the festival...he came up 

to me and said, ‘You need help.’ – US Plural project 

participant (September 19, 2013)

In traditionally taught nonprofit organizational development 

models, Startup (also known by a number of other terms such as “Birth,” 

“Emerging,” and “Stage 1”) organizations are characterized as managed 

by one or a handful of founders, the absence of administrative staff, 

an “operating” or “working” board largely composed of friends and 

family, funding through personal sources and/or friends and family, a 

word of mouth-based marketing structure, and on the programming 

side, generally small-scale single projects. For purposes of our analysis 

herein, we do not employ these standard descriptors and instead use 

the term to more simply describe organizations founded in the past few 

years. Within this newcomer group, organizations display a diversity of 

administrative characteristics: a few organizations were born large, in 

some cases founders consist of an entire community or family and in 

others a single individual, and some founding individuals bring extensive 

knowledge of areas such as marketing, financial management, and 

community development to the organization in addition to (or instead 

of) deep knowledge in one or more art forms. 

The second type of organization we encountered in our research 

and that we have grouped in this section are organizations entering what 

we have termed a “Formalization” stage. These organizations, a number 

of which in the United States are White ethnocultural arts organizations, 

have generally been in existence for a number of years but for the majority 

of this time have functioned at a highly grassroots, community-based 

and operated level. Some of these organizations have recently applied 

for 501(c)(3) or registered charity status, and others obtained this more 

formalized status many years ago but have largely not sought to exercise 

the privileges associated with tax exemption. Through their survey 

and/or interview responses, organizations with this background and 

grouped in this section indicate an interest in expanding or developing 

their work, or simply ensuring that their organization maintains current 

programming but in a more sustainable manner.

As covered in the Characteristics chapters, for virtually 

all surveyed and interviewed Canadian and US ethnocultural arts 

organizations, regardless of discipline, location, and, based primarily on 

interview responses, life cycle stage, consistently among the top three 

challenges is the need for increased financial resources. Related to this 

need are staffing concerns. Where we see greater differences based on 

life cycle stages, however, is how these needs are further described by 

organizations (referred to in certain fields of research as “perceived” 

or “felt” needs) and “expressed” (meaning needs we may infer through 

observation of what an organization is or is not doing), and organizational 

recommendations for addressing these needs. 

The types of developmental constraints self-identified and 

expressed by Plural project participants in Startup and Formalization 

stages are as follows:

• Lack of knowledge of grant opportunities

• Lack of knowledge of performance opportunities

• Need for assistance with the grant writing process

• Lack of knowledge of existing arts service organizations

• Lack of knowledge regarding board management and 

development

• Lack of knowledge regarding organizational management

• Lack of media coverage/need for increased visibility outside 

of origin community

• Lack of regular access to affordable space for programming, 

rehearsals, performance, and storage

• Need to be able to hire one or more dedicated staff members, 

either on the programmatic or operational side

288
Part II

• Need to diversify revenue sources and especially increase 

non-individual contributed income

Pointing to her organization’s need for “someone to speak plain English 

to us since we’re not too familiar with the grant writing process,” one 

US Plural project participant, who has entered into what we have 

described as a Formalization stage, summarizes many of these items 

with the observation that because “we’re so grassroots...we’re not really 

in the ‘performing arts business’ if that makes sense? So we just don’t 

know about all of these resources.” Diverging slightly from most project 

participants and especially participants in later organizational stages, this 

participant reports lack of knowledge and relevancy as her organization’s 

two biggest constraints to accessing arts services with lack of time a close 

third constraint; a majority of surveyed and interviewed participants 

report that a lack of financial resources and time prevent them from 

accessing services. Demonstrating this more common response, a US 

survey respondent writes that “time is our most restrictive barrier for 

attending the resources that are out there” in recommending that arts 

service organizations find a means to provide “assistance on demand.”

We have listed here the more specific developmental constraints 

commonly noted by organizations in earlier operating stages; however, 

we cannot stress strongly enough the existence of differences among 

organizations, especially among Startup organizations where we 

found organizations run by individuals highly sophisticated in certain 

management-side areas and others run by individuals in desperate need 

of guidance on how to handle organizational administration. In addition, 

these constraints are not exclusive to one life cycle period: assistance in 

identifying appropriate grant opportunities, board concerns, lack of 

media coverage, and lack of access to space are especially recurring 

issues impacting the organizational development of participants in later 

stages. As they are part of support programs directed at organizations 

throughout their life cycle, we include later stage organizations in our 

summary, set forth below, of participant views on existing nonprofit 

management services, or what is more commonly labeled as capacity 

building support. 

We define “capacity building” as meaning training and funding 

dedicated to the professional administrative development and addition 

of staff in areas such as marketing, development and fundraising, and 

financial and organizational management. Plural project participants in 

earlier stages identify capacity building tools and initiatives as welcome, 

needed, and useful, particularly when these tools and initiatives are 

tailored to address an organization’s size, geographic location, and cultural 

specificity. One such US interview participant, echoing statements made 

by project participants across all life cycle stages, describes the type of 

tailored capacity building assistance needed as

Somebody that would say, ‘I believe in what you guys 

are doing and I recommend [x] because I’ve seen it 

before and this is the way we have to do it.’ And just 

help us build that capacity or help us move ahead, but 

at the same time understanding that I know you’re in 

[name of participant’s state]. Please don’t come and 

tell me that we did it this way in California because 

it doesn’t work. Because this is [name of participant’s 

state]. [Instead,] somebody that would come and say, 

‘You know, I believe what you guys are doing and this 

is the way we’re going to take this to the next level.’ 

And yes, to understand the deficiencies that we have 

and the needs that we have, the opportunities that we 

have, but I don’t think it’s only money, and I don’t even 

think it’s money, it’s more like perhaps what the [name 

of participant’s state arts commission] is trying to do is 

just say, ‘Lets see how we can do it, we won’t come and 

tell you you need to hire 10 people...what do you have, 

what do you want...help with...’

In contrast to the largely positive reports from earlier stage 

organizations regarding capacity building programs, the opinions of 

Plural project participants in later life cycle stages are more varied, 

with more than a few sharply negative. Some organizations report that 

these programs are informative and have helped them through difficult 

periods such as handling leadership transition and organizing decades 

of poor financial management. One Canadian interview participant, 

speaking of the Canada Council’s CBI programming, describes how CBI 

funds had permitted her organization to hire staff and to experiment 

with “traditional” administrative structures and management tools. 

289
Needs and Supports: A Life Cycle Approach 

This same participant notes, however, that ultimately these traditional 

structures and tools did not work for the company and that they were 

subsequently abandoned. Repeating similar experiences but with more 

critical assessments, organizations located in both countries use terms 

such as “money laundering” to characterize past and present capacity 

building programs. 

The majority of later stage organizations we spoke with had at 

some point taken advantage of capacity building assistance, generally in 

their formative years but also more recently due to the encouragement 

of funders, to access financial support only offered through capacity 

building initiatives, and/or to seek training and guidance with respect to 

a specific developmental area. Most of these participants find importance 

in the concept of capacity building and, as demonstrated by the Plural 

project survey results presented in the Characteristics chapters, have 

identified strengthening their administrative structures as a key need. 

At the same time, later stage organizations outline several key issues 

with the implementation of capacity building programs that also apply 

to a consideration of the usefulness of such programs for early stage 

organizations. First and most importantly, funder developed capacity 

building programs, when offered in lieu of or tied to unrestricted 

financial support, presume that the needs of these organizations are the 

result of their lack of knowledge of management principles and/or weak 

leadership. As such, they misdirect funds and attention from systemic 

issues of inequality in the arts ecosystem and ignore the one basic and 

most efficient means of supporting these organizations that has repeatedly 

been identified and articulated by both organizations and in existing 

literature: the provision of significant levels of multi-year unrestricted 

funding. Moreover, these programs may lead organizations to focus on 

funder-driven concerns rather than the execution of organizational 

missions and/or addressing more important organizational challenges, 

thereby resulting in a situation where organizations fail to address actual 

and evolving needs and funders genuinely interested in supporting 

organizational development achieve limited returns on their investments. 

While noting that the Canada Council’s “capacity building is a good 

program,” a Canadian interviewee observes that 

[It] assumes that you are not good enough and so you 

need to build your capacity. And that part is very bad 

because we are very good, we are very capable. I think 

that the capacity building project is needed, but it has to 

be backed up with really material sources, much more 

than what the Canada Council gives...If they give 

you $25,000, they expect that you’re going to change 

30 years of underdevelopment? That’s not going to 

happen.

Second, many funder capacity building programs result in the 

direction of funds to third party consultants rather than the organization 

itself, which at least in some cases has led to, as one US survey respondent 

notes, “a plethora of ‘consulting’ organizations siphon[ing] off grant 

money and offer[ing] mediocre assistance.” Third, training, whether 

provided by consultants paid for by capacity building grant funds or arts 

service organizations, is generally based on governance models developed 

for mid- to large-size mainstream arts organizations and frequently fails 

to take account of the contexts and constraints of ethnocultural arts 

organizations. 

Possibly the most important of these constraints is the lack of 

staff in the majority of organizations to implement the best practices 

and models taught by consultants and arts service organizations. As a 

result, many later stage project participants describe being in the position 

of possessing an advanced understanding of generic nonprofit arts 

management practices but lacking the human resources to effectively 

integrate these practices into their organizations’ operations. Discussing 

the Canada Council’s Flying Squad program, interview participants at 

one Canadian organization explain,

Participant 1: For example, the Flying Squad set up 

again supposedly to assist organizations who are looking 

for assistance in...whether professional development, 

for income and admin or where they are delinquent in 

certain areas...so you get consultants. That’s broad. I 

find – I mean I’m not an administrative head in that 

way – but I find what happens is you become inundated 

with all of these different formulas that this person is 

specializing in, and I could speak to you, and you have 

290
Part II

Image 50. Stir-Friday Night promotional poster for Whitewash, Rinse, Repeat, sketch comedy revue, 2013. Poster design by Gilbert Galon. Reproduced by permission from Stir-Friday Night.

one formula. I speak to him, and there’s a whole different 

[formula], and then you’re left with this package and 

then what? But how is Flying Squad for you?

Participant 2: It’s conceptually a good idea, but I 

think you get into this whole ‘the theory, the theory, the 

theory,’ and that’s what Flying Squad, you have to...if I 

need help with marketing, I need to get a consultant to 

give me a strategy. And really as an organization what 

I need is someone to actually execute it, right? That’s

where the capacity is. But I need to go to Flying Squad 

to tell – to a consultant to tell me how I should package 

my marketing, and then I still have to go do it, but I 

said I need three people, and it’s still only me in the 

office so when that consultant goes away, they’ve taken 

the $7000 and left me with an idea that I need to find 

resources to now implement. To actually get the benefits 

of what that is which is...when you think about it, what 

the organization that’s asking for this – Yes, they need 

strategy. They may need strategy, but I think that’s 10 

percent of what it is, and really those dollars could have 

been more effective if you actually had that strategy 

coupled with a bit of execution.

...

Participant 3: I think, for me, one of the big things 

with Council is that I find a lot of – both with the 

Flying Squad and the Equity grant – is there’s a lot of 

concern placed on the position of the Council and not 

the organizations themselves. In that, coming back to 

Flying Squad, it’s about ‘We want you to do this, so 

that when we report, we can report this,’ as opposed 

to going to the organization and saying, ‘What do you 

really need? How do you feel it can best work for you?’ 

... So a lot of times it becomes very much about fitting 

this mould that Council wants, and I feel for a lot of art 

organizations it becomes a vice grip of moving forward. 

Because arts organizations are responsive. This is the 

hurdle they have, and they respond to it and they do 

what they can to make it happen. It doesn’t necessarily 

work that way with Council, and so then you get to a 

place where you’re going oh, either you get the money 

or you don’t, so you respond to the Council and you get 

to a place where you’re like, ‘We can’t move.’

291
Needs and Supports: A Life Cycle Approach 

Exemplifying this situation, another Canadian interview 

participant recounts, “When I became a producer, and I started the 

company, I taught myself everything. I read every book that I could, 

I took courses in marketing...because I know that marketing is a big 

deal and you need to produce good looking marketing in order to bring 

people to you.” Armed with knowledge of marketing concepts and 

strategies, this founder of a small Toronto-based organization embarked 

on leveraging her company’s growing popularity and unique appeal for 

an emerging Canadian population into an expanded donor base. To 

date, this process has generally been unsuccessful. Identifying one of her 

current organizational challenges, she states,

[W]hat I’m struggling with, what I thought would be 

easy for me is I have an audience here that is untapped. 

I have a group of donors who are untapped – I have 

an advantage in that sense. So, I started knocking on 

doors, I started doing the personal asks, I started going 

to the more wealthy people in my community, and 

no go because we all come from countries in which 

philanthropy is not something that is normal. It’s not 

something that is part of society. The artists in [these 

other countries] are supported by the government. Full 

stop. There are no individual donations, there are no 

direct mail campaigns, there is no...not any of that. So, 

what I found by the fourth year being the artistic rep 

of this company was that I was facing...walls. And you 

know, friends of parents, they would give me donations, 

and the wealthier ones would give me bigger ones, but a 

lot of my donors are not [from my ethnic community].

Training in traditional development and fundraising methods and 

models has done little to address her need to increase and diversify 

revenue sources because, among the several issues with these methods 

and models, it relies on the existence of a resource that is itself a major 

reason for needing to increase revenue:

And because I’m by myself I can’t fully do the grooming 

that you need to do with your donors like...making sure 

that they’re taken care of, and keeping contact with 

them and asking them to increase their donations and 

doing it properly – like what a fundraiser would do. I 

haven’t been able to do that. And I can’t afford to hire 

somebody to do that.

For many project participants, much capacity building training has only 

contributed to an organizational Catch-22: to be effective, it requires that 

an organization has a certain number of (paid) staff; if an organization is 

administratively strong enough to support such staff, capacity building is 

unlikely to present itself as a significant organizational challenge.

Another issue many Plural project participants in later 

developmental stages note with respect to funder capacity building 

programs is the short term of these programs. A Canadian interview 

participant receiving capacity building funding from the Canada 

Council’s Aboriginal Arts Office gives its capacity building programming 

high marks, stating that “I think it’s something that I’ve seen work for 

other companies and I’m already... seeing the breathing space that it’s 

giving us to be able to step back for a moment and assess, versus being in 

reaction mode.” Then she adds, 

My question is – I wonder what happens when that 

finishes. I guess the hope is that you get this chunk of 

resources and you’re able to work with it and build some 

capacity. But I always wonder about human resources. 

You hire someone, you train them, you develop 

these programs, and then when you can’t pay them 

anymore...we’re in the place right now where we’ve 

received [this support], we’re working with it, we’ve got 

a couple of years to do that, but I just wonder if you 

don’t continue receiving it, then how does that help? I 

guess I’ve seen that in other companies too where in the 

arts administrative section in particular, you can have a 

position for a year or two or whatever, and then it can 

also be taken away very quickly, and I don’t know how 

that really helps sustain anything in the long run. 

Given many similar observations from participants in both countries, 

our primary research for the Plural project indicates that, with respect 

to later stage ethnocultural arts organizations, in the long-term, general 

capacity building training is valuable insofar as it is better than providing 

these organizations with no support at all.

292
Image 51. Sue Herne. Mohawk Samsonite, 2002. Herne’s 

Father’s suitcase and ironworking tools; a wooden 

chair from Herne’s grandparents’ house; an antique 

basket and basket making tools and materials; photos 

of Herne’s great great grandfather, great grandparents, 

grandparents and great aunts and uncles; a cradleboard 

made by Christopher Thompson and painted by 

Herne, a pendant by Dan Hill hanging from the 

cradleboard, a quilted pad and cover made by Herne 

for the cradleboard; a fingerwoven sash by Hernee; a 

rock with dirt and seedcorn placed on it, 50 x 36 x 26 

in. Photograph by Morgan Perkins. Reproduced by 

permission from Akwesasne Museum.

293
Needs and Supports: A Life Cycle Approach 

Simultaneously acknowledging beneficial components to 

(certain) capacity building programs and the inherent problems in the 

manner in which those same programs are often delivered, a later stage 

US interview participant comments that

What [Michael Kaiser and the DeVos Institute of 

Arts Management have] developed works for an 

organization that has a certain amount of resources 

and that is at a certain level. But that doesn’t mean that 

anybody can’t pick up something from that or figure out 

how to be inspired to find a way to take some of those 

underlying concepts and transform them into ideas that 

work for their organization. I think that’s what works for 

me because I don’t have the budget or the resources to 

do the Michael Kaiser model. But what I appreciated 

was...I got to meet people, I felt a part of a community, 

I got to meet other board members, and that led to 

other introductions being made and some of my board 

members even came out of that.

Despite their mixed sentiments on capacity building programs as a 

whole, as suggested in this comment and in other comments throughout 

this section, later stage project participants are in agreement with their 

early stage ethnocultural arts peers on the usefulness of more targeted 

forms of capacity building services.

Suggested in earlier chapters and summarized below, our 

research identified few capacity building services customized to the 

ethnocultural specificity of organizations, and the services we were able 

to identify are provided by ethnocultural arts service organizations. More 

broadly, with the number of ethnocultural arts service organizations 

growing in Canada and remaining static and/or possibly shrinking in 

the United States, we found clear differences between Canadian and 

US project participants regarding their knowledge and use of these 

organizations and services. As detailed in the Characteristics sections, in 

Canada, the majority of project participants appear to be both familiar 

and regularly engage with a range of dedicated ethnocultural arts 

services, especially services relating to networking and peer learning – 

another form of capacity building. 

In the United States, there is greater variation in knowledge and 

use of ethnocultural arts services. Earlier chapters have detailed access 

to and reliance on dedicated services, including differences among panracial groups; based on a review of all research for the Plural project, 

here we add two observations to the presentation of those findings. 

First, with the exception of White, Arab/Middle Eastern, Jewish, and 

Latino arts organizations, the staff and volunteers at many organizations 

appear to be unfamiliar with the existence of ethnocultural arts service 

organizations outside of their primary arts discipline or immediate 

geographical environment (e.g., city) even while they are highly familiar 

with non-ethnocultural arts service organizations servicing a range 

of artistic disciplines, regions, and nationally. Considered otherwise, 

these broader ethnocultural arts services appear to be largely untapped 

potential resources. In comparison to Canada, where Native and 

culturally diverse members of the ethnocultural arts field appear to be 

internally relatively well networked and familiar with initiatives in this 

component of the field, and the same appearing to apply internally for 

White ethnic groups, it is our belief that the more siloed situation within 

the United States may also be contributing to a general sense of isolation 

for many members within the US ethnocultural arts field and the lack 

of a critical mass to lend support to addressing greater systemic cultural 

equity issues within the US arts ecosystem.

Second, we observed greater differences in the United States 

between ethnocultural arts organizations’ strong articulated support 

of ethnocultural arts service organizations and their actual use of the 

services of these organizations in comparison to non-ethnocultural arts 

services (not including services related to direct financial support/grants). 

With the notable exception of White arts organizations and locallybased organizations, for those organizations familiar with ethnocultural 

arts service organizations, whether specific to their discipline or general 

geographic location or broader-based, on average they appear to have 

low direct interaction with these service organizations. Moreover, when 

asked in the survey to identify useful services and during interviews to 

identify (i) organizations currently providing “specific tools/services/

resources” to assist them in meeting their challenges and needs and (ii) 

“arts service organizations that you believe are offering innovative or 

important programming, or otherwise doing great work,” rarely did a 

project participant – unprompted – list an ethnocultural arts service 

294
Part II

Image 52. Promotional flyer for rock.paper.sistahz Festival #11, b current, 

2012. b current’s festival of new works featured new plays as well as 

dance, visual art, youth events, and live music. Artwork and graphic design by Amber Williams-King. Reproduced by permission from b current.

organization.7 Instead, if a project participant identified one or more 

organizations, invariably these were local non-ethnocultural arts or nonarts service organizations.

Seeing this pattern repeat in our US interviews, it created an 

apparent paradox in our findings. On the one hand, project participants 

consistently stress that arts services need to account for the cultural 

specificity and particular challenges of ethnocultural arts organizations. 

When specifically asked to opine on ethnocultural arts service 

organizations, participants express the near unanimous sentiment that 

these organizations are necessary. On the other hand, when it comes to 

actual use, many of these participants point to programming offered by 

non-ethnocultural arts service organizations as of greater importance in 

their work.

The discrepancy may rest, at least in part, in both the under 

resourced nature of ethnocultural arts service organizations, repeatedly 

noted in prior literature and by Plural project participants, and also the 

programmatic structure of broader mandate organizations. In essence, 

as currently operating, ethnocultural arts service organizations of 

regional or national scope are frequently unable to provide services in a 

sufficiently geographically specific manner to be of direct applicability to 

interviewed organizations. Regarding NALAC, the national US Latino 

arts service organization, one interview participant explains, 

It’s a national organization. Obviously it gets too thin 

when it gets to you. We...belong to them as part of our...

we want to create this coalition, we want to participate 

as much as we can in this kind of coalition because 

it’s a matter of envisioning where we want the Latino 

community to be in this country. Not just now, but in 

10, 15, 30 years from now. These kinds of coalitions 

are the ones that are going to – the Hispanic Federation 

as well, things like that. We belong to the Hispanic 

Federation as well. These are the organizations that, by 

coalescing everyone, or most of the people, most of the 

organizations, they can create a bigger noise, a stronger 

noise than we can do ourselves. But again, in terms of 

services...I have no idea how big NALAC is in terms 

of budget, but if you have to spend $5 million dollars 

nationally? The impact is less. I feel that NALAC 

295
Needs and Supports: A Life Cycle Approach 

weaknesses in the current system include (i) marketing – that is, a need to 

better promote existing resources, (ii) the need to develop and improve 

capacity building tools that are more applicable to ethnocultural arts 

organizations’ (desired) size, geographic location, and cultural specificity, 

and (iii) the need to develop and improve financial resources and capacity 

building tools to assist ethnocultural arts service organizations.

The following are recommendations to funders and arts 

service organizations interested in supporting ethnocultural arts 

organizations in early developmental stages: 

• For both, more outreach and targeted outreach to newly 

formed and small grassroots organizations

• For funders and to the extent permissible under tax laws, 

revise funding guidelines and eligibility criteria so as to 

allow for the provision of financial support to less formally 

organized organizations and support systems; for example, 

consider support provided under CAC’s MCAD programs

• For funders, provide financial resources to ethnocultural arts 

service organizations to develop culturally specific capacity 

building services

• For arts service organizations, develop and make available 

online (e.g. downloadable audio/video and/or streaming) 

organizational management workshops and tools to address 

time and resource constraints in accessing services

• For arts service organizations, provide marketing or similar 

services to increase knowledge and visibility of ethnocultural 

artists, organizations, and the work of both

• For funders and general arts service organizations, partner 

with ethnocultural arts service organizations and informal 

ethnocultural networks to develop culturally specific capacity 

building services

• For both, further develop and encourage locally-led and 

directed but a nationally networked system of ethnocultural 

arts services and supports; for example, consider such 

systems as the Ad Hoc Assembly (Artists Driving Holistic 

Organizational Change) and N3

has much less impact than Art New York or than the 

Hispanic Federation, or more local organizations.

In various forms, this participant’s sentiment is echoed in the responses 

of many interview participants from a range of ethnic groups. Regardless 

of their level of association with these dedicated services, however, 

the point remains that the majority of ethnocultural arts organization 

interviewees in both Canada and the United States, and across all life 

cycle stages, find value in the existence of dedicated ethnocultural arts 

services and the need for ethnocultural arts service organizations. 

Do the services offered by support systems correlate with the needs of 

ethnocultural arts organizations? (Startup; Formalization)

While there are areas for improvement, particularly with respect 

to coverage in certain geographic areas and ethnic groups, it appears 

that the current support system contains a number of services in the 

areas and at the level and frequency needed by early stage ethnocultural 

arts organizations. Specifically, this system contains a number of general 

and dedicated capacity building programs and related education and 

training services that focus on enhancing basic knowledge in the areas of 

marketing, fundraising and development, organizational management, 

and offering technical support – the most frequently needed services of 

early stage Plural project participants. There is room for improvement, 

however: as with later stage participants, a number of early stage 

participants express a desire for services that are better tailored to 

their particular contexts and constraints, and a number of early stage 

participants lack knowledge of existing general and dedicated services. In 

addition, the Plural project findings suggest that more financial support 

is needed for ethnocultural arts service organizations, organizations 

that are valued by ethnocultural arts organizations but that, sharing 

challenges comparable to those of ethnocultural arts organizations, 

frequently lack the necessary level of financial and human resources to 

provide effective support for the field. This need is more urgent within 

the United States, where findings suggest that the number of these 

dedicated service organizations have decreased in number over the past 

10 to 15 years. 

In summary, with respect to early stage organizations, 

296
2. Survival-1; Stagnation; Growth; Renewal/

Reorganization; Decline (Administrative)

There’s also a feeling of gloom and doom when you 

know that you are getting 6,000 dollars to do a big 

show that really costs $30 [$30,000] and you are like, 

‘Shit I got to do that next year.’ You start worrying 

about your product; you’re not thinking carefully, 

you’re not thinking, ‘I need infrastructure jobs to 

keep going, to do that.’ All you’re thinking about as 

an artist is, ‘I have this opportunity to perform in a 

theater, I better make it good.’ So you almost put 

everything else to the side to do that one show but 

you’ll never play it again, ‘cause no one can afford 

it...– Canadian Plural Project participant (April 12, 

2013)

The majority of Plural project ethnocultural arts organization 

participants appear to fall into one of the developmental periods identified 

in this group. Each of the stages herein represent different periods in a 

life cycle; we have grouped them together because our research suggests 

that organizations in these stages share at least two common features: (i) 

a total diversity of specific needs and (ii) the majority of organizations 

point to a single means of addressing these needs: stable access to 

significant unrestricted funds. 

We have identified below organizational challenges and 

constraints that appear to be somewhat more common for organizations 

in certain periods. Many of these challenges are tied to other needs, and 

many overlap with those of organizations in other stages; to the extent 

we observed differences, it was generally with respect to the prioritization 

of certain challenges over others listed by interview participants. 

We emphasize that, in identifying these more specific challenges, our 

objective is not to encourage the development of more targeted programs. 

Rather, we list and illustrate the wide range of context specific needs 

communicated to us by project participants to demonstrate the sheer 

impossibility of such programs adequately and effectively addressing the 

diverse needs of ethnocultural arts organizations, particularly when such 

programs are not tailored to the contexts and constraints under which 

organizations are operating and when not paired with unrestricted 

funds at the same level – or greater – than those funds made available 

to mainstream arts organizations that have benefitted from decades of 

financial support. 

Survival-1 & Stagnation

One of the more common life cycle stages we encountered 

during our research are organizations in what we are calling “Survival-1” 

stage. Inspired by the Harvard Business Review article previously 

mentioned, we identify these as organizations in a constant state of 

tenuous existence. Founded several years ago or decades ago, generally 

with little to no staff, they may have experienced one or more periods 

of growth, but have never had an extended or substantive growth 

phase. A focus on their administrative operations suggests that these 

organizations are the same as Startup organizations. Unlike Startups, 

however, many have developed, established programming and are run 

by leaders knowledgeable in multiple areas of nonprofit organizational 

management, including traditional Western best practices. More so 

than their other later stage peers, the largest big picture developmental 

constraint of Survival-1 organizations appears to be the lack of access to 

opportunities for financial support and, as Covarrubias identified in his 

comments, generally being on the losing side of a chance-based system.

An identified life cycle stage in many existing nonprofit 

development models, “Stagnation” is another stage out of which a 

number of project participants appear to be unable to get. According to 

development models,8

 Stagnant organizations are broadly characterized 

by several of the following features: low morale, staff/board tensions 

exacerbated by an ineffective or non-functioning board, consistently 

carrying an operating deficit, the maxing out of current revenue 

sources, the creation of funder-driven projects, and/or a retrenchment 

of programming. While several interview participants match these 

features, we expanded this group to include organizations that appear to 

be “stuck”: they have attained a certain desired size and level of growth 

but, for various reasons, are unable to reach their next desired level. 

Administratively, Stagnation stage project participants are highly similar 

in form to Survival-1 stage participants except, based on the former’s 

description of organizational history, at some point they experienced 

297
Needs and Supports: A Life Cycle Approach 

Image 53. A Girl’s War, Golden Thread Productions, 

2009. Written by Joyce Van Dyke and directed by 

Torange Yeghiazarian. Left to Right: Ana Bayat and 

Bella Warda. Photograph by Gohar Barseghyan. 

Reproduced by permission from Golden Thread 

Productions. 

longer and/or more significant periods of growth. In the United States, 

Stagnant organizations appeared to have been most impacted by the 

recent global recession. 

The types of developmental constraints self-identified and 

expressed by Plural project participants in Survival-1 and Stagnation 

stages are as follows:

• Grant support is largely limited to one-time project grants or 

very small levels of unrestricted funds; income is insufficient 

to support actual cost of operations and to hire needed staff

• Grant support is tied to eligibility requirements that preclude 

access by small organizations

• Lack of regular funding from any revenue source

• Unable to identify new revenue sources or to raise prices of 

current earned income offerings, which have remained static 

for decades; in some cases, audiences are demanding lower 

prices

• Lack of access to wealthy individuals, foundations, and 

corporations to provide support (financial, in-kind, and to 

serve on boards)

• Need to attract board members with fundraising capabilities 

and build more of a fundraising board

• Lack of sufficient level of revenue to support expanded and/

or raise quality of programming

• Lack of time and sufficient staff in management of operations 

is leading to burnout of existing staff/volunteers

• Time intensive nature of playwright development/

production of new works/developing a canon makes it 

difficult to present work on an annual or bi-annual basis, 

298
Part II

especially with limited staffing

• Lack of knowledge regarding best means to market works to 

origin community and cross over audiences

• Need to develop internal/origin community audiences

• Need to reconnect/increase outreach with origin community 

and/or create connections with new cultural communities 

following the changing cultural and economic demographic 

of the geographic community where an organization is 

situated

• Inability to build a broad(er) donor base within origin 

communities that come from countries and/or cultures 

where individual giving in the arts is not part of the arts 

support system

• Need to transition leadership

• Need for more sophisticated and situation-specific tools and 

assistance to further develop organizational infrastructure 

and staff that can use/implement such tools

• Inability to attract critical/media attention or sufficient 

critical/media attention

• Lack of touring opportunities and/or venues/presenters, 

whether local, regionally, and/or nationally, interested in 

showcasing an organization’s work or artists

• Lack of access to affordable space appropriate for expanded 

performance/presentation needs and/or outgrown currently 

occupied space

• Lack of inclusion in, or existence of, a network of similarly 

situated ethnocultural arts organizations with which to share 

ideas and best practices and to combat feelings of isolation

The constraints listed above reference a host of specific and systemic 

challenges that are not limited to organizations in Survival-1 and 

Stagnation stages. Several of these challenges have been addressed in earlier 

chapters and essays and we will address a few in later sections below; here, 

we briefly highlight the detrimental impact on ethnocultural arts 

organizations of two systemic features of the arts support environment: 

project-based support and financial support (whether unrestricted or 

project) tied to a minimum number of artistic productions over a recent 

period of time. 

For most interview participants in this section, their small to 

no staff size, often non-divisional management/operational structure, 

use of “unprofessional” artists, and/or small operating budgets (under 

$150,000, $50,000, or even $10,000 in Canadian or US dollars), and for 

some, their organizational youth, have explicitly or implicitly rendered 

them ineligible to access unrestricted funding opportunities. In turn, this 

situation has resulted in their over reliance on, and diversion to, project 

funding. For example, in Minnesota, a state that consistently ranks 

number one in the United States for its per capita (state) spending on the 

arts9 and its robust system of arts services, a law specifically intended to 

provide financial support to Minnesota-based arts, culture, and heritage 

activities and organizations has, as implemented, increased project 

grant support opportunities for organizations with programming aimed 

at “underserved groups or communities”10 while leaving untouched 

barriers for many of these same organizations in accessing operating 

support. 

In 2008, Minnesotans voted in favor of the passage of the Legacy 

Amendment, which amended the state constitution to permit a slight 

increase in the state’s sales tax for 25 years with the additional revenue to 

be distributed to one of four dedicated funds.11 Receiving just under 20 

percent of this sales tax revenue is the Arts & Cultural Heritage Fund; 

current estimates indicate that “Minnesotans will invest more than $1.2 

billion in arts and cultural heritage fund projects and programs” over the 

period of the tax.12 A major distributor of this funding is the Minnesota 

State Arts Board (the Arts Board).13

The Arts Board has used this funding to create seven new grant 

programs; all except one of these programs is for project support, and the 

one operating grant is limited to supporting community art schools and 

conservatories.14 This operating grant was rolled into a larger operating 

support program administered by the Arts Board, which is open to “high 

quality, established arts organizations that produce, present, or exhibit 

works of art; to organizations that provide a broad range of services 

to artists; and to community arts schools and conservatories that make 

arts learning available to Minnesotans of all ages and abilities.”15 In 

explaining the purpose for the program, the Arts Board highlights the 

invaluable role of this manner of financial support:

299
Needs and Supports: A Life Cycle Approach 

The Operating Support program recognizes 

that organizations with an established record of 

programmatic service and administrative stability 

should have access to funds to support their 

organizational goals and objectives, and to maintain 

their ongoing programs, services, and facilities without 

special emphasis on new initiatives as justification for funding.16

Intended for organizations producing high quality programming, and 

clearly conscious that unrestricted funding is necessary to maintaining 

the mission-driven focus and health of such programming, the Arts 

Board’s program eligibility requirements then limit such support to, 

among other requirements, organizations possessing the following 

administrative features: (i) an operating budget that for two consecutive 

years has averaged $160,000 or more; (ii) an average over the past two 

consecutive years of 10 percent of total unrestricted revenue from 

charitable arts support; and (iii) a minimum of “one paid, professional, 

administrative staff person in a contract or salaried position.”17

In 2011, of the 56 Minnesota-based ethnocultural arts 

organizations contained in the US Plural project organizational database, 

20 organizations did not file a Form 990, Form 990-EZ, or a Form 

990-N18 with the IRS. As indicated in the Methodology, organizations 

reporting under $5,000 in gross receipts are not required to file any 

financial form with the federal government, and thus the lack of filing 

may be due to the non-filing Minnesotan organizations earning and/or 

raising less than this amount. For the remaining 36 organizations, 20, 

or 56 percent, reported gross annual incomes under $160,000. These 

organizations celebrate and showcase the cultures of a wide range of 

ethnic groups and arts disciplines, including Norwegian and African 

American music, Chinese and Indian dance, and Latino, Hmong, and 

Arab multidisciplinary arts spaces. Most of these organizations have 

been in existence for a number of years and have a record of producing 

and presenting arts programming for their immediate and broader 

Minnesotan communities. Unlike their higher income arts organization 

peers, however, each one of these organizations is required to constantly 

create “new initiatives as justification for funding.” Echoing comments 

made by several of our Minnesota-based project participants in reference 

to the Arts Board operating support program, the director of one such 

organization unable to access this source of support states,

[Since the passing of the Legacy Amendment,] there’s 

been a huge amount of money for arts organizations, 

specifically in their general operating fund. But you have 

to meet this really – from my perspective – high bar 

of having a budget over [$160,000 for two successive 

years] before you’re eligible. I come across this kind of 

minimum level of budget in order to apply for general 

operating support from a number of sources, and 

I think that’s a real problem and holds a lot of small 

organizations back.

Minimum operating budget and similar administrative requirements in 

government funding programs are particularly problematic for, as detailed 

in Part I, this revenue source has historically been a more fruitful and 

reliable area of support for ethnocultural arts organizations due in large 

part to the government funding sector’s sensitivity to political pressures 

and considerations of demographic representativeness. With the private 

sector’s greater immunity to such considerations, small ethnocultural arts 

organizations have largely been less successful in attracting substantial 

levels of private interest and investment.

Similar to certain public funders, private funders often also 

require organizations to attain a minimum financial size to meet 

funding eligibility requirements. Another US participant related a 

conversation with a major US foundation,19 which had been attracted 

to his organization’s unique mission and programming. Acknowledging 

the value of his organization’s work, a representative of the foundation 

nevertheless informed him that they would be unable to support his 

organization due to its small size: the representative stated that the 

foundation only supports arts organizations possessing an operating 

budget in the amount of a half a million or more. Such restrictions are 

not limited to foundations. For example, the Nonprofit Finance Fund, 

a community development financial institution that among its various 

services provides loans to “nonprofit organizations and social enterprises 

that promote the economic, social or cultural development of diverse 

communities,” states on its website that it only considers applications 

from organizations that report “[u]nrestricted annual operating revenue 

of at least $1,000,000.”20

300
The Elephant Ant

Once upon a time there lived on a faraway planet, an ant, an ant the size of an elephant: an elephant ant.

The elephant ant went about her business. Being who she was: an ant the size of an elephant.

One fine, sunny day, she ran into an elephant, who said to her in absolute despise:

 “I am an elephant, and you my friend are not.”

To which the ant reacted “I am what I am and nothing else. Nothing else at all.”

The elephant said “Well, you just can’t be, you just can’t.”

And the ant said: “I will be what I will be and nothing else.”

 And she went about her daily chores.

Soon, the elephant hunted her down and brought an army of ants with him.

He said, “See this is who you are. This is who you are. Remember that.”

To which the ant responded: “I am what I am and nothing else will I be.”

The elephant commanded this army of ants to attack the elephant ant.

The army of ants attacked. The elephant ant reiterated; “I am what I am nothing else. You are who you are and nothing else.“

The ants were mesmerized by the elephant ant’s message.

And started to move towards the elephant.

To which the ant responded, “He is who he is and nothing else.”

The president of the army of ants bowed down to him and responded:

“My dear sir, you are worthy of my position, for you have stated these simple words with such grace and candor.”

The elephant ant accepted this honor with humility.

The elephant lowered his head and started to walk away.

301
Image 54. Chai Latte Productions, The Elephant Ant: A Modern Day Fairytale. Written by Aqsa Zareen Farooqui. The Elphant Ant: A Modern Day 

Fairytale, © 2013, Aqsa Zareen Farooqui. Reproduced by permission from Aqsa Zareen Farooqui.

The elephant ant called out to him and said: 

“We are who we are. You are the elephant and I the elephant ant. We are one and the same. So let us celebrate. 

Come join us in happiness and joy.”

The elephant joined in all the joyous ant celebrations.

302
Image 55. Luk Täga Näche: Salmon Girl Dreaming, Raven Spirit Dance, 2006. Michelle Olsen. Choreography by Michelle Olson. Photograph by Jay 

Armitage. Reproduced by permission from Raven Spirit Dance.

303
Needs and Supports: A Life Cycle Approach 

With few opportunities to access operating funding or 

operating funding at more than nominal levels, small ethnocultural arts 

organizations find themselves in a position of cobbling together a series 

of project grants, and taking on the subsequent additional administrative 

burdens involved in this system, to supplement revenue they are able to 

earn and/or raise from non-funder sources. Other sources of funding 

are often limited as many ethnocultural arts organizations support and 

operate in newcomer and/or established communities possessing limited 

disposable wealth, low levels of inherited wealth, and/or are from 

cultural environments where, as the Minnesotan project participant 

cited above notes, “there isn’t this culture of philanthropy that is second 

nature.” 

A number of ethnocultural arts organizations, possessing 

founding members or new leaders with wealthy and/or prominent 

contacts or simply extremely persistent and resourceful, situated in certain 

geographic or cultural environments or time periods more receptive to 

an organization’s mission, and/or the beneficiary of a fortunate turn 

of events, have continued to develop despite systemic barriers. Other 

organizations have been less successful. For the organizations we have 

described as being in Survival-1 and Stagnant life cycle stages, the 

project grant-based system only adds to the environment of uncertainty 

in which these organizations, like many small nonprofits, are operating. 

Describing a situation repeated by other struggling ethnocultural arts 

organizations, one Canadian interview participant observes, 

Basically we just need a way to find more money. Every 

year we never quite know where the money is going to 

come from. We’ve been fairly successful with our grants 

from the Canada Council and the City of Vancouver 

and the BC Arts Council but a couple of the programs 

were one-time only. We haven’t been able to get any of 

their multi-year funding so it just makes it tenuous. And 

then attracting corporate sponsorships is something 

we’ve identified we really need to do...another challenge 

that we always have is individual donations. We just 

haven’t found a way to really get our audience donating 

to us in a way that makes a large impact for us.

Lacking stable sources of support, Survival-1 and Stagnant organizations 

are generally unable or unwilling to make investments in their operations 

in the manner necessary to promote further development. “Because 

we’ve been in business for 20 years on this project grant basis,” comments 

another Canadian interview participant, “there is no – without any 

operating funds and any real kind of support, it just leaves you feeling 

like you can’t get better at your craft.” 

The second challenge we address here regards grant programs 

requiring prospective grantees to produce and/or present a minimum 

number of artistic productions over a one- to several-year period. For 

example, the Canada Council’s theater, dance, and music sections all 

require several years of recent and consecutive public presentations/

performances for an organization to be eligible to apply for its annual 

and multi-year grant programs.21 Similarly, OAC requires theater and 

dance company applicants to “have completed at least two years of 

sustained, regular, ongoing programming in its community as of the 

application date” to be eligible to apply for operating support.22 Among 

the assumptions inherent in such grant eligibility requirements are the 

following: (i) organizations are operating in a developed artistic field that 

includes ready access to artists, artistic material, and other necessary 

human and physical resources and (ii) the number of productions over a 

certain period of time indicates the importance (artistic and/or greater 

cultural relevance) and quality of an organization’s work.

When meeting with a number of ethnocultural theater and 

multidisciplinary storytelling organizations, participants discussed 

the lengthy production processes involved in their work. Many of these 

organizations were founded with a mandate to build and/or add to a 

canon of ethnic specific work and/or to develop playwrights and other 

artists from an organization’s origin community. Particularly for project 

participants operating in Canada, these organizations are frequently 

creating a canon where none existed at all (that is, depicting diasporic 

experiences, voices, and perspectives) or are translating existing canons to 

communicate and engage with non-origin audiences and/or to perform 

in manners not originally native to origin community cultural traditions. 

Speaking to the critical importance of playwright development and the 

dramaturgical process, one Canadian interviewee explains,

304
Part II

I need to create a work that is happening here in 

Canada, on this land. I’m very inspired by our heritage, 

I’m very inspired by the history, very inspired by our 

memories. That’s where my father and my mother and 

my grandfather were, and that’s where I was born, so 

it lives with me. But the main task is basically to create 

our stories, which can create that past with the present. 

So this hyphen in being Canadian is important to me, 

because in that hyphen lives all my contradictions, all 

my challenges, all my competitiveness, everything that 

exists is there. 

The basic production process involved in creating work around 

diasporic experiences often entails managing and integrating many of 

the following related but separate processes: identifying and mentoring 

emerging and mid-career playwrights and choreographers; research on 

origin community and broader community cultural forms; identifying 

and mentoring emerging and mid-career actors, dancers, musicians, and 

other artists; identifying and mentoring other artistic technical volunteers 

and/or staff; repeated workshops to hone developing works; and other 

programmatic and administrative efforts to educate and build audiences 

often completely unfamiliar with the playwrights, artists, works, and/or 

broader artistic discipline. 

Generally reliant on five or far fewer staff members (if any), 

many if not most of which are paid on a part-time basis, project 

participants describe a cycle of three to five years, or more, to produce 

one new work. Referring to the five-year period it took to develop one 

of their recently presented and highly lauded plays, another Canadian 

interview participant comments, “That’s what’s been frustrating for me 

as the Artistic Director, is that I can’t do a production per year yet. It 

takes time to develop playwrights and plays. But I really believe that 

there are stories to be told, and I’m really passionate about telling the 

Canadian [name of ethnic group] story.”

Another issue with requirements that organizations maintain 

a set season or set number of productions over a specified period is 

apparent in the particular artistic and administrative life cycles of 

extremely grassroots, community-based arts organizations. A general 

manager of a mid-sized theater company with a regular season, a US 

interview participant observes that over his career he has worked with 

and come across a number of ethnocultural community-based arts 

groups that “become ‘defunct’ until they’re ready to do a show;” that is, 

when there is a community need and the “time is right.” This production 

approach does “not [speak] to their quality one bit, because I think a 

lot of them have the ‘professional shine’” that exists on the stages of 

larger companies. He adds, however, that many mainstream groups 

undercount and misinterpret this type of mission-driven approach to art 

making as disorganized and/or poorly managed.

As a result of the extensive nature of arts production in the 

absence of an established field and the disconnect between the missions 

of certain organizations and the production schedule of mainstream arts 

models, ethnocultural arts organizations in these and other circumstances 

are often precluded from obtaining operating or other more significant 

levels of financial support when tied to annual or seasonal public 

programming-based eligibility requirements. Limited availability and 

access to operating grants and other exclusionary grant eligibility 

requirements are only a few of the many features endemic to the arts 

support environment that place obstacles in the path of development for 

ethnocultural arts organizations. Not exclusive to these organizations, 

they form the foundation of a regressive system that overvalues the 

contributions of established, high-income mainstream arts institutions 

while undervaluing the current and future potential of all other groups. 

Providing just enough funds to keep the ethnocultural arts field alive but 

not enough for it to truly thrive, in this system, “the role that has been 

assigned to us,” notes a US interview participant, is that of “beggars.”

Growth & Renewal

Growth and Renewal life cycle stages are identified stages in 

existing development models and are the other two most common stages 

in which we found project participants. Growth stage organizations 

are generally characterized as possessing several of the following 

features: developing and adding to staff, an active board, increasingly 

complicated financial reporting requirements, increased programmatic 

activity (depth and/or breadth), and some level of increased and/or 

increasingly diversified financing. Several of these organizations appear 

– to us – highly similar to the “Sustainable” organizations discussed 

305
Needs and Supports: A Life Cycle Approach 

infra, particularly with respect to their identified types of developmental 

constraints; placement in this group as opposed to the latter depended 

in part on how organizations describe themselves and the level of 

development of the features listed herein.

A number of organizations we spoke with categorize themselves 

as being in a period of “Reorganization” or “Renaissance.” Emerging 

from a period of crisis or decline, these Renewal stage organizations are 

actively taking steps to address the negative precipitating factors that led 

to the period of crisis and have also entered into a period of growth. 

Illustrating this situation, one US interview participant states,

I think we’re actually in a decent place in which we 

caught ourselves before we are in panic mode. Definitely 

there’s a decrease of funding and decrease of availability 

of funds to fully support all of our visions. But I think 

we’re in a place where we’re creatively strategizing 

and prioritizing. Rather than expanding, how do we 

strengthen the things that we do have? As far as what 

we’re doing, I think we are in a place where our board is 

actively engaged, our community are actively engaged, 

the staff are willing to figure out the direction in which 

we’re going, and knowing that we want to continue.

The types of developmental constraints self-identified and 

expressed by Plural project participants in Growth and Renewal stages 

are as follows:

• Lack of regular access to a significant level of unrestricted 

funds

• Grant eligibility requirements tied to raising matching 

funds preclude access by organizations lacking the type(s) of 

network(s) necessary to raise requisite level of funds

• Need to diversify revenue sources and especially increase 

individual contributions

• Time intensive nature of traditional fundraising campaigns 

and initiatives is challenging to implement given limited (or 

no) staff

• Need to increase revenue overall while keeping fees earned 

through (most) programming affordable to low-income 

communities 

• Need for increased access to wealthy individuals, foundations, 

and corporations to provide support (financial, in-kind, and 

to serve on boards)

• Need to build or increase size of reserve/endowment

• Insufficient funds to support certain (additional) needed 

dedicated full-time staff, especially in the areas of 

development/fundraising, marketing/public relations, and 

financial management

• Need to reorganize and/or further develop and diversify 

board’s skills and areas of expertise

• Need to secure a stable and affordable rehearsal, performance, 

and presentation space or to obtain additional income to 

support higher/new costs of acquired spaces 

• Need to secure a larger space to accommodate expanded 

programming and/or plans to pursue new revenue 

generating activities

• Need for more storage space

• Lack of a structured network of presenters to produce and 

present ethnocultural artistic works

• Need for professional artists and managers from origin 

communities

• Need to create a leadership succession plan and to identify 

funds to support the implementation of such a plan

• Need to expand demographic diversity of audiences and, 

related, need to develop origin community audiences

• Access to larger, more stable space has created a need to 

attract larger audiences

• Need to build and develop a younger/new generation of 

artists and arts administrators

• Inability to attract critical/media attention or sufficient 

critical/media attention (“glass ceiling”)

• Arts consuming public’s general lack of knowledge and 

understanding of art form 

Research for the Plural project suggests that ethnocultural arts 

organizations in Growth, Renewal, and Sustainable stages are the most 

306
Part II

Lying in the grass

In a circle of trees.

Ears open,

Eyes closed.

Can you hear the music?

There’s music,

But no instruments.

Hear the music.

All you have to do,

Is listen

Listen.

Please.

Listen.

Hear the music.

By Charlie Teeter

Image 56. Scottish Partnership for Arts and Education (SPAE), 2013. 

Poem by Charlie Teeter. Reproduced by permission from Scottish 

Partnership for Arts and Education.

critical of capacity building and similar initiatives imposed by funders 

and arts service organizations to strengthen or improve the health of 

organizations as opposed to simply trusting and substantively empowering 

these professionals to identify and handle their own needs. Summarizing 

the sentiments of many of these later stage project participants, a US 

participant states, “Unless you have a check, the only other thing you 

can give me as an organization, especially one as old as I am, is equity 

and equality.” The “you” in such comments is addressed to government 

and foundation funders in light of the particular fundraising challenges 

of ethnocultural arts organizations: organizations in both countries 

reference their distinctive work and missions, which often problematize 

obtaining diverse sources of revenue, particularly from the private sector. 

For example, segments of the ethnocultural arts organizational 

field point to the difficulties inherent in accepting funds from certain 

private (and sometimes federal) sources due to how receipt of such 

funds could be interpreted by their origin communities. Referring to 

this situation, one US participant explains, “If there is some prominent 

[foreign country] businessman who gives us money, the presumption 

would be that we agree with his politics and we don’t...so I wouldn’t 

want that money, it wouldn’t matter how much it was, even if it was 

no strings attached because the – it just wouldn’t look good for us.” For 

other organizations, the issue regards not so much being able to accept

money as being able to raise it. Another US participant describes the 

daily balancing act of creating a space that serves to encourage dialogue 

in an inclusive atmosphere while presenting programming from a 

“radical, political perspective,” and then raises the additional challenge 

of “figuring out who financially supports [that perspective] because you 

can’t be too radical in certain spots and places...” Emphasizing that 

grant dollars should be focused less on training and more on developing 

the infrastructure of ethnocultural arts organizations, a Canadian 

participant adds,

How long can we go on training ourselves how to do 

the fundraising? The person we pay to teach us the 

fundraising gets all the money and goes home, and we 

at the end of it have no money. The reason I’m not able 

to raise much money from the corporations? It’s very 

simple. Because if I do the play about [the oil disaster], 

307
Needs and Supports: A Life Cycle Approach 

about the industry, if I do a play about genocide, if I do 

the play about the women being abducted and sexually 

abused, do you think the corporation is going to give me 

money? That’s precisely what these big institutions don’t 

do. Canadian Stage would not do it, Centaur would 

not do it, the Taragon would not do it. They’ll just do 

these things at a very exotic level and therefore banks 

are funding them...So you can go on training people as 

much as you want, but if you have a mandate as strong 

as we have, or a mandate that is as humane as you want 

to have, you’re not going to be able to raise money from 

the corporations no matter how qualified you are.

As with their smaller organizational counterparts, mid-size and larger 

organizations are constrained by the project-based system of grant 

support which entirely fails to, as another Canadian participant observes, 

“[build] capacity for what we’re already doing which is underfunded in 

and of itself.”

Leaving us with no doubt as to their prioritization of the need for 

unrestricted funds, many Growth stage organizations, as with participants 

more generally, find that the primary value in the services of general 

arts service organizations lies not so much in the services themselves but 

in the general networking environment that many provide. Outlining 

their reasons for not accessing most existing arts resources, one of the 

Canadian interview participants cited above points to his organization’s 

ethnocultural programming and notes that the organization is “not 

a clean fit anywhere.” Largely “self-sufficient,” this participant 

acknowledges that his organization could probably make more use of 

existing resources and expresses a particular interest in services that take 

“economies of scale” approaches to making certain services, such as 

marketing, more affordable to small and mid-size organizations. Aside 

from relevancy, as with most other ethnocultural arts organizations, 

time and resource constraints prevent the organization from accessing 

existing resources; specifically, the lack of sufficient/appropriate staff 

(e.g., dedicated development person) to pursue available opportunities. 

While also stressing the need for more operating funds and 

dismissing the need for more capacity training, a proportionately greater 

number of Renewal stage organizations state that one of their main 

issues, as with the Canadian participant above, is finding the staff and 

the staff time to focus on increasing organizational income. Echoing 

comments made by similarly situated organizations, one such US 

participant observes,

One of the things that people are always thinking – 

people who don’t have experience in fundraising – ... 

is you look at an org like ours and they’re like, ‘You 

have such a small budget, you’re not maximizing your 

fundraising. Let’s think of new ideas for you to fundraise.’ 

And it’s – no, we don’t need any new ideas. We need to 

take the things that we’re already doing and maximize 

them. Because we have not maxed out individual giving 

in our existing constituency. We have not maxed out the 

amount of money that we can extract from our existing 

events. We have not maxed out grant writing within 

our community. We know all of the foundations in the 

area and we are not able to write grants to all of them 

because we don’t have the time. So there’s all of this. We 

don’t need to research new grants, we don’t need a new 

fundraising event...we don’t need any new stuff right 

now. We need to have the time to actually squeeze every 

last drop out of what we already have. 

In addition to financial needs, organizations in the midst of growing or 

reorganizing list a range of other developmental constraints that overlap 

with constraints identified by organizations in other life cycle stages. We 

briefly address below constraints relating to presenting opportunities and 

space. 

Framing the presenting challenge facing a number of 

ethnocultural performing arts participants as “trying to put your 

work in places that it’s not understood or not even necessarily valued 

or welcomed,” a Canadian interviewee articulates the desire held 

by many for a more structured “network of presenters or people that 

are interested in Aboriginal, or culturally diverse, or all these different 

stories that are being shared.” Such networks are an important means of 

effectively distributing and increasing the visibility of ethnocultural arts. 

Through identifying and securing multiple presentation venues, they also 

support ethnocultural artists in obtaining, in the words of the Canadian 

interviewee cited above, a full “life cycle” for their work so “that it’s not 

just shown once and shelved.” Moreover, when organized by individuals 

308
Part II

knowledgeable about ethnocultural artists and the presented art form(s), 

they serve to tackle persistent problems relating to the exoticization of 

the field. In a follow-up email we received, a US interview participant 

writes,

One more thing that we forgot to mention is distribution. 

For performing artists, in order to be a nationally 

recognized artist, you need to gig outside of your home 

city. In order to do that, you need a presence at the 

national booking conferences like WAAA, the Midwest 

and APAP. Finding agents who can represent culturally 

specific artists in the national arena is challenging. 

Booking yourself is very expensive. We’ve had 3 agents 

in our 30-year career. One retired, one wasn’t a good 

fit and our current agent we’ve been working with since 

1998. Still, we have to constantly give them marketing 

tools to describe our work, otherwise we quickly can 

become their “Asian” group. And nobody buys “Asian,” 

they buy art. Plus when we arrive at the venue with 

a motley crew of many colors, they get confused. 

Summary: When doing original work, remember to 

define yourself or somebody else will do it for you and 

it ain’t always pretty. 

To combat misrepresentation and address gaps in the 

mainstream performance network, organizations in both Canada and 

the United States have long supported their work through informal 

networks that identify proven presenters, or by developing their own 

presenting mechanisms. At the time research for the Plural project was 

taking place, several efforts to create such networks were in various 

stages of development. For example, in 2013, Ryan Cunningham, an 

artist and co-founder of Alberta Aboriginal Arts (a Native theater and 

performing arts organization based in Edmonton and founded in 2009), 

was working on a project to create a structured network of presenters 

across British Columbia, Alberta, and the Yukon. For several years, the 

Canadian Arts Presenting Association/l’Association canadienne des 

organisms artistiques (CAPACOA) and Toronto’s CPAMO have been 

working toward fostering a stronger relationship between Canada’s 

presenting community and Native and culturally diverse artists and 

arts organizations. In the United States, US Plural project participants 

laud the National Performance Network, a national arts service 

organization focused on “supporting artists in the creation and touring 

of contemporary performing and visual arts,” for encouraging and 

supporting presenters who showcase diverse works.23 US organizations 

also praise and express a desire to see the expansion of models such 

as the one utilized by New York-based Pentacle, which is a “nonprofit 

management support organization for small and mid-sized companies 

and project-based artists working in dance and theater.”24 A general 

rather than an ethnocultural arts service provider, since its founding this 

group has supported the development and presentation of work of an 

ethnically diverse roster of artists and companies, including ethnocultural 

arts organizations Dakshina/Daniel Phoenix Singh Dance, HT Chen & 

Dancers (also know as the HT Dance Company – Chen Dance Center), 

and Urban Bush Women.

Operating across the Canadian/US border until its closure 

this year (2014) was the New York-based Foundation for Jewish Culture 

(FJC). Among the multiple programs offered by FJC was the “New 

Jewish Culture Network” (NJCN), which served as a “pipeline for 

contemporary performing arts that explores the Jewish experience.”25

In existence for three years before FJC announced its closing, this shortlived “collaborative commissioning and touring program”26 brought 

together Jewish and general presenting organizations to support and 

defray the costs and risk associated with producing new (ethnocultural) 

work. Described in further detail to us by the Toronto-based Ashkenaz 

Foundation, which organizes one of the world’s largest festivals of Jewish 

music and culture and was part of this commissioning network, NJCN 

members would meet to choose and commission a new work, and then 

FJC would provide a subsidy to the selected artists to develop their work 

and a subsidy to several member presenters to present the work. 

Access to affordable and appropriate space to meet organizational 

needs is another common developmental constraint identified by many, 

though not all, project participants regardless of life cycle stage. A 

challenge shared with many members of the general arts community, 

the issue of space has received much recent attention by arts service 

organizations and cultural policymakers and has been well-documented; 

we see no value in repeating points made in this literature. Instead, we 

309
Needs and Supports: A Life Cycle Approach 

make a few short observations on how access to space has impacted the 

developmental trajectories of project participants. 

For some organizations, almost all of which self-identify as in a 

Growth or Sustainable stage, space is simply not identified as a challenge. 

For the majority of organizations in other stages, however, access to 

affordable programming, rehearsal, performance/presentation, storage, 

and, less commonly, administrative space varies from being a moderate 

to critical developmental constraint. In both countries, organizations that 

have consistent and long-term access to one or more space(s) point to the 

benefits such spaces provide, including (i) ability to more fully develop 

productions and provide other mission-appropriate programming; (ii) 

increasing the visibility of the organization; (iii) signifying investment 

in its community; (iv) signifying that the organization is worthy of 

investment by its community and subsequently acting to leverage 

(increased) income from foundation, corporate, and individual sources; 

and (v) unlocking new sources of earned income. One US interview 

participant that recently purchased and renovated a multi-level, multipurpose building points to the several ways in which his organization is 

using its new spaces to generate income when not in use by the company. 

Referencing a recent conversation with an individual he hopes to add 

to the company’s staff, he recounts his surprise when this individual 

expressed less interest in the salary he could provide, and more interest 

in the organization’s rehearsal space. Rather than draw a salary, the 

individual, who is also an artist, wanted to exchange her administrative 

services for a certain amount of access to the company’s rehearsal space 

to produce her own work. In short, she wanted to barter services for 

space. The interview participant notes that his organization is now able 

to take advantage of such opportunities. 

While much political advocacy and networking led to this 

interview participant’s purchase of a space, a number of other 

participants attribute a wealthy founder or fortunate turn of events to 

how they obtained a secure space. This good fortune has helped many 

of these organizations achieve (continued) success and has permitted 

them to, in turn, support other members of the ethnocultural arts field. 

For example, a Canadian interview participant and new occupant of 

an “Artspace” building has plans to dedicate his organization’s new 

blackbox theater for, when not in use by his company, use as a discounted 

performance and rehearsal space by Aboriginal and culturally diverse 

arts organizations.

A final note regarding space: some ethnocultural arts 

organizations express particular space requirements due to the manner 

in which their ethnocultural art form is practiced and/or presented. 

Neither common nor rare among project participants, these distinctive 

needs include high quality soundproofing material for noise intensive 

forms (e.g., taiko) and particular stage configurations.

Do the services offered by support systems correlate with the needs of 

ethnocultural arts organizations? (Survival-1; Stagnation; Growth; Renewal)

Plural project findings indicate that the current support system 

largely fails to meet the needs of ethnocultural arts organizations in 

Survival-1, Stagnant, Growth, and Renewal stages. While there are 

a number of dedicated (and general) funding programs available to 

ethnocultural arts organizations – the greatest need for all organizations 

but particularly organizations in these later stages – the overwhelming 

majority of programs are in the form of short-term project grants, and 

an analysis of governmental funding programs indicates that available 

amounts rarely exceed $30,000 in either Canada or the United States. In 

addition, funding programs and amounts (whether project or operating) 

are often tied to such features as a minimum operating budget, 

requirements to raise matching funds, or a certain level of programmatic 

activity that effectively locks out younger and smaller arts organizations 

from receiving a sufficient level of support to assist in further development. 

Lacking are sufficient levels of unrestricted operating support – which is 

the greatest articulated need of organizations in all stages as it provides 

the flexibility these diverse organizations require to address diverse and 

emerging needs – that is unburdened by criteria that places barriers 

of access for the majority of the ethnocultural arts field. In summary, 

the impact of the current financial support system is that it creates an 

unstable environment in which the absence of sustained investment in 

infrastructure discourages organizational growth and investment in the 

future, encourages organizational models that are small and nimble and 

thus more adaptable in times of crisis, and for organizations where such 

models are not appropriate to organizational missions, subsequently 

limits potential organizational impact. 

310
Part II

With respect to capacity building services, the Plural project 

findings suggest that these services entirely fail to meet the needs of 

later stage organizations even while capacity building is identified as a 

critical need of these organizations. Research indicates that many of 

the capacity building tools and initiatives directed at these organizations 

misinterpret their needs, designing programs based on models more 

appropriate for established mainstream arts institutions than the diverse 

situations of ethnocultural arts organizations and operating under the 

assumption that organizational leaders are less knowledgeable and 

sophisticated concerning management principles than they in fact are. 

Instead of lacking knowledge, later stage organizations lack the financial 

resources to support staff to implement management principles. As 

such, programs that focus on education and training rather than finding 

means to increase organizations’ number of (full-time) staff are unlikely 

to have a long-term effect in addressing the needs of these organizations.

The following are recommendations to funders and arts 

service organizations interested in supporting ethnocultural arts 

organizations in Survival-1, Stagnation, Growth, and Renewal stages: 

• For funders, provide multi-year, unrestricted funds not tied 

to such features as a minimum required size of operating 

budget, a certain number of paid staff, or, as applicable, 

the production of a certain amount of annual or seasonal 

programming

• For funders, lower or eliminate matching fund requirements 

as appropriate to take into account organizational context

• For funders, revise funding eligibility requirements so as to 

permit support of a range of collaborative models that allow 

for organizational resource sharing

• For funders, emulate efforts such as those at the Canada 

Council to adopt a more uniform grant application process 

and reporting system to reduce the heavy administrative time 

required to participate in the grant process

• For arts service organizations, develop and maintain a board 

registry to assist organizations in identifying and developing 

individuals interested in supporting the work of ethnocultural 

arts organizations and who could serve on boards

• For arts service organizations, provide training and other 

services directed at assisting ethnocultural arts organizations 

access increased financial support from the private sector 

that takes into account the contexts and constrains under 

which these organizations are operating

• For arts service organizations, provide services geared toward 

small arts organizations that can answer basic questions on 

such matters as production protocol (e.g., working with union 

actors) and identify experts in various management fields 

(similar to various existing services provided by volunteer 

lawyers and accountants in the arts groups but under one 

umbrella group)

• For arts service organizations, increase advocacy focused on 

dispelling misconceptions of ethnocultural arts organizations 

and increasing their visibility in the arts community

• For arts service organizations, engage in advocacy that 

encourages movement away from support structures solely 

reliant on institution building models

• For arts service organizations, create and expand 

programming that provides shared resource opportunities 

for small and mid-size organizations (e.g., administrative 

areas of marketing and fundraising in addition to programs 

geared toward sharing resources for artistic programming)

• For arts service organizations, develop or increase, as 

applicable, resources that identify free or low-cost available 

space

• For both, develop and increase, as applicable, programs 

subsidizing access to space

• For both, develop and support outsourced groups that handle 

the fundraising and administrative needs of extremely small 

organizations

• For both, identify and create a network of presenters 

interested in supporting ethnocultural artistic works

• For both, further develop and encourage a networked system 

of ethnocultural arts services and supports

• For both, hire and empower individuals committed to and 

knowledgeable of cultural equity principles to manage 

general programming and equity-related initiatives

311
Needs and Supports: A Life Cycle Approach 

Decline/Close

An identified life cycle stage in organizational development 

models, a few of our interview participants appear to be administratively 

in the period known as “Decline,” two have indefinitely halted 

programming, and two have permanently and literally closed the doors 

of their spaces and operations. Among these organizations are those 

that have largely been supported through contributions of community 

members’ time, in-kind and cash donations, and have never possessed 

paid staff, and organizations that, before permanently or temporarily 

ceasing operations, had employed several full-time members and been 

funded by a range of income sources. Almost all of these organizations 

had received critical acclaim for their work.

Similar to Survival-1 organizations, it became apparent during 

interviews that organizational leadership in Decline stage organizations 

are burnt out, retrenching programmatically and administratively, and 

losing the will and energy to continue operations. Echoing statements 

made by the smaller of these organizations, one US survey respondent 

(and interview participant) writes with respect to accessing arts services, 

“We’ve given up applying for grants. It’s easier to earn it although we 

can never earn enough.” In the space provided for general survey 

comments she adds,

In the past including the recent past, we have applied 

for aid in the way of arts grants. We have found that if 

we spend the time involved (we cannot afford a grant 

writer) that we are losing valuable time being artistic. 

Therefore although we have been encouraged to 

continue to apply, we have decided it is to our benefit 

to just do and be artistic rather than be administrators. 

We make just as much or more that way.

The types of challenges self-identified and expressed by 

Plural project participants in Decline are as follows:

• Lack of regular access to a significant level of unrestricted 

funds

• Lack of access to affordable venues appropriate to 

organizational needs

• Time intensive nature of identifying and pursuing grant 

opportunities and similar forms of contributed revenue

Image 57. Scottish Partnership for Arts and Education 

(SPAE), 2013. Students at Steger Sixth Grade Center 

composing a song. Photograph by Diane McCullough. 

Reproduced by permission from Scottish Partnership 

for Arts and Education.

312
Part II

• Decline in membership and loss of long-time donors due to 

demographic change (with respect to both age and ethnicity) 

and inability to attract newer and younger supporters and 

audiences

• Decline in earned income due to heavy reliance on 

increasingly irrelevant revenue models (e.g., subscription and 

membership)

• Increasing production costs but inability to raise ticket prices 

due to increased competition from similar ethnocultural arts 

organizations and unwillingness of audiences to pay more

• Decline in origin/base community support due to 

management decisions to professionalize/mainstream 

organization without consultation with, and endorsement by, 

origin community

• Changes in US immigration laws and regulations have 

rendered previous cross-border exchange difficult and 

effectively closed previously existing touring opportunities 

• Organizational uncertainty and instability due to recent – 

and rocky – leadership transition or loss of visionary and 

influential leadership

It is the sentiment on the part of several US survey respondents 

and interview participants both in these winding down stages and other 

organizational periods that the 501(c)(3) organizational model imposes 

too many administrative burdens on creative organizations in return for 

comparably few benefits. Moreover, the model fails to provide sufficient 

space for these artist activists to focus on the mission-oriented aspects of 

their work or the flexibility to respond to evolving programmatic and/

or community needs. In making these observations, project participants 

echo views long-held within segments of the nonprofit community, and 

especially among social justice oriented organizations. One US Plural 

project participant and former funder reframed these ideas when 

recounting a conversation he had had with the founder of a storied Black 

theater company many years before. This founder had turned down a 

large government grant aimed at building the company’s capacity and 

had ultimately elected to close the company out of exhaustion at the 

idea of engaging in further institution building activities. Wrapping up 

his story, the project participant stated simply, “Everyone keeps trying to 

build institutions, but there can only be so many institutions.” 

Sometimes organizations close, and this fact is not always a 

tragedy. The more important considerations are why, and what happens 

next. Describing her decision to place her company on “hiatus,” one US 

Plural project interviewee explains,

I...recognize that what you love sometimes you have to 

let it go. What is more important to me, [the company] 

or the existence of theater in my community?

That’s where I’m at right now. [The company] is like 

my baby, but what’s more important, what will have the 

longer life? Is it...what I have given, or is it something 

even beyond me? And understanding that, and being 

okay with that. There was a moment that I was okay 

with some things and then it really hit me: what if [the 

company] can’t carry this torch? ...Understanding that 

because what I think is, One, in order for [the company] 

to survive, it needs to be part of the community and 

the community needs to take ownership of it because I 

know that I can’t do this by myself...

Two, I think that – one of the challenges as well 

is funding. It’s – does the community want to take 

ownership of [the company], and if so, does [it] have 

to make changes? And if [the company] isn’t the right 

fit, then what is? ...I want to make sure that I’m there 

to pass it on and leave [the next person] with whatever 

tools that they need that will help them move forward. 

With many of the factors leading to organizational decline due 

to highly specific or – alternatively – highly systemic issues, in lieu of 

recommendations to funders and arts service organizations interested in 

supporting the efforts of this component of the ethnocultural arts field to 

reorganize, we suggest that these individuals and organizations consider 

the challenges listed throughout this book and focus on implementing 

the recommendations listed above and below. Replying to our survey 

question regarding what she believes to be the most important activity 

in which an arts service organization should engage, a Canadian survey 

respondent (and interview participant) writes,

313
Needs and Supports: A Life Cycle Approach 

To promote Mentorship within Canadian arts 

organizations to foster respect and historical recognition 

of the contribution of the Artists and Arts Organizations 

that helped develop our Canadian cultural identity. 

Keep our senior artists’ voices relevant. Provide 

opportunit[ies] for mature and young art practitioners 

to engage. Maintain the circle of sharing so experience 

and inexperience can learn together. Assess base level 

of operational funding for Arts Organizations that have 

proven track records and reputations for providing 

consistent good programming over 5 years.

3. Artistic Life Cycle – Endings and New 

Beginnings

A handful of Plural project participants had reached a stage of 

maturity and/or their desired administrative state, but reference issues on 

their mission-driven side that have led to decisions to halt programming 

in the near future. As one US project participant states, “Following [the 

company’s] 10th anniversary season and completing a body of work that 

took ten years to make...I arrived at a place artistically and as a director 

where I felt that stage of my journey was completed – fulfilled.” 

While each of the organizations in this group indicate that their 

decisions were hastened by the arduous efforts involved in attaining 

their desired administrative states, it is also clear that administrativeside support, including a sudden influx of unrestricted funds and staff, 

would not alter their decision to close their doors. Community activists 

and organizational leaders, they are also artists. They founded their 

organizations because they each had an idea and a strong mission, and 

they implemented these ideas and carried out these missions. Now they 

are ready for new sources of inspiration, new ideas, and new challenges. 

Specifically asked whether, if given $10 million in unrestricted funds 

tomorrow, they would continue in their current work, each of the 

interviewed organizations said most likely no. Referring to his earlier 

comment, the US interview participant cited above explains,

I arrived at a place where I felt like I had completed 

this body of work. And my options are either to rehash 

what I’ve been doing, which I’m not interested in, or 

jumping off of a cliff and going wherever, into the sea 

of uncertainty, to see what comes up. And what comes 

up may not actually be directly tied to the mission that 

I’ve been driving for the past 12 years. So I do want the 

freedom...now that 10 million dollars, if it was, ‘You 

go and you explore, and see what you come up with,’ I 

would take it.

This project participant is an award-winning choreographer who 

during those 12 years successfully built an internationally recognized 

dance company with a singular mission and repertoire. We are left only 

imagining the future achievements and potential contributions of the 

art world to our greater cultural lives if such individuals operated in an 

arts environment that more evenly, regularly, and equitably distributed 

support to allow for significant investment in promising early stage 

projects and new organizational forms.

4. Survival-2; Sustainable (Administrative)

We’ve grown up and left the nest of Mom and Pop, 

and we are learning how to be that conscious adult. 

Although 42 years, you’d think that was a long time 

for an organization, ‘It’s old for an organization,’ it’s 

not old and the possibilities that this organization has 

is amazing. – US Plural project participant (August 1, 

2013)

Next to Startups, we found standard depictions of Sustainable 

organizations the most problematic when applied to our project 

participants. Also termed “Mature” or “Institution” stage organizations 

in nonprofit developmental models, these organizations are frequently 

identified through an administrative lens. Typical administrative 

features are as follows: formal – and separated – management structures 

led by professional staff, an experienced board largely composed of 

prominent and/or high net-worth individuals, and balance sheets that 

reflect a highly diverse set of resources owned by and/or supporting 

organizational operations and activities. Such resources incorporate 

the results of planned giving programs and include large individual 

314
Part II

gift-giving, multi-year institutional grants, a variety of earned income 

activities, ownership of real estate, the existence of cash reserves and one 

or more endowments.

There are unquestionably ethnocultural arts organizations that fit 

these standard descriptors. The financially largest of these organizations 

exist in the United States and include the San Francisco-based Asian Art 

Museum, the New York-based Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater, 

the Los Angeles-based Skirball Cultural Center, the New York-based 

Jewish Museum, and the New York-based Japan Society, all of which in 

recent years have reported more than a minimum of $25 million in gross 

income and up to a maximum reported by one organization of slightly 

more than $157 million. The issue we identify with the descriptors is 

not that they are defined in such a manner that they do not apply to 

ethnocultural arts organizations, but that they fail to capture the many 

different means of operating in a sustainable manner. Moreover, many 

models of nonprofit sustainability greatly underemphasize the role 

organizational mission and programming play in creating (different 

kinds of) sustainable institutions.

To address this issue, we modified the standard interpretation 

of Sustainable organization to apply to any organization that appears to 

have successfully negotiated many of the challenges identified above (e.g., 

taking advantage of existing supports, finding a means of supporting 

a stable/reliable group of individuals to manage organizational 

programming and administrative operations, possessing regular access to 

one or more spaces sufficient to meet organizational needs and financial 

means, and transitioning leadership), has established programming, and 

that appears to have developed a good relationship with its intended 

audience(s) and/or community/ies.

The last type of organization we encountered in our research 

and that we identify here are organizations in what we have termed 

a “Survival-2” stage. Most of these organizations have the outward 

appearance of organizations in Startup, Formalization, or Survival-1 

stages but internally and programmatically are more similar to 

Sustainable organizations. Offering established and well-regarded (by 

their source and/or by the greater arts community) programming, 

these are organizations led by individuals with a solid to highly 

sophisticated grasp of organizational and program management and 

often (though not always) with little to no aspirations of “institution 

building.” Several of these project participants had in earlier periods 

adopted the generally larger and more diversified organizational 

structures of Growth and Sustainable organizations, but had found that 

these structures were incompatible with organizational missions and/

or artistic interests. Sustainable in certain components, due to their 

generally heavy dependence on a small number of founding individuals, 

as currently structured these organizations appear unlikely to survive 

past the departure of founding members/key leadership. Nevertheless, 

at present, these organizations also appear to have achieved their desired 

programmatic and administrative operating levels.

The types of developmental constraints self-identified and 

expressed by Plural project participants in Sustainable and Survival-2 life 

cycle stages are as follows:

• Need for greater and more stable access to unrestricted, 

multi-year funding

• Need to increase or raise revenue to cover additional costs 

associated with owning/maintaining a space

• Need to increase the number of paid staff

• Need to transition leadership

• Need to transition and/or further develop board members

• Need to develop a broad(er) donor base within origin 

communities that come from countries and/or cultures where 

individual giving in the arts is not part of the arts support 

system

• Need to build and develop a younger/new generation of 

artists

• Need to attract/reach new audiences

• Need to communicate value of art to struggling communities

• Need for stronger distribution channels for work

• Need for increased visibility and critical/media coverage and 

knowledgeable critical/media coverage

Possibly more so than ethnocultural arts organizations in other life cycle 

stages, Sustainable and Survival-2 participants point to broader cultural 

and systemic issues as threats to their continued sustainability. Among 

these many issues, we discuss below organizational concerns related to 

315
Needs and Supports: A Life Cycle Approach 

developing a younger generation of artists and arts administrators and 

what we believe to be is the related issue of critical art historical attention 

and media coverage.

A challenge articulated by organizations across life cycle stages 

and ethnic groups and located in both Canada and the United States 

is attracting and supporting a new generation of arts leaders from an 

organization’s origin community and the more immediate and specific 

challenge of leadership transition/succession. Pointing to the former 

issue impacting the ethnocultural arts field, a US interview participant 

observes, “One thing...that is troubling is the lack of arts administrators 

of color. There’s not a lot of people [who] are coming into the field. 

What happens to these culturally specific arts organizations, who is going 

to lead them? Who is going to have that language?” These sentiments are 

not limited to organizations of color; a number of White ethnocultural 

art organization participants describe unsuccessful efforts and new 

initiatives directed at bringing in younger artists and organizational 

members.

Several factors may be attributed to the actual and perceived 

small(er) pool of younger ethnocultural artists and arts managers. Both 

early stage and later stage participants reference the changing nature of 

audience engagement with the arts and the impact of social media on 

the nature in which their work is received and digested. Plural project 

participants working within music and theater disciplines are particularly 

conscious of these greater cultural changes. Identifying their most 

pressing challenge as the need for “young members” to maintain the 

vitality of the organization, one Canadian music participant explains, 

“Younger. I’m not saying teenagers, I’m saying women in their early 

twenties, early thirties...we need our daughters and sons to go. And they 

don’t. They don’t. Is it the pull of the television or the computer? When 

did that change in these people’s lives when they think, ‘Yeah, I can sing 

in a choir...’”

Detailing recent shifts in programmatic focus, another Canadian 

music group elaborates on the larger issue of connecting with younger 

individuals: 

I would say in the last four years, it’s really changed. The 

advent of electronic media has changed what young 

people want to see, their attention span. Everything 

that was a guaranteed situation and environment for us 

changed and I could feel it, that we needed to change 

our methodology and we need to reinvent ourselves 

because although we are highly regarded and good, 

it’s like they’ve seen it...and so that’s what we are 

undergoing right now is reinventing an infrastructure 

so that the individuals who are dedicated here can keep 

working in this art form and not give it up and so we’re 

changing to be more ‘teaching’ and ‘workshop’ people, 

which we’re happy to do because it’s really difficult to 

be a performing group because of the two way nature 

that people want in their lives. Reality TV, this is my 

feeling about it, is that people want to be engaged, they 

don’t necessarily want to be entertained anymore. And 

they’re hoping that you can show them your talent but, 

‘please involve me and show me how to do it in 15 

minutes and if I can do it in half an hour, great. And 

then I’ll go to the next thing.’ We are just moving faster. 

So that’s totally fine but if you’re trying to hang on to 

what you did and you get resentful about like, ‘Man, 

nothing about me has changed,’ well that’s why you’re 

dead. 

...At the last show they were saying ‘Okay everyone 

tweet!’ And we were just like, ‘Oh God there’s kids 

hanging onto their phones the whole show.’ Try to 

go next to them and say, ‘Really can you just be here 

with us?’ Takes that much, a [character] going up to a 

student to guilt him to put it away...I don’t know, it’s 

a little disillusioning because no one seems to care, so 

you’re just trying to get through it and figure out, what 

is the standard now? How can they watch us, be looking 

at their thing, tweeting and what does live performance 

mean then if we are not here all together being live and 

interacting? I don’t know, they would rather look at it 

through their phone, not look at it. So it’s been a little 

bit of a challenge to really understand how to change 

what you do and still feel like you’re hitting the mark. 

But when has it ever been any different?

While some spoke of the challenges inherent in operating in a 

cultural landscape with many competing opportunities for entertainment, 

316
Image 58. Los Cenzontles Mexican Arts Center’s ensemble group, made up of advanced music students. Seated on stage, Lucina Rodriguez (dance and 

music instructor) and clockwise: Favio Valazquez, Emely Reachi, and Verenice Velazquez. Reproduced by permission from Los Cenzontles Mexican 

Arts Center.

317
Needs and Supports: A Life Cycle Approach 

no project participant currently led by members of the next generation 

(“next Gen”) mentioned the increasing importance of new technology 

in this landscape or the increasingly participation-based cultural 

climate as part of developmental concerns. As with the first generation 

(“first Gen”) participant cited above, many of these individuals are 

regularly incorporating various forms of social media and other 

online communications platforms into their work to connect with 

their members and audiences. For some of these organizations, social 

media-based technology is an important part of organizational plans to 

increase earned income, communicate with national and international 

audiences while maintaining strong brick and mortar-based and sitespecific local programming, and as one Canadian participant describes 

it, to otherwise assist an organization that is “hitting above its weight” in 

the more effective execution of its mandate and programs. An individual 

hired by one next Gen led and civil rights era-founded US organization 

explains the importance of such technologies to the group’s recent 

expanded focus:

Perhaps one of our challenges right now is how can 

we get the art that has a message out there to other 

places beyond the physical space of [the organization], 

understanding that...the world right now is 

interconnected, and being just a physical space is one 

thing, being an Internet space is another thing. Making 

sure that the art that we present goes to areas where it’s 

no longer presented or is not usually presented. Those 

components are things that we are looking into the 

future and thinking and trying to expand on.

This organization offers Skype sessions with guest artists, maintains an 

active blog that covers such items as the introduction and discussion of 

current and upcoming programs as well as upcoming board meetings 

and agenda items, and a website that audio streams selections of 

upcoming musical programs. Other project participants offer one or 

more of these Internet-based means of servicing a range of audiences 

and introduce other features such as podcasts of live programming.

Less concerned with the impact of changing forms of 

communication, several next Gen-led project participants committed to 

working within the ethnocultural arts field point to an issue captured in 

previous literature and needs assessments (discussed in Part I): frustration 

with what they see as an unwillingness of some first and older generation 

artists and arts leaders to complicate the themes, narratives, and styles 

of ethnically specific art and to mentor while providing these next 

Gen arts leaders with agency to move the field, including surrounding 

critical dialogue, in different directions. This sense of frustration is not 

aimed solely at older generation ethnocultural artists but at the arts 

community and our greater societies. A US theater participant describes 

his organization’s founding by “a group of playwrights that just said to 

themselves,”

‘People believe that Black theater is a certain thing, 

and we are all African American playwrights who write 

about different issues. It’s not at all what Black theater 

once was – all about protest. It’s a completely different 

thing. There’s still some protest, but there [are] also 

other identity issues that people write about. So we need 

to do a festival of some sort of short plays that is a new 

kind of representation of Black theater.’

Clarifying that the desire to open up his ethnocultural arts practice is 

“directed to the world at large, and then more specifically to the theater 

community,” he adds,

As you know, in the arts there’s very little opportunity 

for anybody to get ahead. Consistently, when theater 

companies are building their seasons, they might have 

an artist of color represented, but only one. If you look 

at the Black plays that are produced these days, they’re 

still about the same old thing...Not really focused on 

works just written by Black people, but normally focused 

on works written by Black people about protesting the 

world that they live in...I think it was as much to the 

Black community as it was to the theater community to 

say, ‘Listen, we have this complex array of issues. You 

know that. Let’s remind you of that by showcasing plays 

of these writers.’

318
Part II

and supporting Welsh singers in Southern Pennsylvania or theater artists 

of color in Halifax. 

The lack of a sufficient number of ethnocultural artists is an 

issue that appears to be highly discipline, geographically, and ethnically 

specific; in contrast, the lack of a sufficient number of arts administrators 

of color, and for our purposes viewed as a lack of a broad based pool 

of arts administrators knowledgeable about one or more ethnocultural 

art forms and communities, is a well-documented issue within the arts 

community.27 Existing studies suggest an array of systemic features 

leading to the overrepresentation of White arts administrators in arts 

institutions, particularly in leadership positions, which in many ways 

resemble issues identified as leading to gender and racial inequity in 

other professional fields (e.g., unequal access to arts education beginning 

in early childhood, disparate levels of the quality of existing educational 

resources, lack of support and mentorship in educational institutions, 

cultural and economic constraints in pursuing certain opportunities, and 

unequal access to job opportunities). We add here only a few observations 

gleaned from our discussions with project participants.

Arguably more important than with the career development of 

artists, employers often require that arts administrators possess – at a 

minimum – a postsecondary degree and a certain history of job stability. 

While artists may hold multiple short-term and part-time positions 

(whether arts-related or not) and, for those with more marketable work 

product, sell artwork to generate additional income, career development 

for administrators generally necessitates a less rhizomatic and more linear 

structure. For emerging and less well-connected arts administrators, 

paid entry-level, career-related opportunities are rare and thus these 

emerging managers and leaders are directed and encouraged to seek 

unpaid internships. An additional problematic feature of the job market 

that has been well-documented is unpaid internships in the nonprofit 

and for-profit sectors;28 we reference it only to highlight that, in many 

cases, these deceptively open but effectively prohibitive opportunities 

only serve to perpetuate a two-track system. For individuals from more 

affluent backgrounds, these opportunities may in time lead to paid 

positions and longer-term job stability and growth. The existence of 

unpaid internships as the primary means to further the career path of 

individuals from less affluent backgrounds, however, effectively places 

Noting that “theater is enmeshed in identity politics more than it ever 

has been” and the challenges this situation presents for his organization 

in communicating with wide audiences, a Canadian participant frames 

the issue as “We just can’t present sunny viewpoints about what it is to 

be Jewish; we’ve got to present all the viewpoints of what it means to be 

Jewish.” 

A number of first Gen artists and arts managers agree. States 

one of these US participants, who is a manager of a multidisciplinary 

space, 

When you’re culturally specific, you’re rooted in a 

tradition. Sometimes it’s hard to let go that that has 

changed. What was important to the African American 

community 25 years ago is much different. And so you 

have to adapt. But also I think as an arts organization 

specifically, and as artists, we have an obligation to keep 

that story alive. And we have a very unique position 

and ability to be able to carry those stories forward...We 

have that obligation, but at the same time continuing to 

realize that there are new stories, and new things that 

are informing those communities, and we need to be 

part of that dialogue.

The theater participants referenced above join others in feeling strongly 

that, within their field, a diverse pool of artists exists, and they are joined 

by project participants from other disciplines in the opinion that the 

arts support system needs to focus on increasing the visibility of diverse 

artists and their experiences. 

Based on a consideration of all research findings of the Plural 

project and current broader discussions in the arts community, it seems 

clear to us that the diversity, or lack thereof, of artists in the Canadian and 

US arts community depends in no small part on how that community 

and other terms such as “art” and “artist” are defined. It also depends 

on the arts discipline and geographic location in question: although 

categorized as “a need to build and develop a younger/new generation 

of artists,” the issues involved in identifying and supporting visual artists 

of Latino descent located in the Los Angeles area or theater artists of 

color in Toronto are far different than the issues involved in identifying 

319
Needs and Supports: A Life Cycle Approach 

these emerging administrators on a slower developmental path, if not 

halting it entirely. Many potential ethnocultural arts administrators are 

located in low-income communities. 

Referring to the sluggish career paths of arts workers from 

lower-income backgrounds, a Canadian project participant observes,

You can’t make money successively in the arts, you 

can’t. And so that’s why I think we see the – it’s just 

such a simple equation...if you give young artists 

money they will create more art. If you don’t give 

young artists money, then they will have difficulty 

creating new art. So when people ask where are the 

new plays, where are the new artists, they’re working 

at Starbucks.

The inability of many ethnocultural-focused and interested artists 

and arts administrators to accept unpaid positions creates a particular 

dilemma for ethnocultural arts organizations.

 Another of the multiple contributing factors to the need to 

support a new generation of artists and arts administrators regards 

the often limited ability of ethnocultural arts organizations to 

provide financial support to this emerging group during their period 

of training. With many organizations highly under-resourced and 

lacking sufficient resources to support more than a few, if any, paid 

staff, a number of project participants identify unpaid internships as 

problematic but unavoidable. Many participants also note the difficulty 

in attracting qualified administrative staff, particularly in development 

positions, largely due to their inability to pay salaries at market rates 

and the loss of administrative staff trained internally to larger and – 

not infrequently – mainstream institutions. 

Based on research for the Plural project and our own 

experiences as students in a graduate level arts administration 

program, the consistently low numbers of existing arts administrators 

of color and/or other ethnocultural administrators, and the particular 

difficultly of a number of ethnocultural arts organizations in recruiting 

these individuals, may also be attributed to the following: (i) lack of 

substantive efforts on the part of many postsecondary institutions to 

recruit and support students expressing these career interests, (ii) the 

focus of targeted support programs on encouraging minority recruitment 

and training in mainstream arts institutions through the provision of 

additional funds to these institutions, and (iii) the under-prioritization by 

more than a few ethnocultural arts organizations of integrating financial 

support of emerging arts workers and future leaders into short-term 

and long-term organizational planning. Expressing sentiments shared 

by many next Gen staff members of project participants, the Canadian 

participant cited above states, “[U]npaid internships, I hate more than 

anything. I think it has more value to just get one grant and have them 

assistant direct on one show for eight weeks than to have them filing 

paperwork for a year.” This participant works for an organization that has 

developed a policy wherein no individual may work for the organization 

without payment, even if only in the form of a small daily stipend. The 

organization also manages a paid apprenticeship program in various 

areas of arts management that mentors individuals directly and, due to 

the organization’s mid-size budget, four person staff, limited number of 

productions, and lack of a performance venue, works to place individuals 

with larger companies of their choice to provide them with greater 

visibility and exposure to opportunities. Several of these apprentices were 

subsequently hired by the organization, and others secured positions at a 

range of other arts institutions.

Within the many greater cultural shifts and challenges impacting 

the availability of staff and the creation and distribution of work fall 

participant concerns regarding leadership transition and the need to 

increase critical media and art historical attention. During the course 

of research for the Plural project, we met with one ethnocultural arts 

organization that is in the middle of a crisis due to the recent death 

of its well-connected and prominent founder. Over the course of the 

organization’s history, it had presented a range of programming aimed at 

supporting the development of origin community artists and showcasing 

the contributions of origin community art to wider local and national 

audiences. The organization was funded by a vibrant membership base, 

large contributions from individual donors, foundations, and corporate 

support, which collectively enabled it to draw further support from, 

and present programming featuring, internationally acclaimed origin 

community artists. Virtually all of this support and activity could be 

attributed to the efforts of the organization’s charismatic founder.

320
321 Part II

has already begun searching for a sufficient level of resources to hire and 

mentor this yet-unidentified individual:

We’ve gone through all kinds of training, you name it, 

over the years, but what we have to do is get a Deputy 

Director that I could train...Then we have to get 

the money because we don’t have the money for that 

Deputy Director... we cannot bring on someone in that 

kind of position and pay them what I get paid because 

they’re not going to have that kind of commitment as a 

founder. 

In addition to the particular challenges confronting ethnocultural 

arts organizations in identifying new leadership, media and art historical 

coverage, or the lack thereof, is another developmental constraint 

identified by organizations in all life cycle stages though, based on 

participant responses, it appears to be slightly more heavily prioritized 

by Growth and Sustainable stage organizations. Illustrative participant 

comments regarding media-related challenges include the following: 

• I spent quite a bit of....resources hiring these publicists, and 

they did a lot of work and ...we had ads in newspapers, that 

had never been done in [the organization]...It paid off in 

audience members. For the first time we packed houses and 

we had to tell almost a hundred people every night [that] 

we didn’t have seats for them. It was fully sold out. It was 

amazing. [The organization] had never seen that amount of 

people come to a play, and we were in a really big theater, 

so in terms of audience it paid off. No critics went to see 

the play. So why? I don’t know, you know? It was very very 

discouraging actually. – Canadian interview participant

• Another thing: We are the first group from [this region] 

to represent the American Association of Community 

Theaters in Monaco, in the most prestigious international 

theater festival. Nobody knows about us. When we try to do 

something, I don’t know, either we email the wrong people or 

we don’t do it in a correct way, or some way that....it [just] 

doesn’t get us anywhere. – US interview participant

Slowly over the past two decades, demographic and cultural shifts 

combined with the founder’s failing health had resulted in a substantial 

drop in revenue from all previous sources and a retrenchment of 

programming. While the organization’s volunteers were, and are, wholly 

committed to the organization’s vision and mission, it appears that none 

of these individuals possess(ed) the singular mixture of artistic skill and 

knowledge, origin community familiarity, management skills, and access 

to high-wealth individuals and other donors to lead the organization 

into its next stage. One of the organization’s board members and a close 

associate of the founder explains,

It never expanded. There were a couple of people that 

were around. I would do all the artwork and stuff like 

that. I’m not one of those persons that do administrative 

[work]...[The founder], he came up with names of 

this guy from Africa, and this PhD from here, and they 

would get funding from different places to send [the 

artists]...he knew all the right people to make it work. 

Since we met, the board has continued some local programming and 

continues to search for a means to restructure the organization, which 

includes possibly changing its mission.

Other later stage interview participants in both countries are 

more pro-actively engaged in leadership succession planning and/or 

broadening their pool of organization-affiliated artists who are familiar 

with the cultural contexts of these organizations. Resembling the 

situations of these project participants, a US interviewee describes her 

organization’s challenges in identifying appropriate individuals to take 

over management roles within the organization. “People who come here 

have to have a real sense of mission work,” she observes. “It’s not an 8 

to 5 job, or a 9 to 5 job. It just isn’t going to happen, it’s not realistic, 

and you shouldn’t even put your foot in here if you think that’s what’s 

going to happen.” As the founder of a well-known and long-established 

institution providing a wealth of artistic and educational programming 

to an ethnically diverse but overwhelmingly low-income community 

facing many challenges, she is intimately familiar with the long hours, 

multiple roles, and often extremely low pay involved in managing an 

ethnocultural arts organization. She also realizes that low pay may 

preclude her from recruiting a sufficiently qualified successor and thus 
Needs and Supports: A Life Cycle Approach 322

• It’s telling me that we have to put our thoughts out there 

in a different format. Not just in the work that we’re doing, 

and maybe this is just a little bit of my own academic 

background, but I do think we should be reading and 

writing, but who has the time to prioritize those things? If I 

had the time, I would like to be writing reviews of shows...

but we spend so much of our emotional and physical labor 

just trying to parse out what’s happening that it’s hard to 

be productive and engage in those arguments. – Canadian 

interview participant

Despite their achievements and, for those possessing the 

requisite financial resources, funds spent on marketing, these 

participants join many other organizations in reporting difficulties 

in attracting (better) media coverage outside of their ethnocultural 

communities and broader ethnocultural arts circles. Either because 

they lack the marketing budget or greater marketing efforts have been 

less successful, a number of project participants rely on networking 

and more informal means of reaching current and new audiences. For 

more than a few ethnocultural arts organizations, the constant inability 

to garner critical attention for their successes has only contributed 

to isolation and heightens the pressures on these organizations to 

(continue to) succeed or risk reinforcing persistent negative stereotypes 

of the field. Explains one US interviewee in commenting on the Plural 

project, 

When we encounter people such as yourself, and the 

people that you’re working with on this project, that 

are interested in culturally specific arts organizations, 

it just makes more people in the world aware of the 

work that we do. And that’s very important because 

sometimes you can feel like you’re in a vacuum, that 

because you don’t have the advertising dollars...that 

maybe you’re not able to reach as many people. A lot 

of our audience is word of mouth.

Noting that their small marketing budget is due to the organization’s 

more general lack of resources, she adds, “That’s why it’s so much 

pressure for the plays to be the best that they can be. Not just because 

they should be. But I’m saying because...how would I say this? You 

almost can’t fail. You almost can’t ever fail...And that’s difficult because 

failing is a part of growing.”

In Part I, we referenced ongoing dialogue concerning the historic 

and continuing negative effects of critical attention misinformed and/or 

misrepresenting ethnocultural art. While there is widespread agreement 

among project participants that the general media and broader arts 

community has much to learn, in this area at least the situation appears 

to be changing. Observes one US organization regarding this evolution, 

[The environment] is noticeably better because 

there’s competition. The blogosphere has made the 

environment better because the bloggers have come 

into the mix like, ‘I’m going to see all of it’...apparently 

people out in the world had been just as frustrated as the 

art community of color because they didn’t see reviews 

about what was playing...that was the environment. 

So social media and the access to building webpages 

and creating your own blogs, as this has started to take 

shape, as with music and every other discipline, the 

bloggers have literally changed the game.

Some of the mainstream papers are, because they’re 

losing readership, starting to take notice that they have 

to come out. And critics are getting younger...there’s a 

whole generation of critics that believed that theater was 

inherently white and anything else was an exception, 

and they couldn’t get around to it unless it was at one of 

the ‘white’ houses... 

It is clear as the country has changed, especially in the 

last twenty years since I’ve been professional, and the 

reviewers get younger, and it’s a different generation, 

there has been a considerable amount of movement 

forward. Is it enough? Absolutely not. But we were 

so far behind, and it was such a hostile environment 

before, the fact that the environment is no longer as 

hostile or grating, and the fact that there are people 

in the community, that when what happened with Silk 

Road and Hedy [Weiss] that the entire community of 

color actually was like, ‘This is not acceptable,’ means 

that there is progress.
Part II

Leadership Transition

For ethnocultural arts organizations concerned with leadership transition, 

we present the following experiences of two project participants who are 

navigating and have navigated, respectively, this challenge.

Formed in 2005 by a group of Iqaluit-based arts leaders, the 

Alianait Arts Festival (Alianait) works with schools and local, national, 

and international organizations “to promote creativity, healthy lifestyles, 

and traditional cultural performances.”1 Led by Co-founder and 

Festival/Executive Director Heather Daley, the organization has grown 

from a grassroots initiative with no funding to an international event that 

hosts an annual, alcohol-free four-day festival of music, film, storytelling, 

circus arts, dance, theater, and the visual arts and that showcases the 

work of emerging and renowned artists from around the world, with 

a particular emphasis on the circumpolar region. In addition to the 

festival, Alianait presents concerts and other events throughout the year. 

Shortly after the festival’s formation, Daley began planning to 

transition Alianait’s leadership. As she works closely with a number of 

other community-based organizations to produce the festival, during 

the festival’s early years she identified several local young arts leaders 

interested in various aspects of the festival’s mission and work and has 

actively worked to further develop the skills of these youth. Daley is more 

closely mentoring one of these individuals, a particularly promising 

young woman and performer who has been with Alianait for the past 

five years in the roles of trainee and part-time festival coordinator. 

Having discussed with this emerging arts administrator Daley’s desire 

for her to take over the Executive Director position, Daley has been 

slowly exposing her to the many responsibilities involved in managing 

the organization. To assist this process and ensure that the young woman 

is ready, Daley has enrolled both of them in CAPACOA’s Succession 

Plan program, which connects future successors with a wide network of 

mentors located throughout Canada, and is seeking additional funding to 

cover tuition costs so that the young woman can take arts administration 

courses. Daley is also focusing on increasing operating support: while for 

many years she volunteered her time in the management of Alianait and 

has in recent years waived her salary as Director to open up additional 

financial resources for programming, she is well-aware of the Arctic’s 

high costs of living and that such a precarious financial arrangement 

would be unacceptable to most individuals carrying on someone else’s 

dream. With Daley considering retiring within the next few years and 

the near certain likelihood that her chosen replacement will not be 

prepared by this time, Daley is also planning on identifying a temporary 

replacement who will continue to train Alianait’s new leader.

Ballet Hispanico New York (Ballet Hispanico) has within the past 

five years completed a successful transition of leadership. Founded in 

1970 by dancer and choreographer Tina Ramirez as a “dance school and 

community-based performing arts troupe,” Ballet Hispanico “explores, 

preserves, and celebrates Latino cultures through dance.”2

 Through its 

now professional dance company, school, and education and outreach 

programming, the internationally-acclaimed organization has for over 

40 years worked to build and facilitate cross-cultural dialogue, educate 

audiences on the diversity and dynamism of Latino artistic traditions, 

and develop young artists and leaders. 

In 2009, Ramirez stepped down and Eduardo Vilaro took over as 

Ballet Hispanico’s new Artistic Director. A choreographer, arts educator, 

former member of the Ballet Hispanico Company, and a founder of 

his own company (Chicago-based Luna Negra Dance Theater), Vilaro 

is especially well-equipped to continue to grow the organization. 

Reflecting on the transition process, Vilaro observes that it was relatively 

smooth: the organization hired a good search team, the board selected 

an individual with experience as a dancer and founder (as opposed to 

the selection by many ballet companies of individuals more narrowly 

focused on choreography), and Vilaro was provided with space to lead. 

He notes that, in hindsight, the existence of certain measures 

prior to the change in leadership would have further smoothed the 

transition. Asked by us to share a few insights gained during this process, 

Vilara provides the following observations and recommendations for 

other organizations preparing to transition leadership:

323
Needs and Supports: A Life Cycle Approach 

• Leadership succession involves not simply transitioning a 

position but transitioning an organization; think of it as 

a process, a series of events, rather than a specific date that 

change will occur. 

• During the search process, all parties should be clear as to 

expectations, identify potential challenges and new needs, and 

develop and agree upon a transition plan to cover the next 

several years after a new leader takes over (Vilaro recommends 

a five-year plan).

Since Vilaro began his tenure as Artistic Director, Ballet Hispanico has 

continued to thrive. Honoring its history while challenging itself to explore 

new directions through the presentation of new works and expanding its 

reach to open conversations with new audiences, the company, like the 

ethnocultural arts field, is here to stay. “The vision for this company is 

about moving it from – it was started as saying, ‘We need a voice at the 

table,’” explains Vilaro. “And now the vision for this company is, ‘We are 

the voice that makes change.’” Speaking of the field more broadly, he 

adds, “We are going to be the beacons of cultural discourse in ways that 

people have yet to imagine.”

Notes

1. All information herein regarding Alianait is based on a review of 

the festival’s website (http://www.alianait.ca) and an interview held at Alianait’s 

offices conducted by Mina Matlon with Heather Daley (Co-founder & Festival 

Director, Alianait Arts Festival), May 10, 2013, audio recording on file with 

Plural project co-leads.

2. All information herein regarding Ballet Hispanico is based on a 

review of the company’s website (http://www.ballethispanico.org) and an 

interview held at Ballet Hispanico’s offices conducted by Mina Matlon with 

Eduardo Vilaro (Artistic Director, Ballet Hispanico New York), August 1, 2013, 

audio recording on file with Plural project co-leads.

324
325 Part II

Alternative media outlets particularly praised by US ethnocultural 

theater participants are the “online knowledge platform” HowlRound,29

and Canadian visual arts participants praise more established 

publications such as FUSE Magazine, which is “a venue for timely and 

politically engaged publishing and programming reflecting the diversity 

of the contemporary art world.”30 After 38 years of publications, FUSE 

is dissolving this year (2014). Long-term undercapitalization, largely due 

to the nonprofit’s inability to obtain sufficient operating funds to hire a 

full-time staff person, led to the organization’s decision.31

Looking forward, many project participants point to the need 

for a continued focus on the mainstreaming of ethnocultural art as 

an important avenue of supporting the longer-term sustainability of 

organizations; that is, conveying the message that we are all culturally 

specific, and thus the universal is the specific. Echoing views expressed 

by the overwhelming majority of interview participants, one of the US 

interviewees cited above emphasizes, 

That’s the beauty of a diverse culture. We have the 

choice once we’re adults to take a little bit of everything 

and create the world that we’re in...We have to learn 

from each other. That’s the way life is. I can’t just live in 

a Black world. That’s not reality. But my art speaks from 

the experience that I come from, which is an African 

American woman, who went to Catholic schools all her 

life but was taught by my parents that I needed to know 

where I come from....So when people say to me, ‘Why 

an African American theater company?’ I say, ‘Why not? 

Why shouldn’t our stories be told? They’re universal 

stories. They happen to be told by African American 

artists. When you go to other theater companies, 

they’re not African American artists up there telling 

those stories. They’re other, mostly Caucasian, artists 

that are telling those stories. You want me to believe 

and understand that story as an African American. 

I’m telling you to do the same thing.’ That’s where the 

equal-ness has to come in.

For organizations that spoke with us about educating a broader arts 

consuming public on ethnocultural arts activity, there is a split in their 

evaluation of efforts to address the situation through such approaches 

as adding diversity-focused programming to arts services and creating 

cultural diversity committees. Several organizations, particularly survey 

respondents, specifically recommend such programming. Others reject 

such diversity training as ineffective and lacking in substance. States one 

Canadian interview participant,

I don’t think another forum on diversity between 

many, many companies is what is needed. These 

forums on diversity, they seem to happen quite a bit 

in different formats, where everybody comes together. 

It’s an opportunity for a white person to say something 

awkward that you didn’t think that they felt, and then 

everybody feels awkward. That’s what the opportunity 

is, is to figure out who is actually a secret racist or 

accidentally racist...And if it’s not me, then I did a good 

job through the thing.

Adds another Canadian less humorously, “I sit in [a major national arts 

service organization’s] meetings once in awhile, and they keep talking 

about the things that just don’t offer anything concrete. So they’ve formed 

a committee, a culturally diverse committee. If diversity is a national 

concept, why does it have to be in the form of a committee? Why can’t 

it be a governing concept?” He then notes that this organization has 

yet to revise policy or the structures of any of its core programs to 

accommodate diversity or equity.

Organizations holding separate points of view with respect to 

the effectiveness of diversity and equity programs at the professional 

arts and arts services levels all agree that diversifying arts studies at the 

grade, high school, and post secondary levels would have far greater 

impact. Returning to Covarrubias and the need for a holistic approach 

to addressing the many inequities permeating the arts community and 

its system(s) of support, these academic programs have the ability to play 

a large role in increasing the visibility and understanding of the field as 

a whole and in the work of artists operating outside of the assimilated 

Western mainstream. To this end, most interview participants find that 

the educational environment has – slowly – improved. Observes one 

Canadian interviewee, “[Students] are learning about people, actually. 

They’re learning [that] there are other art forms. I think that race, 

ethnicity, feminism, post colonial studies, they have had some impact, 
Needs and Supports: A Life Cycle Approach 

so some of the course material is beginning to include the history of 

others.” Borrowing the words of one of the US project participants 

quoted above, we ask, Is it enough? Absolutely not. In outlining the 

multiple systemic constraints faced by ethnocultural arts organizations 

and artists as they seek to continue to grow and attain sustainability, 

another Canadian interview participant concludes, “I think the 

problem is in the schools. The beginning part is important. The rest – 

artists usually are able to work together to find good solutions.”

Do the services offered by support systems correlate with the needs of 

ethnocultural arts organizations? (Survival-2; Sustainable) 

Research for the Plural project indicates that the current support 

system does not meet the needs of ethnocultural arts organizations in 

Survival-2 and Sustainable stages. While there are a range of services 

aimed at supporting the ethnocultural arts field, largely absent are arts 

services focused on addressing systemic issues at the grassroots level; 

specifically, advocacy directed at educational institutions at all levels 

to teach subject matter that promotes broader awareness of the field, 

alternative organizational models, and to cultivate knowledge within 

the next generation of arts administrators, researchers, scholars, and 

advocates of the ethnocultural arts field. 

Drawing from our own experiences in a graduate-level arts 

administration and policy program, and from the stories of peers 

in other arts administration programs, courses were taught from 

a “generalist” perspective that lacked the necessary complexity to 

address the multitude of complex issues experienced by ethnocultural 

arts organizations, and rarely were these organizations mentioned or 

the subject of case studies. This omission is not entirely due to the lack 

of information on the field: during our literature review, we identified 

research over the last 20 to 30 years that offers valuable information 

on ethnocultural arts organizations and other organizations operating 

outside of mainstream arts environments. The development of 

courses, certifications, or degrees at educational institutions focused on 

the ethnocultural arts field and/or alternative organizational models 

shows promise of having a more lasting impact in the strengthening 

of the field by creating greater knowledge and awareness of these 

organizations and models by funders, administrators at arts service 

organizations and mainstream institutions, and in supporting 

tomorrow’s future ethnocultural arts leaders. 

The following are recommendations to funders and arts 

service organizations interested in supporting ethnocultural arts 

organizations in Survival-2 and Sustainable stages: 

• For funders, provide multi-year, unrestricted funds not tied 

to such features as a minimum required size of operating 

budget, a certain number of paid staff, or, as applicable, 

the production of a certain amount of annual or seasonal 

programming

• For arts service organizations, advocate at the city and state 

level to support city/state financing for ethnocultural arts 

organizations to own and operate their own spaces

• For arts service organizations, generally increase political 

advocacy on behalf of ethnocultural arts organizations 

• For arts service organizations, serve as a cultural broker by 

creating (more) opportunities for communities and artists to 

interact

• For arts service organizations, create and expand 

programming that provides shared resource opportunities 

for small and mid-size organizations

• For both, support and expand existing efforts to increase 

the racial diversity of arts schools and arts administration 

programs

• For both, increase opportunities for emerging artists and arts 

administrators of color and individuals interested in working 

with ethnocultural art forms to obtain financial assistance to 

support internships at individuals’ institutions of choice

• For both, provide financing and customized support 

programs to assist in the identification and mentoring of 

emerging and mid-career ethnocultural arts leaders; for 

example, offering and expanding programming similar to 

CAPACOA’s “Succession Plan,” which is a mentorship and 

peer network development program

• For both, hire and empower individuals committed and 

knowledgeable of cultural equity principles to manage 

general programming and equity-related initiatives

 * * *

326
Image 59. Contrary Clowns, Debajehmujig Storytellers. Seven Minute Side Show, 2013. Left to right: Ashley Manitowabi, Elisha Sidlar, 

Bruce Naokwegijig, Joahnna Berti, and Serina Merling. Photograph by Ron Berti. Reproduced by permission from Ron Berti.

327
Needs and Supports: A Life Cycle Approach 328

Throughout this book, we have touched on the many challenges 

facing ethnocultural arts organizations, and the achievements of the field 

despite those challenges. For those working outside of the field, we hope 

to inspire further interest and better means of supporting ethnocultural 

arts organizations. For the dedicated volunteers and staff working within 

it, we hope that this work serves as a reminder that you are not alone and 

as a documentation of how much you have accomplished. 

We are well aware that many of the challenges illustrated herein 

have existed for decades; so have many of the proposed solutions, and 

our research provides a mixed picture of the support systems in both our 

countries. In examining the systems we have in place, the one finding 

that is clear to us, however, is that a tremendously diverse and complex 

field is currently served by systems born out of one cultural background, 

one point of view. “It’s time,” as musician and philanthropist Peter 

Buffett states in a critique of the “charitable-industrial complex,” “for 

a new operating system. Not a 2.0 or a 3.0, but something built from 

the ground up. New code.”32 Just as we cannot solve a problem with the 

same mindset that created it, we cannot achieve cultural democracy or 

equity with the same tools, strategies, and structures that built and have 

maintained our current inequitable systems. To move forward, we must 

look, think, and act widely. We must also allow for flexibility to fail and 

flexibility to change direction. 

One more story.

The Debajehmujig Creation Centre

In 1984, on West Bay-Manitoulin Island (M’Chigeeng First 

Nation) in northern Ontario, a group of artists and educators led by 

Shirley Cheechoo and her husband Blake Debassige started a children’s 

theater camp.33 Soon regularly performing at area cultural centers and 

other local venues, the young troupe’s work began to attract attention 

and, notes one of the company’s earliest supporters and Debajehmujig 

Cultural Community Liaison Audrey Wemigwans, “the people really 

enjoyed it.” Encouraged by community members to expand the group’s 

activities, Cheechoo built a board of directors and began to formalize 

the organization, which was incorporated in 1986 and became a 

registered charity in 1988. Named “Debajehmujig,” which translates as 

“storytellers” in Cree and Ojibway, and also known as Debajehmujig 

Theatre Group, the organization was the first, and remains the only, 

professional theater company located on an Indian reserve. The first of 

several “firsts.”

“Dedicated to the vitalization of the Anishinaabeg culture,” 

Debajehmujig’s mandate is to educate and share original creative 

expression with Native and non-Native people.34 Initially more focused 

on creating a platform for Native youth to see their “stories reflected on 

stage,”35 the storytellers quickly made progress in turning this vision into 

reality. Cheechoo, writer and director Larry Lewis, and other members 

drew together a group of adult actors, both emerging and established, 

and began touring to schools, cultural centers, theaters, and other 

performance spaces across Canada and in the United States – the first 

Native company to do so. Between 1984 and 1988, operating for most 

of this time out of a former shed that was transformed into two small 

offices with no washroom, Debajehmujig produced and presented seven 

plays and workshopped others, including Tomson Highway’s soon-tobe award winning The Rez Sisters. By 1988, Debajehmujig was travelling 

to San Francisco to receive a Spirit of Sharing festival award for its work, 

and in 1989, the group moved northeast on Manitoulin and into an old 

school building located on Wikwemikong Unceded Indian Reserve. In 

the same year, Debajehmujig fully staged The Rez Sisters and went on to 

perform that work alone in 37 locations in Ontario, “from Wapo Island 

to Fort Francis, Thunder Bay to Ottawa,” recounts Wemigwans. Many 

of these performances were at venues located on reserve communities 

that had little exposure to this form of storytelling.

Wemigwans, who played the role of Annie in the production, 

tells one story from these early touring experiences:

At Eagle Lake, for instance, there was bingo going on. 

‘Oh, there’s a play.’ To the Native communities, they 

weren’t used to live theater. So I remember we were in 

Eagle Lake, and [another actor], she looked out at the 

audience and goes, ‘There’s a whole bunch of kids out 

there, I ain’t swearing in front of all of those kids.’ We 

didn’t know what to do – her whole monologue is all 

about swearing anyway, so what are we going to do? 

We can’t really change the lines, you know? This is the 

way it is. All of the people had gone to the Bingo and 

just dropped their kids off, not realizing that this is a 

play for adults. There we were performing – there were 
329 Part II

a few adults, but there were a lot of kids. I think...

it took awhile to change that around. But I think a 

lot of people started to realize. So now when we go 

places, a lot of the audiences, it’s an adult audience. 

That has changed. The way theater is looked at in 

communities now.

Over the next two decades, the group continued to entertain and 

educate audiences around the world, mostly through tours to remote 

fly-in communities but also on occasion to large urban centers. 

During its early years, Debajehmujig’s robust programming 

was heavily supported by individual contributions of time and, 

Wemigwans notes, “a lot of fundraising, art auctions.” The 

organization was also supported by project-to-project grants from 

OAC, the Canada Council, and various other sources, with Lewis, 

Wemigwans, and others pitching in to write and prepare grant 

applications. Wemigwans describes this administrative component to 

their work:

I remember those old machines. You put a disk in 

and it was like a typewriter – that’s the machines 

we used in those days. And I remember we had...

all three machines going. We put them all together 

and we were printing out these letters, about 500 

letters to foundations, and sorting them all out and 

mailing them all out. That was our funding, funding 

application process back in the day. 

Around the late 1990s, the organization began receiving 

operating support from the federal and provincial arts agencies, 

support that continues to this day. Earned income has also remained 

an important source of revenue. Other sources of income, however, 

have been difficult to obtain. In the organization’s response to the 

Plural project survey, Executive Director Ron Berti writes,

We have no municipal level of support, and we 

receive no support from the Corporate Sector, 

either in donation or sponsorship, nor do we receive 

donations. We are eligible for very few foundations, 

because we are never in their catchment area. As 

a result, we have three sources of revenue – Federal 

Grants, Provincial Grants, and Earned Revenue. We are 

not ‘visible’ enough, or ‘sexy’ enough, or something, to 

attract investment. You would think with the diamond 

mines and gold mines and everything else that there 

would be a desire to support the local community 

based cultural organizations, but no. There are many 

assumptions about our funding made by others, like 

the fact that we are a ‘cultural’ organization must mean 

we receive money from the Department of Canadian 

Heritage, “because Aboriginal cultural is a part of our 

Canadian Heritage right?” Wrong.

Despite the lack of support from key sources of revenue for mainstream 

arts organizations, the organization has found a means to grow. And it 

has done so, both historically and to date, on its own terms. 

In 2008, after 25 years of operating out of multiple locations and 

performing, in Berti’s words, in “other people’s homes,” Debajehmujig 

finally opened its own space. Through this new location, an expanded 

multidisciplinary center, the organization also visibly embarked on a 

new path. Unpacking the broader cultural movements that led to the 

group’s transition, Berti explains, “Initially, Aboriginal artists in the 

country, when they finally started to set up organizations, they just did 

what everybody else did. That was the model, was the Western model.” 

Native theater companies replicated the artistic and administrative roles 

defined by mainstream theater companies, along with such features as 

their rehearsal and production schedules, “assuming that’s how you do it, 

that’s how you get funded, and that’s the form.” For the first 10 to 15 years 

in the development of these companies, including Debajehmujig, and in 

the work of many Native playwrights, “that’s the kind of exploration you 

saw,” notes Berti. “Structurally it was mainstream theater with subject 

matter that was related to their culture.” Situations and thinking about 

art then began to change.

As we started to develop more confidence and more 

language, we also wanted to explore more and to not 

be limited by the definitions. Because in fact we were 

still really just figuring out what is our contemporary 

form of our traditional ways? ...Then our organization 

started thinking about things differently, the kind of 
Image 60. Debajehmujig Storytellers, 2013. Architectural plans for converted performance space located on Wikwemikong Unceded Indian Reserve. Photograph 

by Mina Matlon. Reproduced by permission from Mina Matlon. 

330
331 Part II

conversations you would hear would be more around 

that ‘our bodies are where our stories are carried,’ 

whether it’s dance, music, or anything else. That it’s the 

process, it’s the journey that’s important, not the thing 

at the end. This kind of language started to evolve. And 

we started to realize that we weren’t using the theater 

language anymore. I think the desire and the maturity 

to want to explore farther, to really find out what our 

own form was – is – and frankly to have access to the 

tools that everyone else gets to play with, you know? 

Multimedia, all those sorts of things. Rather than being 

stuck in this very old definition of what a storyteller may 

be, is to open it up, and say, ‘Oh, wait a minute. A story 

is a story is a story. Can be told a million ways. We don’t 

need these silos around disciplines, it’s not helping us, so 

let’s stop thinking that way.’ 

“[But] then,” Berti adds, “you have to start thinking in another way.” 

To continue to access funding, Debajehmujig began to employ other 

terms accepted by funders: words such as “integrated arts” and 

“multidisciplinary.” This shift in thinking and terminology was one part 

of the organization’s move from operating solely as a theater company 

to that of “storytellers that will use any form or medium to tell the story 

and to pass on the traditions and the traditional teachings.” Occurring 

around the same time as Debajehmujig was redefining its work, direct 

exposure to movements taking place in other communities around the 

world inspired the organization’s rethinking of the implementation of 

that work. Berti describes the company’s travels to Europe, particularly to 

towns in northern Holland, and witnessing artists and theater companies 

engaging in different manners of exploring and connecting the arts, 

history, and community. 

Bringing these experiences back home to Wikwemikong, 

Debajehmujig’s artists looked anew at their own resources and 

contemplated where to start. “What we did know, what we had invested 

a long time in, was traditional teachings,” says Berti. “So we knew them. 

We knew the stories. We’d spent 15 years collecting these and earning 

the right to hear these stories and telling them back.” However, 

It wasn’t until we went to Europe that we realized, 

‘Wait a minute, we have a bigger responsibility then just 

knowing these things. Knowing the teachings, knowing 

the way to do something is not the same as doing it. We 

have to actualize these things. We have to put them to 

work, put them into motion.’ And the answer for us was 

in realizing the great similarity between the transition 

movement and other kinds of eco-based movements, 

land-based movements, sustainability movements, and 

the teachings. They’re saying the same thing. Respect 

the earth, look after the earth. Once those two things 

lined up, then, to me, that’s as much a part of the shift 

that we’re experiencing as the form that we were talking 

about earlier, the actual form of the story. To me, it’s this 

alignment of what we deeply, deeply believe about our 

teachings and the value of that information is echoed 

globally by people who know a lot about the earth 

and the environment, and these things are consistent. 

And because they’re consistent, we don’t need to draw 

lines around things anymore, we can all move together, 

bringing our part to the story. It’s really been a different 

way of looking at each other, and our neighbors, and 

everything. It really has changed all of those things.

The “Debajehmujig Creation Centre” was born.

Evident in the programming and operations of the organization, 

as well as the physical structure of its new space, is that the shift Berti 

describes is very new and very much in progress. On a daily basis, 

organizational staff is learning and experimenting with ways to integrate 

these new – and inherited – perspectives into Debajehmujig’s work. For 

many years, the organization had “an artistic director, stage manager, 

production manager, lighting designer, costume designer,” and “now,” 

states Berti, “we’re something different.” Identifying a continued need for 

certain positions, modifying these positions to account for the changing 

nature of the organization’s interaction with its local community and 

use of resources, and finding a need for new positions, the artists are 

figuring out their new roles and responsibilities. Although in a period 

of uncertainty, the company’s metamorphosis is igniting new energy 

and conviction in its artists and more generally within the 30-year old 

organization.

There is also a measure of practicality in Debajehmujig’s 

transformation. Berti notes that, since the global economic downturn, 
Needs and Supports: A Life Cycle Approach 

Canadian funders are directing more attention to organizational “selfsustainability.” This shift in the funding environment has in turn given 

rise to several sustainability initiatives and project grants. Pointing to one 

of these grant programs, he says, “I thought [it] was a pretty interesting 

concept...the idea that ‘Here’s some money, go and focus on your selfsustainability with this money.’ It’s like, ‘Okay, you’re only giving it to 

me once, so what do I turn it into? How do I use the money? What does 

self-sustainability really mean anyway?’” 

Eventually, Debajehmujig used the funds to advance the 

organizational changes it was already implementing. Explains Berti,

We finally determined that self-sustainability is not how 

many memberships or season subscriptions you have or 

any of those things. It’s if we lost our funding, if there 

was a global downturn, if the ferry stopped running, if 

any of these things happened, who’s going to keep the 

doors to the Debaj Creation Centre open? Who’s going 

to be standing there with us when the funding is gone? 

Oh, our neighbors, our friends, our families, the people 

around us, that’s who this matters to, that’s who our 

sustainability is linked to. No one else...It’s right here, 

it’s the people right around us. So our absolute priority 

has got to be the relationships with those closest to us... 

Remarking on the company’s long history of touring, he observes 

that the constant travel was partly due to Debajehmujig’s geographic 

isolation and the lack of their own physical space in which to perform. 

With the move into a sizable and permanent new space, Debajehmujig’s 

artists are now free to more deeply explore new and different modes 

of arts presentation and channels of communication with their many 

audiences. Shortly after the move, the company made the decision to 

stop touring.

Since 2010, Debajehmujig has been conscientiously and 

playfully blurring the boundaries of its work and artistic disciplines. 

In addition to a form of staged storytelling performances, which are 

broadcast to Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities around the 

world through a variety of online and other electronic means, current 

programming includes visual arts exhibitions, a radio station, the support 

of an in-house musical group, and the presentation of a land art festival. 

The organization also operates a community garden. 

Debajehmujig’s new structure is further designed to not 

only support its local Native and non-Native communities but the 

development of its artists: the group’s transformative approach to art 

making is equally about individual transformation. Observes Berti, 

Even for the artists, you start to approach things 

differently. You don’t make up a material list, and then 

do a budget, and then go shopping and look for the stuff. 

You don’t do it that way. You start off by going, ‘What 

are my resources? What’s around here, what do I have 

a lot of ? What can I get my hands on?’ And start from 

there creating instead of creating in a vacuum in your 

head...again, everything is that point of view, that way 

of approaching things, from resources. It’s a resource 

– and identity – those two things together. What are 

our resources, what do we have to work with? And then 

identity-based work in that all of the work, because of 

our actual process for creating work, it relies on the fact 

that the participants are honestly contributing stuff 

from their own lives that ends up in the story, in the 

mix, on the stage. Yes we fictionalize, but not hugely. It’s 

barely fictionalized. If it’s a story about teen suicide, you 

can be sure that people in the stage have all experienced 

suicide, and they’re speaking from that experience. Or 

whatever the issue or topic may be. 

He adds that the company’s process also “means a different kind of 

attachment to the work as well; not a lot of the work would be easily 

transferred to another group of actors, for example, because it’s identity 

based.” Referencing one aspect of Debajehmujig’s work, the creation of 

fictional characters that reappear in the company’s artistic productions 

and which have become so popular that audiences “phone and ask for 

these characters to attend things rather than have the story or the play,” 

Berti comments that the nature of the invention of such characters is so 

closely tied to the artists’ work and earned rights to tell a particular story 

that, ultimately, the stories do reflect reality.

The atmosphere of intense artistic challenge and growth is 

coupled with significant financial investment in these artists. Born out of 

survivalist needs, early in its history Debajehmujig prioritized salarying 

332
Part II

all of its artists and other staff. “From the beginning,” says Berti, “We 

looked at it as, ‘Wait a minute, once the contract ends, what are you 

going to do? Are you going to leave here, and go down to the city after 

I’ve invested all of this time and resources into developing your skills for 

you?’” He continues,

That outsourcing would happen over and over unless 

you can offer them something better than what they’re 

going to. Even though they would only get one or two 

shows anyway, the idea is that they imagine they’re going 

to get a ton of work by being in the city. So we had to 

be able to counteract that. It meant putting artists on 

salary, but also looking at what...other service can you 

provide besides being an actor? What else can you do? 

Oh...you can train other youth, youth training youth. 

We can give you skills and then send you out there to 

train people who are just slightly younger than you.

In creating a physically and emotionally supportive environment, 

Debajehmujig has built a true home for its artists. And not surprisingly, 

Debajehmujig’s high value of its human resources is reciprocated – over 

the last 20 years, it has had little staff or board turnover, with a number 

of its staff members having grown up contributing to the organization. 

It is unclear where the organization’s work will lead. For the 

former theater company, whose isolated location has, throughout 

its history, served to stimulate and reinforce culturally grounded 

innovation in the arts and in organizational models rather than hinder 

it, this unpredictability is okay. Debajehmujig’s artists describe their 

new direction as “internationally linked and intentionally localized,” 

which applied directly to their work involves “knowledge and sharing 

from around the world applied intensely right here at home.” Berti adds: 

“Then to see where that takes us and to build out from there.”

333
Needs and Supports: A Life Cycle Approach 334

Talking about the greater idea of capacity building and the journey over the 

years. It has been hard, no doubt. And I know I’m not alone in that journey. It is 

a process that, for me, has been one that has experienced many ebbs and flows. 

There were moments where I felt supported and having the resources – and I 

mean resources in a very broad way that’s about people, that is about systems, 

that is about space, that is about finances. Because I recognize that oftentimes 

resources amount to finances only or money only, and that’s not the case for 

me. It’s a broader picture. And so there have been some moments of incredible 

strength and energy, and feeling that I had what I needed to move forward in 

the mission of the company and the work. But by the same token, there were 

moments experienced where I as a company was evolving, growing...it required 

different needs and it required further assessment of what does it mean to be at 

capacity, or to have the capacity that’s necessary to move forward. 

- Helanius Wilkins, Founder & Artistic Director of Edgeworks Dance Theater (August 21, 2013)
335 Part II

11. “About the Funds,” Minnesota’s Legacy, last accessed July 15, 

2014, http://www.legacy.leg.mn/about-funds.

12. “Arts & Cultural Heritage Fund,” Minnesota’s Legacy, last accessed 

July 15, 2014, http://www.legacy.leg.mn/funds/arts-cultural-heritage-fund.

13. “Minnesota’s Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund,” Minnesota State 

Arts Board.

14. Ibid.

15. “Operating Support grant program,” Minnesota State Arts Board, 

last accessed July 15, 2014, http://www.arts.state.mn.us/grants/operatingsupport.htm.

16. Ibid. (italics added).

17. Ibid. 

18. Also known as the “e-Postcard” and to be completed by taxexempt organizations with annual gross receipts of under $50,000.

19. We have not named the foundation here as, although we reviewed 

information concerning the foundation’s arts grants programs available on its 

website, we were unable to ascertain precise funding eligibility requirements. 

The foundation offers grants on a “request-for-proposal” and invitation basis, 

which may account for the minimal information provided on its website.

20. “Loans Overview,” Nonprofit Finance Fund, last accessed July 

15, 2014, http://nonprofitfinancefund.org/loans-financing/loans. On its 

website the Fund notes that “NFF lenders evaluate smaller nonprofit and social 

enterprise organizations on a case-by-case basis.”

21. See, e.g., Canada Council for the Arts, “Guidelines and Application 

Form; Theatre: Multi-Year Grants to Professional Organizations” (requiring 

that an “independent producing company” applicant without the responsibility 

of a venue, excepting rehearsal spaces, “must produce a minimum of four 

productions over four years, of which two are Premieres of original Canadian 

works or New Productions”), http://canadacouncil.ca/en/theatre/find-grantsand-prizes/grants/theatre-multi-year-grants-to-professional-organizations; 

Canada Council for the Arts, “Guidelines and Application Form; Creation/

Production in Dance: Multi-Year and Annual Grants” (requiring that an 

applicant company must “have completed a minimum of five years of 

sustained activity, including full-evening programs of the company’s work” and 

“operate on the basis of a season or have a sustained level of activity; by 

sustained level we mean a volume of activity that is ongoing, above and beyond 

producing and performing a single project per year”) (bolding in the original), 

http://canadacouncil.ca/en/dance/find-grants-and-prizes/grants/creationproduction-in-dance-multi-year-and-annual-grants; Canada Council for the 

Arts, “Guidelines and Application Form; Music: Production Grants” (requiring 

professional Canadian groups/ensemble applicants to possess a “minimum 

of one year of regular professional public presentation together”), http://

Notes

1. Michel F. Sarda, Visions of my Land: the art of Jim Covarrubias (Phoenix: 

Bridgewood Press, 2013), 16; Jim Covarrubias (Founder, Ariztlan Studios), 

interview conducted by Mina Matlon at Ariztlan Studios, June 28, 2013, notes 

on file with Plural project co-leads.

2. Sarda, Visions of my Land: the art of Jim Covarrubias, 9.

3. Neil C. Churchill and Virginia L. Lewis, “The Five Stages of Small 

Business Growth,” Harvard Business Review (May-June 1983).

4. During interviews, we posed a life cycle question to all ethnocultural 

arts organizations; however, we intentionally did not provide organizations with 

a standardized definition of “life cycle.” As a result, organizations took a variety 

of approaches and employed a range of terms in describing their current life 

cycle stage. Organizations more familiar with business terminology expressly 

assigned themselves to “traditional” stages such as “start-up,” “growth,” or 

“maturity.” For other organizations, we were able to surmise their stage through 

self-descriptions of organizational developments.

5. As detailed in the Methodology, our interview participants were 

purposively selected based on a variety of characteristics shared and/or 

appearing to diverge from the ethnocultural arts organization field as a whole.

6. See, e.g., ongoing debates and lobbying regarding implementation 

of the Ontario Not-For-Profit Corporations Act.

7. Interview questions are listed in Appendix E.

8. The characteristics listed throughout this section draw on a range of 

life cycle models identified both through specific research for the Plural project 

and as part of our education in the Master of Arts in Arts Administration and 

Policy program at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. As previously 

noted, most of these models contain more specific identifiers with respect to size 

of staff, the development of different departments (e.g., curatorial, development, 

marketing), and programmatic features that, for various reasons discussed 

throughout this book, do not apply to ethnocultural arts organizations. We have 

therefore not listed these features when describing previously identified life cycle 

stages, but instead have drawn on the more general characteristics of Growth, 

Stagnant, and Sustainable/Mature organizations. 

9. Eileen Cunniffe, “Why is the Arts Funding in These Two States 

so Vastly Different? Minnesota and Wisconsin Compared,” Nonprofit Quarterly, 

August 15, 2013, https://nonprofitquarterly.org/policysocial-context/22758-

why-is-the-arts-funding-in-these-two-states-so-vastly-different-minnesota-andwisconsin-compared.html.

10. “Minnesota’s Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund,” Minnesota State 

Arts Board, last accessed July 15, 2014, http://www.arts.state.mn.us/grants/

machf.htm.
Needs and Supports: A Life Cycle Approach 

29. “About,” HowlRound, last accessed July 19, 2014, http://

howlround.com/about.

30. “Public Notice Regarding Copyright,” FUSE Magazine (stating 

“[u]pon dissolution of Artons Cultural Affairs Society and Publishing, the 

incorporated not for profit organization that published FUSE Magazine from 

1976 to 2014,” the magazine’s publications will be deposited in an open-access 

digital repository managed by Artexte), last accessed July 19, 2014, http://

fusemagazine.org/2014/07/public-notice-regarding-copyright; “About,” 

FUSE Magazine.

31. Gina Badger (Editorial Director, FUSE Magazine), telephone 

conversation with Mina Matlon, July 21, 2014.

32. Peter Buffett, “The Charitable-Industrial Complex,” New York 

Times, July 26, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/opinion/thecharitable-industrial-complex.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

33. All information herein regarding the Debajehmujig Creation 

Centre is based on information contained in the organization’s website (http://

www.debaj.ca) and interviews held at the Debajehmujig Creation Centre’s office 

conducted by Mina Matlon with Ron Berti (Executive Director, Debajehmujig 

Creation Centre), Joe Osawabine (Artistic Director, Debajehmujig Creation 

Centre), and Audrey Wemigwans (Cultural Community Liaison, Debajehmujig 

Creation Centre), May 14, 2013, audio recordings on file with Plural project 

co-leads.

34. “Mandate,” Debajehmujig Storytellers, last accessed July 23, 2014, 

http://www.debaj.ca/content/Artistic-Director?q=content/About-Company.

35. “Brief History,” Debajehmujig Storytellers, last accessed July 23, 

2014, http://www.debaj.ca/content/Artistic-Director?q=content/AboutCompany-History.

canadacouncil.ca/en/music/find-grants-and-prizes/grants/music-productiongrants; Canada Council for the Arts, “Guidelines and Application Form; 

Professional Music Organizations Program: Annual and Multi-Year Grants” 

(requiring applicant organizations to “have completed at least two seasons 

of local performances” and to “have been successful with two consecutive 

applications to the Music: Production Grants program”), http://canadacouncil.

ca/en/music/find-grants-and-prizes/grants/professional-music-organizationsprogram-annual-and-multi-year-grants.

22. Ontario Arts Council, “Operating Grants for Arts Organizations 

Guidelines 2014: Theatre Organizations,” http://www.arts.on.ca/

AssetFactory.aspx?did=9634; Ontario Arts Council, “Operating Grants for 

Arts Organizations Guidelines 2014: Dance Organizations,” http://www.arts.

on.ca/AssetFactory.aspx?did=9498.

23. “About NPN,” National Performance Network, last accessed July 

10, 2014, http://npnweb.org.

24. “Mission/History,” Pentacle, last accessed July 20, 2014, http://

www.pentacle.org/about/missionhistory/.

25. “Music/New Jewish Culture Network 2013-14 Commission and 

Tour,” Foundation for Jewish Culture, last accessed July 21, 2014, http://

jewishculture.org/music/.

26. Ibid.

27. See, e.g., Abe Flores, “A Diversity Problem in Arts Administration: 

The 2013 Salary Survey Reaction,” Artsblog, July 22, 2013 (noting that 86 percent 

of respondents of a recently released national research report on local arts agency 

salaries are White), http://blog.artsusa.org/2013/07/22/a-diversity-problemin-arts-administration-my-reaction-to-the-salary-survey-2013/; Strategic 

National Arts Alumni Project, An Uneven Canvas: Inequalities in Artistic Training 

and Careers; Annual Report 2013 (Strategic National Arts Alumni Project, 2013) 

(finding that arts institutions afford certain advantages for women, minorities, 

and lower income students but that “significant gaps remain and inequalities 

persist related to minority enrollment in postsecondary arts institutions, school 

debt, racial diversity within artistic occupations, and disparities in earnings by 

gender”), 8, http://snaap.indiana.edu/pdf/2013/SNAAP%20Annual%20

Report%202013.pdf. Many of our project participants told us stories of a drop 

in the number, or consistently low numbers, of students of color in local art 

schools, and this comports with our own experiences at the School of the Art 

Institute of Chicago where members of the Plural project team made up almost 

the entire cohort of artists and arts administrators of color in our graduate 

program.

28. See, e.g., Alex Williams, “For Interns, All Work and No Payoff,” 

New York Times, February 14, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/

fashion/millennials-internships.html?_r=0.

336
Image 61. Uzume Taiko, 2011. Left to Right: Naomi Kajiwara, Bonnie Soon (Artistic Director), and Jason Overy (Musical Director). Photography 

by Keith Robertson. Reproduced by permission from Uzume Taiko. 

337
Performing in Liminal Spaces; The Future of North American Taiko

Performing in Liminal Spaces; The Future of North 

American Taiko

by Kaitlyn Wittig Mengüç

In October 2004, video game company Namco Limited released Taiko: 

Drum Master in the United States for Sony’s PlayStation 2.1 The rhythmbased video game has its own taiko shaped controller which measures 

approximately one foot in diameter and is paired with a set of plastic 

drumsticks. Players may select from a list of over 30 songs spanning the 

genres of pop, rock, and classical music, including songs such as The 

Jackson 5’s “ABC” and Beethoven’s “Symphony No.5.” Once a song is 

selected, the music begins and a scrolling bar indicates when, how, and 

where to hit the drum controller.2

 Attempting to provide the rhythm for 

the song, players can strike the drum on the head or on the rim, and are 

prompted to strike with one drumstick or both. Players may also beat the 

drum in rapid succession during a specified length of time to hammer 

out a flashy drum solo. The goal is to earn as many points as possible to 

secure a passing score for each song and move on to the next, all the while 

gradually increasing in difficulty. Throughout the game play, smiling 

cartoon taiko drums and drumsticks dance, jump, and cheer when the 

player does well. Taiko: Drum Master has received positive reviews from the 

New York Times,3

 popular video game websites,4 gaming magazines,5

and the players themselves.6 Though Namco has continued to develop 

and publish taiko games in Japan for multiple video game platforms, 

Taiko: Drum Master is the only English language taiko game to have 

been released in the United States,7 a decision that is likely tied to low 

sales numbers as the game sold approximately 100,000 copies in North 

America as of June 2014.8 Regardless of how well Taiko: Drum Master

sold, a corporate decision was made to invest significant resources into 

developing, marketing, and publishing the game, thereby translating and 

packaging an art form, whose North American roots are steeped in a 

political movement, into an electronic media bundle designed to push 

taiko towards mainstream, popular American culture. A video game 

spin-off does not necessarily indicate a broader cultural acceptance of 

the art form itself, however, and this corporate mainstreaming serves as a 

cautionary tale. Can taiko exist within the mainstream North American 

arts ecology without cultural appropriation?

The word taiko translates into “big/fat drum”9

 though the 

drums come in a variety of sizes. In North America, taiko is often used 

to refer to the art form kumi-daiko, or ensemble drumming.10 While 

a variety of traditional taiko styles have been around for hundreds of 

years, it was the development of kumi-daiko in the 1950s that prompted 

taiko to move from the background to the foreground and find its way to 

the United States and Canada.11

The origin of North American kumi-daiko is rooted in the 

Asian American and Asian Canadian activism of the late 1960s and 

1970s. Third generation Japanese Americans and Japanese Canadians 

(called sansei) rose up against widespread racism that persisted in a 

post World War II, and post Japanese internment, landscape.12 Sansei 

sought a connection to their cultural heritage and with their peers, 

and kumi-daiko became one such avenue for those wishing to reject 

prescriptive mainstream ideals. In “Taiko as Performance: Creating 

Japanese American Traditions,” Hideyo Konagaya writes of the 

connection between the Asian American activists and the well-aligned 

embrace of their cultural heritage: “The resonance of the drumming 

worked as a metaphor for breaking out of silence and releasing longsuppressed voices of anger. Sansei physically acted out their resistance 

against inequality and injustice in American society and against their 

own passivity and weakness through actions such as whirling sticks over 

the heads, shouting, jumping, turning, and pounding on taiko.”13

Kumi-daiko came to the United States in the late 1960s when 

Seiichi Tanaka sought to “teach a positive and accessible Japanese art 

form” and thus started the first North American taiko program, San 

Francisco Taiko Dojo, in 1968.14 Tanaka is widely accepted as the father 

of North American kumi-daiko as his teaching inspired many young 

Japanese Americans and Japanese Canadians to form taiko ensembles 

of their own at a time when it was most needed. As Konagaya explains, 

338
Part II

Tanaka’s commitment to taiko mirrored the counterculture movement among youth both in Japan and 

the United States where students and activists used 

folk expressions as vehicles to convey their social and 

political messages. The forceful performing style 

Tanaka exercised in his group, San Francisco Taiko 

Dojo, incorporating the disciplines and movements of 

martial arts, depicted the empowerment of youth and 

ethnic minorities.15

Following the establishment of San Francisco Taiko Dojo, 

Kinnara Taiko, located in Los Angeles, and San Jose Taiko (SJT) were 

founded in 1969 and 1973 respectively, in the process transforming 

California into a home for taiko ensembles outside of Japan.16 When 

SJT was founded, the group set out to define a North American kumidaiko style.17 Formed as a collective that anyone could join, SJT’s sound 

was noted for pushing limits by incorporating jazz, pop, rock, and 

soul with traditional taiko drum sounds.18 In “Reconsidering Ethnic 

Culture and Community: A Case Study on Japanese Canadian Taiko 

Drumming,” Masumi Izumi writes of the significance that the Asian 

American movement had on Canadian sansei and notes that in 1979, 

SJT travelled to Vancouver to perform at the third annual Powell Street 

Festival19 in Oppenheimer Park, an area known prior to World War II 

as “Little Tokyo.”20 As part of the government’s internment policies and 

practices, Japanese descendants, regardless of Canadian citizenship, had 

been stripped of their possessions and forcibly relocated from the area 

during and for several years following the war, and thus Oppenheimer 

Park and the greater Powell Street area later became a hub of Asian 

activism in Canada.21 Izumi also highlights the particular role that 

North American kumi-daiko played in connecting likeminded sansei 

and spreading the art form across the US and Canadian border: “Some 

of the sansei who saw the performance were inspired by the energy and 

power of San Jose Taiko. After the Festival, Mayumi Takasaki, a sansei 

community activist and the coordinator of the Powell Street Festival, 

went to California and asked Seiichi Tanaka to teach some Canadian 

sansei how to play taiko.”22 Tanaka agreed and later that year Katari 

Taiko Drum Group Association became Canada’s first taiko ensemble. 

Members from the group would go on to establish additional taiko 

ensembles in both Canada and the United States.23 

The total number of active taiko organizations in North 

America today is hard to measure. However, steady growth within the 

art form over the last few decades is apparent. The Plural project located 

a minimum of 22 taiko-specific, registered nonprofit ethnocultural arts 

organizations in the United States and 5 in Canada. It is important 

to note, however, that these numbers do not include the numerous 

collegiate taiko ensembles nor the growing number of taiko ensembles 

whose missions champion empowerment within feminist, gay, lesbian, 

bisexual, transgender, and/or queer communities. In 2001, Izumi cited 

an estimate of “over 100” taiko ensembles in North America, 12 of 

which were located in Canada,24 while in 2005, Paul J. Yoon, author 

of “Development and Support of Taiko in the United States,” cited an 

estimate of “over 200” groups.25

Since the birth of North American kumi-daiko in the late 1960s, 

the art form has incorporated political, stylistic, and geographical border 

crossing. From championing Pan-Asian empowerment in the Western 

world, to the development of a punctuated physicality, and the inclusion 

of genre-defying, intercultural musical collaborations, the art form took 

off spreading outward in many directions from the same artistic center: 

ingenuity.

One early innovator is Kenny Endo, co-founder and artistic 

director of the Taiko Center of the Pacific (TCP), located in Honolulu. 

Endo first started playing kumi-daiko in the 1970s with Kinnara Taiko 

and later spent the summer of 1975 playing with San Francisco Taiko 

Dojo. In 1976, Endo moved to San Francisco where he continued to 

study under Tanaka for the next four years. At the time, Tanaka was the 

only kumi-daiko instructor in the United States.26 Eager to learn more, 

Endo travelled to Japan in 1980 where he studied kumi-daiko with Oedo 

Sukeroku Taiko and Osuwa Daiko, considered to be the two original 

kumi-daiko groups.27 Intending to stay for only a year or two, he stayed 

in Japan for 10 years; by the time he returned to the United States in 

1990, taiko was everywhere: “There were a lot more groups. There were 

groups now on the East Coast, there were groups now all over the place. 

It was actually exciting to see...there were also some groups starting to 

be established in other places. In Europe, in South America...almost 

every continent in the world now, you can find taiko.”28 

339
Performing in Liminal Spaces; The Future of North American Taiko

In 1994, Endo and his wife, Chizuko Endo who works as 

managing director, founded TCP to teach taiko to Hawaii’s youth and 

adults—a possibility that did not exist when they were young.29 In addition 

to offering classes to all age groups, TCP has two performance groups 

targeting youth and adults respectively. Since its inception, TCP has 

worked “to preserve traditional Japanese drumming and to create new 

music for taiko.”30 The work of TCP is supported through class tuition 

and ticket sales, the group’s primary sources of earned revenue.31 Serving 

as a fiscal sponsor for TCP, the Taiko Arts Center was later established as 

a nonprofit support organization for the school and performing groups. 

The Taiko Arts Center assists with fundraising for concerts, workshops, 

educational programs, scholarships, and the development of new work.32

At the time of its founding, TCP was the only taiko school in 

Hawaii open to the public and one of only a few taiko ensembles in 

Hawaii before TCP. Now, however, Endo believes there are “over 20 taiko 

groups in the state of Hawaii.”33 When asked about the demographic 

makeup of taiko students and performers at TCP, Endo stated that the 

participants are primarily Asian, representing many different ethnicities, 

and could be seen as “a cross-section of the demographics that you’d 

find in Hawaii.”34 

Prior to studying kumi-daiko, Endo had trained as a jazz 

musician,35 and upon returning from Japan, he received a Master of Arts 

in Music with a specialty in Ethnomusicology from the University of 

Hawaii.36 Endo’s artistic practice, and subsequently his work at TCP, has 

developed to include the broad spectrum of his musical training. Over 

the years, Endo has received multiple grants from the city of Honolulu 

for the presentation of new work, and through this support TCP has 

been able to produce collaborative taiko performances including a 

project that featured Indian bharatanatyam dance, a collaboration with 

two jazz musicians, and a performance with an African drummer, and 

more recently, the group brought in a kumi-daiko player from Japan who 

composed a new piece for the ensemble.37 Though TCP has received 

grants from municipal, state, and federal levels, Endo notes that funding 

across the board has been cut back “quite a bit over the years” and, as it 

is a challenge for performers who take taiko seriously to be able to make 

a living at it, many must rely on teaching.38

Mu Performing Arts (Mu), an ethnocultural arts organization 

located in Saint Paul, Minnesota, was founded in 1992 with a mission 

to produce “great performances born of arts, equality, and justice from 

the heart of the Asian American Experience.”39 Mu has offered taiko 

classes and performances since 1997 when Rick Shiomi, Mu co-founder 

and former artistic director, and former member of Canada’s Katari 

Taiko, gave a taiko performance that excited company actors who 

wanted to learn the art of taiko themselves.40 The mission of Mu “is 

born of two needs: the need to gain due recognition and acceptance as 

Asian Americans in 21st century America, and the need to facilitate a 

clearer understanding of our identity and responsibilities within our own 

diverse community.”41 Like many North American taiko groups, Mu’s 

taiko ensemble, Mu Daiko, develops new work in addition to engaging 

in both educational performances and concerts, which the organization 

estimates as involving over 100 performances a year.42

Coinciding with numeric growth throughout North America, the 

art form has been rapidly diversifying as illustrated by the demographic 

makeup of taiko workshop participants and students. Speaking to the 

demographics of the Mu Daiko performance group, Mu’s managing 

director, Don Eitel, reflected on the link between the performers and the 

organizational mission. “In terms of social justice,” Eitel explains, “most 

of our taiko players are women. And that’s a gender issue for us, for an 

art form that is traditionally played by men in Japan. And so we see, 

when we go out to schools or community centers, for other people to see 

Asian American women in a position, in a place of leadership and power 

banging the drums with confidence has a huge impact.”43 The popularity 

of the art form has also resulted in ‘nontraditional’ enrollment in taiko 

classes: “We have about 200 students that go through our doors and I’d 

say 98 percent of them are white.”44

 What may appear as the mainstream acceptance of Japanese 

American and Japanese Canadian art forms could arguably be seen 

as the outcome of years of advocacy. While an increasing number of 

kumi-daiko ensembles were formed to empower Pan-Asian North 

Americans and to promote Japanese culture, many organizations are 

now teaching both the technique and the history of kumi-daiko to any 

student who wishes to learn. The outcome of this growth is the continual 

diversification of taiko players and teachers, and an increase in visibility 

through the participation of these taiko ensembles in music and cultural 

340
Part II

festivals and national and international performances. This expansion 

suggests that as an art form, kumi-daiko and its ethnocultural roots 

are being met with acceptance by a growing number of arts patrons, 

participants, and presenters. To weigh the Asian North American 

advocacy efforts against the trajectory of kumi-daiko, success is 

necessarily linked to whether or not this increase in plurality and visibility 

of a singular ethnocultural artistic expression also signals the broader 

acceptance and respect of Japanese and Pan-Asian North Americans 

along with their various and distinct cultures. The heterogeneity of 

the art form is accompanied by questions regarding the future of taiko 

and taiko players. The most pressing question is whether the continual 

diversification of taiko players, teachers, and audience members signifies 

that kumi-daiko is losing its ethnocultural identity. As Eitel observes,

...it’s a conversation....cultural appropriation like 

what’s happening in karate, where everyone now looks 

to Chuck Norris instead of someone who’s actually 

from the culture, to be the leader in that field...we’ve 

been wrestling with that over the last three years and 

we realized it’s because we haven’t been deliberate in 

recruiting Asian Americans in the same way that we 

have been in the theater side. Because we’ve had to for 

theater. So now with taiko, our plan is to create a kind of 

internship-type process, recruitment process, so that ... 

more [Asian Americans] can reach the top to the point 

where they’re playing professionally. So representation 

is important, we think.45

Despite the continual evolution of kumi-daiko, ensembles 

face the challenge of being defined by misinformed mainstream 

perceptions of taiko. There is a multiplicity of taiko ensembles with a 

broad spectrum of mission statements and artistic visions. While some 

groups require members and performers to be of Pan-Asian descent, 

Vancouver’s Uzume Taiko hires musicians independent of their race 

or ethnicity. Uzume was founded in 1988 after members from Katari 

Taiko, considered to be a community group at the time, wanted to 

pursue taiko at a professional level and make new compositions for 

the art form.46 Uzume works “to promote the artistic development 

of taiko music in Canada and to educate the Canadian public about 

taiko music and its history in Canada.”47 Bonnie Soon, artistic director 

of Uzume, observes that audiences, presenters, and managers often 

expect Uzume performers to look Asian under the guise of what these 

outsiders deem to be an authentic or traditional taiko performance, 

a situation that has led to narrowed performance opportunities:

But my faith in where the community is going as an 

art form, your overall question, ‘Where is the art form 

going’: I think we’re all wondering, ‘Who adopts this? 

[Is it] White people now? Middle-aged white women do 

this?...where are the young Asians? Does it need to be 

Asians? ... who’s going to play, taiko, North American 

taiko, anymore? Who is it—What is it saying? Why do 

people do it? Is it going to be like martial arts now; lots of 

different colors can do it? It doesn’t matter?’...This used 

to be for Asians, mostly, and now it’s not. But when I go 

to Europe, they don’t want to see a white [taiko player], 

they don’t want to see an East Indian [taiko player], 

they don’t want to see a black [taiko player]. They want 

to see [Asian taiko players] and ‘If you can give me 

those kind, we’d be happier.’ It’s against everything I’ve 

worked for and I’m confused. It’s like, ‘Are you asking 

me to go back in time?’ And now because there’s so 

much mix[ing]...they just want you to go back, ‘Be with 

your own, I can classify you better, I can go home and 

sleep. It bothered me that there were all these colors and 

I couldn’t figure you out. Why did I pay my ticket? I 

don’t get it!’ ... So, I’m a bit confused too because you 

hear those things and you’re just trying to fight to be a 

more peaceful society. And that we can be Canadian, 

and you...can study and be a Taiko drummer...I’m just 

trying to get over it and allow people to see beyond this. 

Just see your energy. ‘Wow, she can play Taiko! She’s got 

blonde hair!’ ...So what?48

As Soon suggests, these notions of what constitutes authentic and 

traditional taiko performers are contrived and to some audience members, 

performers of Pan-Asian descent meet this ill-conceived archetype. 

The message appears to be that being Pan-Asian is a specific enough 

requirement for embodying the role of a traditional taiko performer 

while those same audience members have simultaneously broadened 

341
Performing in Liminal Spaces; The Future of North American Taiko

the scope: though Soon identifies as a Chinese Canadian woman, her 

authenticity is not questioned.49 Soon stresses the importance of Uzume 

defining themselves rather than being defined. “I’m happy for it to morph 

to become a North American taiko. Guerilla taiko. Different taiko. It’s 

not Japanese taiko; it’s North American West Coast taiko. Yeah, it can 

[take] so many different forms...I don’t think I’m being disrespectful to 

the art form because I’m not telling you I’m Japanese and I’m not telling 

you this is traditional Japanese taiko,” says Soon.50

Though not a traditional group, Uzume incorporates history 

lessons into their educational performances as the ensemble recognizes 

the need to teach audiences both about the history of kumi-daiko and 

ongoing discrimination against Pan-Asian Canadians. As Soon notes, 

nowadays both students and many parents are too young to know that 

kumi-daiko grew out of the Asian Canadian activism following World 

War II, “So that’s history, that’s why we keep doing this.”51

The increasing popularity of the art form is not without its 

challenges and North American kumi-daiko is continually performing 

in a liminal space, straddling both the mainstream and the margin. 

Taiko has become more visible in that there are more ensembles, more 

opportunities to see a taiko performance, and more spaces to learn about 

and train in the art form. However, this increased visibility does not mean 

that taiko ensembles have unlocked access to mainstream support. The 

Plural project research suggests that taiko ensembles struggle to obtain 

operating funding for their organizations, pay their performers, escape 

exoticism, or secure performance fees that mirror the hours worked and 

the creative energy that each new creation and performance demands. 

Furthermore, taiko ensembles do not appear to have the same level of 

fiscal and organizational support available to mainstream, nonprofit 

music organizations with comparable missions and programming. 

Based on data from the Plural project database, in 2011 the range 

of reported gross income for 24 of the 27 taiko-specific organizations in 

the United States and Canada stretched from a low of approximately 

$8,100 to a high of approximately $890,200.52 Seventeen of these 

organizations, or approximately 63 percent, reported a gross income of 

under $100,000. Included among the taiko groups listed in the database 

are organizations that hire performers, instructors, designers, managers, 

and/or other staff in addition to producing original content including 

compositions and local, national, and international performances, CDs, 

and DVDs. Yet no organization broke the one million dollar mark.

Since first arriving in the United States in the 1960s, new 

ensembles performing North American kumi-daiko have organized for 

reasons including social justice, empowerment, and artistic innovation, 

thus generating a more diverse body of students, teachers, and audience 

members. As is typically the case, the plurality of those involved in kumidaiko depends in part on the ensemble’s geographic location. Taiko 

ensembles continue to teach the history of the art form while composing 

original works and interpreting and expanding upon the traditions for 

their own contemporary artistic pursuits. Project participants express 

uncertainty regarding who will take over the leadership of their 

organizations when founding members and long term leadership retire, 

a reality made even more ambiguous by the uncertainty of funding. 

Plural project participants are aware of the diversification of their art 

form and the move away from its cultural specificity, as Endo observes,

In Japan, where I was for many years, to me it is very 

culturally-specific, and there are a lot of interesting 

things going on in Japan in terms of pushing the 

tradition and innovating on that. There [are] a lot 

of really great artists coming up, a lot of really great 

compositions [being created]...But I think, as taiko 

becomes more international, then it’s going to become 

less culturally specific. To me, it’s important...to learn 

about the culture and some of the traditional art forms, 

but I think it’s inevitable that it’s going to get away from 

that, and I don’t necessarily see that as a bad thing, but I 

see that as a kind of evolution of the instrument...what 

will survive is quality.53

342
Part II

Notes

1. “Taiko Drum Master: Bang a drum. Get it on.,” Ed Lewis, IGN, 

http://www.ign.com/articles/2004/10/26/taiko-drum-master-2?page=2.

2. In order to best understand how Taiko: Drum Master is played, I 

have consulted many sources including video game websites and dedicated 

video game fansites. For a more detailed looked at what the taiko game controller looks like, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuB_NTG9Pro; 

for a look at what the video game looks like, see https://www.youtube.com/

watch?v=HED_PagJHpM.

3. Charles Herold, “New Breed of Games Is Not All Thumbs,” New 

York Times, December 9, 2004, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/09/technology/circuits/09game.html.

4. “Taiko Drum Master: Bang a drum. Get it on.,” Ed Lewis.

5. “Taiko Drum Master: PlayStation 2,” metacritic, CBS Interactive, 

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-2/taiko-drum-master/criticreviews. 

6. Ibid.

7. Nintendo 5-Star, “Taiko Time Blog,” Blogger, http://taikotime.

blogspot.com/2010/10/taiko-drum-master-song-list.html.

8. “Taiko Drum Master,” VGChartz, http://www.vgchartz.com/

game/29894/taiko-drum-master/.

9. “Overview and History,” Rolling Thunder: Your Total Taiko Resource, http://www.taiko.com/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=39.

10. Ibid.

11. Kenny Endo (Artistic Director, Taiko Center of the Pacific), phone 

interview conduced by Mina Matlon, September 17, 2013, transcript on file 

with Plural project co-leads. For more specific information regarding the history 

of taiko and kumi-daiko, see Rolling Thunder, “Overview and History.”

12. Masumi Izumi, “Reconsidering Ethnic Culture and Community: 

A Case Study on Japanese Canadian Taiko Drumming,” Journal of Asian American Studies 4, no. 1 (February 2001): 40.

13. Hideyo Konagaya, “Taiko as Performance: Creating Japanese 

American Traditions,” The Japanese Journal of American Studies, no. 12 (2001): 

107.

14. Paul Yoon, “Development and Support of Taiko in the United 

States,” in Artistic Production and Cultural Identity in U.S. Immigrant and Diasporic 

Communities (Asia Society, December 2005), 52.

15. Konagaya, “Taiko as Performance: Creating Japanese American 

Traditions,” 106.

16. Endo, interview.

17. Yoon, “Development and Support of Taiko in the United States,” 

53.

18. Ibid. 

19. The Powell Street Festival Society is a Plural Project participant. 

The festival has been operating in the greater Powell Street area continuously 

since 1977. For more information on the Powell Street Festival, see “About,” 

Powell Street Festival Society, http://www.powellstreetfestival.com/about/.

20. Izumi, “Reconsidering Ethnic Culture and Community: A Case 

Study on Japanese Canadian Taiko Drumming,” 41.

21. Ibid. 

22. Ibid., 39.

23. Don Eitel (Managing Director, Mu Performing Arts), interview 

conducted by Mina Matlon at Mu Performing Arts, July 23, 2013, audio 

recording on file with Plural project co-leads; Bonnie Soon (Artistic Director, 

Uzume Taiko), interview conducted by Mina Matlon at Uzume Taiko, April 12, 

2013, transcript on file with Plural project co-leads.

24. Izumi, “Reconsidering Ethnic Culture and Community: A Case 

Study on Japanese Canadian Taiko Drumming,” 39.

25. Yoon, “Development and Support of Taiko in the United States,” 

52.

26. “About,” Kenny Endo Taiko Artist, http://www.kennyendo.com/

about; Endo, interview.

27. Endo, interview. 

28. Ibid. 

29. Ibid.

30. “Taiko Center of the Pacific,” Kenny Endo Taiko Artist.

31. Endo, interview.

32. “About,” Taiko Arts Center, http://taikoartscenter.org/blog/

about/; Endo, interview.

33. Endo, interview.

34. Ibid.

35. “About,” Kenny Endo Taiko Artist.

36. Endo, interview.

37. Ibid.

38. Ibid. 

39. “Mission,” Mu Performing Arts, http://www.muperformingarts.

org/mission/.

40. Eitel, interview.

41. “Mission,” Mu Performing Arts.

42. “About Mu Daiko,” Mu Performing Arts, http://www.

muperformingarts.org/mu-daiko/.

43. Eitel, interview.

44. Ibid. 

45. Ibid. 

46. Soon, interview.

343
Performing in Liminal Spaces; The Future of North American Taiko

47. Bonnie Soon (Artistic Director, Uzume Taiko), email message to 

Kaitlyn Wittig Mengüç, July 18, 2014, email on file with Plural project co-leads.

48. Soon interview.

49. Ibid.

50. Ibid.

51. Ibid.

52. All data highlighting the reported gross income has been sourced 

from the Plural project databases and rounded to the nearest 100. The Plural 

project has limited data on reported gross income for taiko-specific organizations 

in 2012. While not enough data is available to look at ranges for 2012, the 

organization citing $890,200 in 2011 reported an annual gross income of 

$704,743 in 2012.

53. Endo, interview.

344
Image 62. Photograph of art work in storage at the Ukrainian Institute of Modern Art. Photograph by Mina Matlon. Reproduced by permission from Mina 

Matlon.

345
Suggested Areas for Future Research

Suggested Areas for Future Research

We have cited, referenced, and discussed only a few of the many artists, 

organizations, and initiatives that have shaped the ethnocultural arts 

field. Throughout the research process, the more we searched and the 

more questions we asked, the more there was to find and to learn, and 

we spent many hours and, sometimes, days, trying to track down more 

precise information on specific organizations and initiatives. Not all of 

it was “work.” At times, the joy, loss, triumph, humor, or anger captured 

in the artwork and in the art forms we were simultaneously learning 

about would demand our full attention and take our research down 

unexpected paths. Time and resource constraints finally required that 

we stop researching and start writing. 

The unfinished state of our research leaves us with a few final 

comments. First, we are conscious of the great amount of information 

that we have not included in this work, and the far greater amount of 

information that we were unable to obtain but that would have assisted 

our efforts to further, and better, contextualize the primary research 

we gathered for the Plural project. Second, existing literature and our 

project participants referenced initiatives that sounded particularly 

promising as strategies for improving support of the field, or as case 

studies to further knowledge and learning, but about which we were 

unable to find additional information – again given time and resource 

constraints. Third, we note that project participants point to the lack of 

knowledge within, regarding, and including the field as a need. 

For all of these reasons and more, we have included this list of 

suggested areas for future research in hopes that future researchers will 

continue what those before us have started.

Specific Programs, Organizations, Initiatives

Set forth below are specific programs, organizations, and 

initiatives that were identified during the research process, additional 

knowledge of which may serve particularly valuable as learning 

opportunities for the field as a whole. 

• In the early 1990s, the Philadelphia-based Coalition of 

African American Cultural Organizations inaugurated an 

annual African American Cultural Fund to unite fundraising 

efforts.

• The Texas Association of American Cultures, the New Yorkbased Network of Cultural Centers of Color, and the Global 

Network of Cultural Centers of Color.

• The NEA Expansion Arts Capstone Program.

General Research Areas

Set forth below is more general data on ethnocultural arts 

organizations and the broader arts field that would assist in better 

informing conversations on, and advocacy for, ethnocultural arts 

organizations.

• Data in Canada and the United States on the age 

distribution of arts organizations, the average and median 

operating budgets of arts organizations, and the number 

of paid employees, specifically including very low-income 

organizations (organizations posting under $50,000, and 

in the United States, up to $5,000). Most existing data we 

identified omits low-income organizations and/or only exists 

for certain regions or contains other omissions that render 

such data unrepresentative of the incorporated, tax-exempt 

segment of the arts field.

• General art historical research on ethnocultural arts 

organizations, especially African Canadian groups and 

White ethnocultural arts organizations (both countries).

• General research on Section 7871 arts organizations.

• General research on incorporated but unregistered Canadian 

ethnocultural arts organizations, and informally organized 

Canadian and US ethnocultural arts groups to obtain a more 

complete picture and understanding of the field. 

346
Image 63. Sal Capone: The Lamentable Tragedy of, Urban Ink Productions, 2014. Left to right: Letitia Brookes, Tristan D. Lalla, and Kim Villagante. 

Written by Omari Newton and directed by Diane Roberts. Photograph by Jennifer Gauthier. Presented by Urban Ink Productions in association with 

Black Theatre Workshop. Reproduced by permission from Urban Ink Productions.

347
Artwork in Context

Artwork in Context

The artists and arts organizations whose work appears in these pages 

provided the following supplemental information to help contextualize 

their work. The artwork is listed below in order of appearance. 

Cover Image. Chanel Kennebrew, OVERGIVE. Chanel Kennebrew is a 

Brooklyn based mixed media artist. She uses bold typography, illustration, 

photography and discarded familiar imagery to recompose concepts. 

The use of bold color and playful compositions is significantly important 

reflecting the energy of the pieces. In 2004 she formed Junkprints, which 

is a creative experiment focusing on using art as a catalyst to explore 

value through the eco-design, manufacturing, distribution of clothing 

and accessories. Junkprints started out as her surface exploration of race 

and gender in the media. Junkprints is a response to mainstream media’s 

exclusion and skewed representation of the rest of the American people. 

Junkprints was created as a lifestyle choice put into place to attempt to 

create a balance of perspectives. Kennebrew was born in Inglewood, 

California and has lived and studied in Denver, Colorado and Toronto, 

Ontario. OVERGIVE was donated to the American Cancer Society 

and was auctioned to benefit Look Good Feel Better and the American 

Cancer Society.

Image 1. The McIntosh County Shouters, 2011. The Shouters 

performing a traditional ring shout at the Hofwyl-Broadfield Plantation. 

iii

Images 2 and 3. Julianne Beaudin-Herney, Inner Parts of Me (Part 1). 

Julianne Beaudin-Herney is of Metis, Cree, and Mi’kmaq ancestry. She 

uses motifs from Mi’kmaq and Cree beading to influence the way she 

compiles designs. This photo portrays the birth of art from an artist and 

the tribute art pays to becoming a signature of the artist. vii

Image 4. No additional information provided. viii

Image 5. Oinkari women perform Lapurdiko Makil Dantza during Trailing 

of the Sheep. The Trailing of the Sheep is an annual celebration of the 

sheepherding cultures held in Idaho’s Wood River Valley every October. 

ix

Image 6. No additional information provided. xiii

Image 7. MU, First Voice, Brenda Wong Aoki and Mark Izu, 2013. 

Pictured are the red tipped worms. MU (a dance theater piece with live 

music) is the story of a lonely, ordinary boy from the Land Above who 

journeys to the Deep Blue Sea and learns from the Sea People that we 

are all connected. 1

Image 8. No additional information provided. 18

No image number assigned. [“Check One” from From the Belly of My 

Beauty] No additional information provided. 19

Image 9. No additional information provided. 21

Image 10. Ashes on the Water, 2011 by Quelemia Sparrow and Noah 

Drew. Ashes on the Water is an invitation into a sensory landscape of 

words, movement, breath, and song. A podplay/site-specific dance piece 

unearths the story of two women divided by culture and the waters of 

the Burrard Inlet. The work charts their fateful meeting ignited by the 

Great Vancouver Fire in 1886 and spurred on by a song’s desire to be 

born. 35

Image 11. Promotional postcard for Stir-Friday Night’s This Asian 

American Life sketch comedy revue, 2012. Postcard Content: “This Asian 

American Life, we’re Stir Friday Night. Each year in our show we choose 

a theme, and bring you a variety of sketches on that theme. This year: 

this Asian American life. Being Asian, in America. And what it means 

to laugh.” 39

348
Part II

Image 12. No additional information provided. 47

Image 13. No additional information provided. 50

Image 14. No additional information provided. 58

Image 15. Members of the Vesnivka Choir in Rome for the ensemble’s 

European debut, 1969. The woman in the light blue dress (center of the 

photograph) is Halyna Kvitka Kondracki, Vesnivka’s then and current 

conductor. 62 

Image 16. Dark Diaspora ... in Dub, b current, 1992. b current’s first 

mainstage production at Beaver Hall in Toronto, Ontario (1992).

Dark Diaspora ... in dub is a poetic sojourn exploring the contemporary 

experiences of black women worldwide. Written and directed by 

founding Artistic Director Ahdri Zhina Mandiela, it inspired her to 

found b current, a company rooted in developing and producing stories 

and artists of the Black diaspora. Initially produced by Mandiela during 

the Toronto Fringe Festival at the Poor Alex Theatre (Summer 1991), 

Dark Diaspora ... in dub was one of the first theatrical pieces told through 

dub poetry, a form now often used on stages small and large in fringe and 

mass media. 65

Image 17. No additional information provided. 66

Image 18. Miss Lebron, Breath of Fire Latina Theater Ensemble, 2009. A 

2008 Breath of Fire Latina Theater Ensemble New Works Festival Finalist, 

Miss Lebron tells the story of the controversial life of Puerto Rican 

Nationalist Lolita Lebron, a wife and mother in the 1950s who grew 

from a former beauty queen into one of the most feared and respected 

martyrs for Puerto Rican independence. On March 2, 1954 three Puerto 

Rican Nationalists and Leader Lolita Lebron charged and shot up the 

US House of Representatives. 73

Image 19. No additional information provided. 81

Images 20 and 21. Dakota Hoska, Birch Branch 1 and Birch Branch 2 from 

the series Consulting the Birch, 2013. Hoska explores the intricacies of birch 

bark, not only as an item of beauty, but also as an item frequently used by 

Native Americans from her area. Contemplating the historically artistic 

and utilitarian uses of birch bark, Hoska examines this subject from a 

different perspective. Hoska is also thinking about her own relationship 

to her Native heritage and how, because of her adoption, this connection 

also differs from tradition. 87

Image 22. Longtime students at Los Cenzontles Mexican Arts Center, 

Marissa Bautista, and Bianelle Vasquez, participate in a special fashion 

show. The show highlighted a selection of traditional costumes made 

and collected by Los Cenzontles over the past 20 years. Linda Ronstadt 

served as the emcee. 94

Image 23. No additional information provided. 111

Image 24. No additional information provided. 137

Image 25. [Bhopal script excerpt] No additional information provided. 

147

Image 26. Bruce Naokwegijig (Pictured performer) and Josh Peltier 

(Visual Artist) with Debajehmujig Storytellers. At 11:00 am and 2:00 pm a 

street-facing garage door opened for exactly seven minutes, then closed. 

People gathered to watch, never knowing what would be revealed. 

The Seven Minute Side Show was held on Queen Street, Manitowaning, 

Canada. 159

Image 27. No additional information provided. 162

Image 28. Hurricane in a Glass by Kimberly del Busto, Breath of Fire 

Latina Theater Ensemble, 2009. In Hurricane in a Glass, three generations 

of Cuban-American women struggle to preserve their fading culture. A 

2008 Breath of Fire Latina Theater Ensemble New Works Festival Winner, 

Hurricane in a Glass was the 2009 season opener. 177

349
Artwork in Context

Image 29. Jamal Ari Black and Mervin Primeaux with EDGEWORKS 

Dance Theater, 2011. This photograph was part of a studio photo shoot 

in preparation for EDGEWORKS’s 10th anniversary season and gala. 

180

Image 30. Raul Pizzaro / Self-Help Graphics & Art. Serigraph based off 

of Islamic Law (Sharia) and the common narratives it weaves through 

Christian ideals and suspension of will. 189

Image 31. No additional information provided. 195

Image 32. No additional information provided. 199

Image 33. No additional information provided. 216

Image 34. Holly Calica. Mag-Anak – Family, 2013. In this diptych, Holly 

Calica re-created a photo of her father’s family, taken on the steps of 

their 1940s home. The 2013 rendition took place on the steps of her 

home on Belvedere Street with her sons and granddaughters. 217

Image 35. Merián Soto, Three Branch Songs, 2006. The branch dances are 

simple, yet powerfully communicative, works centered on consciousness 

in action, in performance, in practice. They are grounded in a meditative 

movement practice involving the detailed sequencing of movement 

through inner pathways, the investigation of gravity through dynamic 

shifting of balance and alignment, and the investigation of a spectrum of 

tempi. The simplicity of the performance task — to connect/harmonize 

(body/mind/place/) while approaching stillness always results in 

heightened consciousness and a sense of centering for both dancers and 

viewers. Ms. Soto, is an award-winning dancer and choreographer, and 

began developing the work in 2004. 220

Image 36. MU, First Voice, Brenda Wong Aoki and Mark Izu, 2013. 

Pictured is KK, The Man from the Sea. MU (a dance theater piece with 

live music) is the story of a lonely, ordinary boy from the Land Above 

who journeys to the Deep Blue Sea and learns from the Sea People that 

we are all connected. 223

Image 37. Wise.woman, b current, at the Theatre Centre in Toronto, 

Ontario, 2009. King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba embrace in Wise.

woman’s retelling of their legendary love story through the perspective of 

a modern day Ethiopian-Canadian as she returns to her birthplace. 227

Image 38. [A Raisin in the Salad: Black Plays for White People 

script excerpt] No additional information provided. 227

Image 39. No additional information provided. 231

Image 40. No additional information provided. 241

Image 41. No additional information provided. 255

Image 42. Wanda Ortiz and Arthur Aviles in Ring, produced by Pepatian 

in collaboration with the Bronx Museum of the Arts in 2002. Ring was a 

performative installation directed by Ibrahim Quraishi, with Véronique 

Ruggia-Saura, Sam Gassman, Ron Kiley, Arthur Aviles, Wanda Ortiz, 

among other Bronx-based performing artists like Pedro Jimenez and 

Dennis Darkeem. 260

Image 43. No additional information provided. 263

Image 44. No additional information provided. 266

Image 45. No additional information provided. 275

Image 46. Enrique Castrejon / Self-Help Graphics & Art. Heart Measured 

in Inches, 2013. Artist note: Print based on collage drawing also called Heart 

Measured in Inches. Hand drawn based on drawing – re-measured to 

reflect the various lines in heart. Measurements are used to describe the 

lines and shapes of heart. Scale is 1/8” = 1/8”. The numbers are all 

inches in bold print - lines may reflect - needle like piercings or rays of 

lines - exploding outward. 1/8”, 1/4”, 1/2”, 3/4”, 1” - 3/16”, 1/32” 

are repetitive in a humorous chaotic chorus - measurements - beam 

outward in energetic force. This image was influenced from my father’s 

heart attack in Dec ‘12 and his double by surgery in June ‘13. In order 

350
351 Part II

to keep a good outlook and stay calm and not get nervous and anxious, I 

reflected on the heart - drawing it, measuring a healthy heart to see what 

it is - my father is well and very healthy. 278

Image 47. No additional information provided. 279

Image 48. No additional information provided. 283

Image 49. No additional information provided. 285

Image 50. No additional information provided. 291

Image 51. Sue Herne. Mohawk Samsonite, 2002. Mohawk Samsonite was 

part of the On the Trail of the Iroquois exhibition in Berlin, Germany in 

2013. The exhibition had over 500 works by Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) 

artists – historic and contemporary. 293

Image 52. Promotional flyer for rock.paper.sistahz Festival #11, b current, 

2012. b current’s 11th annual festival of new works featured plays, dance, 

visual art, youth events, and live music. While all previous festivals were 

curated by the artistic director, the 11th started a new game of play. b 

current’s resident artists curated the entire festival featuring 8 jam-packed 

days which included three nights of new play readings and staging. 295

Image 53. A Girl’s War, Golden Thread Productions, 2009. Joyce Van 

Dyke’s award-winning play, A Girl’s War was first produced at Boston 

Playwrights’ Theatre in 2001. Named one of the “top ten” plays of the 

year by the Boston Globe, A Girl’s War won the John Gassner Playwriting 

and the Provincetown Theatre Company Playwriting Awards. In 2003, 

New Repertory Theatre produced the play, again to critical acclaim and 

sold-out houses. A Girl’s War was nominated in 2003 for the prestigious 

American Theatre Critics Association Steinberg New Play Award and 

published in the anthology Contemporary Armenian American Drama 

(Columbia Univ. Press, 2004.) A Girl’s War made its West Coast premiere 

at Golden Thread Productions and received a positive review from The 

San Francisco Bay Guardian. 298

Image 54. [The Elephant Ant: A Modern Day Fairytale] No additional 

information provided. 301-302

Image 55. Luk Täga Näche: Salmon Girl Dreaming, Raven Spirit Dance, 2006. 

Salmon Girl Dreaming explores the emotional landscape and dreams 

of a young woman trying to remember what has been lost. Through 

contemporary dance and puppetry, Luk Täga Näche delves into the 

questions of identity and cultural inheritance. 303

Image 56. Scottish Partnership for Arts and Education (SPAE), 2013. 

Poem by Charlie Teeter. This poem was written after a fieldtrip for 

students at Steger Sixth Grade Center to Powder Valley Nature Center 

as part of the SPAE workshop, Community and the Environment. 307

Image 57. Scottish Partnership for Arts and Education (SPAE), 2013. 

Students at Steger Sixth Grade Center composing a song. SPAE students 

studied the contribution of John Muir (Scottish immigrant and founder 

of the Sierra Club) and Charles Young (African American troop 

commander at Sequoia and Yosemite National Parks in 1903) as part 

of a workshop entitled, Community and the Environment. Students learned 

traditional Scottish songs, made felt, created art objects, and composed 

two songs. 312

Image 58. No additional information provided. 317

Image 59. Contrary Clowns, Debajehmujig Storytellers. Seven Minute Side 

Show, 2013. Pictured: The Contrary Clowns retreat back inside as the garage 

door closes. At 11:00 am and 2:00 pm a street-facing garage door opened 

for exactly seven minutes, then closed. People gathered to watch, never 

knowing what would be revealed. 327

Image 60. No additional information provided. 330

Image 61. No additional information provided. 337

Image 62. No additional information provided. 345
Artwork in Context 352

Image 63. Sal Capone: The Lamentable Tragedy of, Urban Ink Productions, 

2014. Produced by Urban Ink and premiered in Vancouver and Montreal 

(2013-14) in association with Black Theatre Workshop, Sal Capone: The 

Lamentable Tragedy of is a theatrical powerhouse that follows a young hip 

hop group caught in the aftermath of a violent police shooting. 347

Image 64. Gregory Manalo from Palau’an Bird Call- Huni Ng Tandikan. 

Commissioned by Kularts, Master Choreographer Jay Loyola created a 

powerful dance work blending the core elements of courage and healing, 

Palawan Island’s own beautiful but illusive tandikan peacock, with 

aesthetics viscerally anchored in Palawan’s vigorous dance, haunting 

chants, driving percussion music, and the indigenous belief in nature’s 

divine mysteries. The 90-minute piece premiered in three performances, 

Nov 2-3, 2012, at YBCA Forum, brought to life by performers Amada 

G. Rey Arcilla, June Arellano, Alexandria Diaz de Fato, Ritchel Tan 

Gazo, Vince Hutalla, Chariss Ilarina, Ronald Inocencio, Major Julian, 

Greg Manalo, Jonathan Michael Mercado, Lydia Neff, Nick Obando, 

Bryan Pangilinan, Von Parsario, Kim Requesto, Renalyn Tan Salazar, 

and Jonathan Tioseco, to a music score by Nick Obando, and light 

design by Alejandro Acosta. 353

Image 65. No additional information provided. 358
353

Image 64. Gregory Manalo from Palau’an Bird Call- Huni Ng Tandikan, by Philippine Master 

Choreographer Jay Loyola, 2012. Commissioned by Kularts. Photograph by Wilfred Galila. 

Reproduced by permission from Kularts. 
Selected Bibliography 354

Selected Bibliography

Set forth below is a list of works that our research team identified during 

the literature review process and found particularly helpful in informing 

our work; it includes certain writings that are cited in the body of the 

text and other suggested materials. We note that this bibliography 

is not intended to be a complete record of all the sources that we 

consulted, and that it notably omits the important oral contributions of 

practitioners in the field, many of whom are acknowledged elsewhere 

in this book. Rather, we hope that it will prove useful for those who wish 

to delve deeper into a particular area and to assist in locating materials 

that are difficult to find.

Alberta Foundation for the Arts. Aboriginal Arts Programming: A Synopsis. 

Edmonton: Alberta Foundation for the Arts, June 2005. 

———. Aboriginal Arts Programming: Consultations with Service Providers. 

Edmonton: Alberta Foundation for the Arts, October 2005.

———. Aboriginal Arts Research Recommendations. Edmonton: Alberta 

Foundation for the Arts, April 2006.

Alvarez, Maribel. Strike a Global Pose: Considerations for Working with 

Folk and Traditional Cultures in the 21st Century. Santa Fe, NM: Fund 

for Folk Culture, 2008. https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/

handle/2022/3851.

An Ideal Theater: Founding Visions for a New American Art. Edited by Todd 

London. New York: Theatre Communications Group, 2013. See 

esp. chap. 2, “About Us. By Us. For Us. Near Us.” 

Ardali, Azade. Black & Hispanic Art Museums: A Vibrant Cultural Resource. 

New York: Ford Foundation, December 1989. 

Asia Society. Artistic Production and Cultural Identity in U.S. Immigrant and 

Diasporic Communities. New York: Asia Society, December 2005. 

http://asiasociety.org/files/pdf/Artistic_Production.pdf.

Asian American Arts Alliance. Asian American Arts in NYC: A Snapshot of 

Current Trends and Issues. New York: Asian American Arts Alliance, 

September 2009.

Bedoya, Roberto. The Color Line and US Cultural Policy: An Essay with 

Dialogue. National Alliance for Media Arts and Culture, 2011. 

http://namac.org/node/25774.

———. U.S. Cultural Policy: Its Politics of Participation, Its Creative Potential. 

New Orleans: National Performance Network, 2004.

Bowles, Elinor. Cultural Centers of Color: Report on a National Survey. 

Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts, 1993.

Brown, Alan S., Jennifer L. Novak, and Amy Kitchener. Cultural Engagement 

in California’s Inland Regions. Wolf Brown, September 2008. http://

irvine.org/assets/pdf/pubs/arts/CulturalEngagement_FullReport.

pdf.

Brown, DeNeen. “What is the state of black theater in D.C.?” Washington 

Post, January 6, 2012. http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/

style/what-is-the-state-of-black-theater-in-dc/2011/12/22/

gIQArcQLfP_story.html.

Cabrera, Rosa M. “Beyond Dust, Memories and Preservation: Roles of 

Ethnic Museums in Shaping Community Ethnic Identities.” PhD 

diss., University of Illinois at Chicago, 2008.

Carrillo, Juan M. The California Arts Council and Cultural Diversity: A Review 

of 1998-99 Funding to Arts Organizations Within the CAC’s Organizational 

Support and Multi-Cultural Entry Programs. California Arts Council, 

1999. 

Centre for Innovation in Culture and the Arts in Canada. Equity 

within the Arts Ecology: Traditions and Trends. Canadian Public Arts 

Funders, October 2011. http://www.cpaf-opsac.org/en/themes/

documents/CPAFEquityWithintheArtsEcology-FINAL-EN_000.

pdf.

Ceynowa, Andrzej. “Black Theaters and Theater Organizations in 

America, 1961-1982: A Research List.” Black Theater Issue, Black 

American Literature Forum 17, no. 2 (Summer 1983): 84-93.

“Cultural Equity Dialogues: Sustainability.” Alliance for California 

Traditional Arts no. 4 (blog) (August 10, 2010). http://www.actaonline.

org/content/cultural-equity-dialogues-sustainability.
Part II

Davila, Arlene. Culture Works: Space, Value, and Mobility across the Neoliberal 

Americas. New York: New York University Press, 2012.

———. “El Barrio’s ‘We Are Watching You’ Campaign: On the Politics 

of Inclusion in a Latinized Museum.” Aztlán 30 (Spring 2005): 153-

178. 

DeCode. “Ontario Arts Council: Strategic Planning Consultation 

Sessions.” Unpublished report, Ontario Arts Council, Fall/Winter 

2007.

Diaz, Virginia. “On Modeling Civic Engagement: Case Studies of 

Culturally Specific Museums and Latino Constituencies.” Master’s 

thesis, John F. Kennedy University, 2005. 

Dowell, Kristin L. Sovereign Screens: Aboriginal Media on the Canadian West 

Coast. University of Nebraska, 2013. 

Ellis, Adrian. “The Changing Place of the 501(c)(3).” GIA Reader 18, no. 

3 (Fall 2007). http://www.giarts.org/article/changing-place-501c3.

Equinox. “Final Report: Consultations with the Franco-Ontarian arts 

and culture community.” Unpublished report, Ontario Arts Council, 

February 2008. 

Farrell, Betty and Maria Medvedeva. Demographic Transformation and the 

Future of Museums. Washington, DC: AAM Press, 2010. 

First Nations Development Institute. Charitable and Sovereign: Understanding 

Tribal 7871 Organizations. Longmont, CO: First Nations Development 

Institute, 2009.

Fleming, John E. “African-American Museums, History, and the 

American Ideal.” The Practice of American History: A Special 

Issue, Journal of American History 81, no. 3 (December 1994): 1020-

1026.

Ford Foundation. Native Arts and Cultures: Research, Growth and Opportunities 

for Philanthropic Support. New York: Ford Foundation, 2010. 

Four Winds & Associates. Listening to Aboriginal Artists in Alberta: Results from 

Nine Focus Groups. Alberta Foundation for the Arts, April 2006. 

Fred, Morris and Betty Farrell. “Diversifying the Arts; Bringing in Race 

and Ethnic Perspectives.” In Entering Cultural Communities: Diversity and 

Change in the Nonprofit Arts, edited by Diane Grams and Betty Farrell. 

New Brunswich, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2008. 

Fye, Rebecca L. “Native American Tribal Museums, Cultural Centers 

and Heritage Centers and Their Communities.” Master’s thesis, 

State University of New York College at Oneonta, 1998.

Gaither, Edmund Barry. “‘Hey! That’s Mine’: Thoughts on Pluralism 

and American Museums.” In Museums and Communities: The Politics of 

Public Culture, edited by Ivan Karp, Christine Mullen Kreamer, and 

Steven D. Lavine, 56-65. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution 

Press, 1992.

Goldbard, Arlene. New Creative Community: The Art of Cultural Development. 

Oakland, CA: New Village Press, 2006.

Gómez-Peña, Guillermo. “The Multicultural Paradigm: An Open Letter 

to the National Arts Community.” In Beyond the Fantastic: Contemporary 

Art Criticism from Latin America, edited by Gerardo Mosquera, 183-

195. MIT Press, 1996.

Graham, Andrea. “Meeting Summary: A National Gathering Focusing 

on the Development of Support Systems for Immigrant and Refugee 

Arts in the United States.” Meeting notes from gathering organized 

by the Fund for Folk Culture held at the Wheelwright Museum, 

Santa Fe, NM, June 3-4, 2005. 

Grams, Diane. “Producing Local Color: A Study of Networks and 

Resource Mobilization in Three Local Chicago Communities.” 

Working paper, Cultural Policy Center Workshop, University of 

Chicago, March 2, 2004. 

Graves, James Bau. Cultural Democracy: The Arts, Community, and the Public 

Purpose. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2005. 

Harder+Company Community Research. Issue Brief: Latino Arts in San 

Francisco. Harder+Company Community Research, November 

2011. http://harderco.com/wp-content/uploads/SFAC-LatinoArts-Issue-Brief-2011.pdf.

Johnson, Angela. “Cultural Diversity and the Local Arts Agency – 

Serving the Entire Community.” Monographs (National Assembly of 

Local Arts Agencies) 5, no. 3 (April 1996): 1-11. 

Jorgensen, Miriam, Manley Begay, Nathan Pryor, Alyce Sadongei, 

Julius Snell, Rachel Starks, and Joan Timeche. Native Cultural 

Arts Organizations: What They Are and What They Need; An Analytic 

Summary of Atlatl’s National Survey of Native American Controlled Cultural 

Arts Organizations. The Native Nations Institute for Leadership, 

Management and Policy at the Udall Center for Studies in Public 

Policy, The University of Arizona, October 2005. 

355
Selected Bibliography

Kealiinohomoku, Joann. “An Anthropologist Looks at Ballet as a Form 

of Ethnic Dance.” In What is Dance?, edited by Roger Copeland and 

Marshall Cohen, 533-549. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983. 

Killacky, John. “Regrets of a Former Arts Funder.” Blue Avocado, June 23, 

2011. http://www.blueavocado.org/content/regrets-former-artsfunder.

Kitchener, Amy and Ann Markusen. “Working with Small Arts 

Organizations.” GIA Reader 23, no. 2 (Summer 2012). http://www.

giarts.org/article/working-small-arts-organizations.

Kitchener, Amy and Betsy Peterson. “Survey Results about the Effects 

of the Economic Recession on the Folk and Traditional Arts: 2008-

2009.” Report prepared for the Alliance for California Traditional 

Arts, the Fund for Folk Culture, and the National Council for the 

Traditional Arts, 2009. http://www.actaonline.org/sites/default/

files/images/docs/effects_recession_national_8_2009.pdf.

Kitchener, Amy. “Learning and Legacy at the Fund for Folk Culture: An 

Interview with Betsy Peterson.” By Amy Kitchener. GIA Reader 21, 

no. 1 (Spring 2010). http://www.giarts.org/article/learning-andlegacy-fund-folk-culture.

LaLonde, Robert, Colm O’Muircheartaigh, Julia Perkins, Diane Grams, 

Ned English, and D. Carroll Joynes. Mapping Cultural Participation in 

Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Cultural Policy Center, 

2006. 

Loukaitou-Sideris, Anastasia and Carl Grodach. “Displaying and 

Celebrating the ‘Other’: A Study of the Mission, Scope, and 

Roles of Ethnic Museums in Los Angeles.” Public Historian 26, 

no. 4 (Fall 2004): 49-71. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/

tph.2004.26.4.49?origin=JSTOR-pdf.

Moreno, María-José. “Art Museums and Socioeconomic Forces: The 

Case of a Community Museum.” Review of Radical Political Economics

36, no. 4 (Fall 2004): 506-527.

Nanibush Innovations. “Ontario Arts Council Strategic Planning; 

Community Consultations Report.” Unpublished report, Ontario 

Arts Council, February 11, 2008. 

National Association of Latino Arts and Culture. Latino arts and cultural 

organizations in the United States: a historical survey and current assessment. 

Edited by Pedro A. Rodriguez. San Antonio, TX: National 

Association of Latino Arts and Culture, 1998.

National Association of Latino Arts and Culture 1992 Conference Proceedings; 

Crossing Borders: The Next 500 Years. Edited by Pedro A. Rodriguez. 

San Antonio, TX: National Association of Latino Arts and Culture, 

1994.

New York State Council on the Arts. “Black Theatre’s Next Renaissance: 

A Dialogue Between In-State and Out-of-State Black Theatre 

Professionals.” Conference report, New York State Council on the 

Arts Theatre Program, revised December 8, 2002.

Peterson, Elizabeth. The Changing Faces of Tradition: A Report on the Folk and 

Traditional Arts in the United States. Written, edited and compiled by 

Elizabeth Peterson. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the 

Arts, 1996. http://arts.gov/publications/changing-faces-traditionreport-folk-and-traditional-arts-united-states.gm.

Pluralism in the Arts in Canada: A Change is Gonna Come. Compiled and 

edited by Charles C. Smith. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Policy 

Alternatives, 2012. 

Poirier Communications. Findings from the Survey with Aboriginal Dance 

Groups and Artists in Canada. Canada Council for the Arts, May 2003.

Poulin, Louise. Stories from the Field: Perspectives on Innovative Management 

Practices for Aboriginal and Culturally Diverse Arts Organizations. Canada 

Council for the Arts/Canadian Heritage, November 2004. http://

canadacouncil.ca/council/research/find-research/2004/storiesfrom-the-field.

Reel Asian: Asian Canada on Screen. Edited by Elaine Chang. Toronto: 

Toronto Reel Asian International Film Festival, 2007.

“(Re)Presenting America: The Evolution of Culturally Specific 

Museums.” Smithsonian Institution, film recording of Special 

Symposium proceedings. April, 25, 2012. http://www.youtube.

com/playlist?list=PLADEF599C6214F327.

Rosenstein, Carole. Cultural Heritage Organizations: Nonprofits that Support 

Traditional, Ethnic, Folk, and Noncommercial Popular Culture. Washington, 

DC: The Urban Institute, March 2006. 

Rosenstein, Carole and Amy Brimer. “Nonprofit Ethnic, Cultural, and 

Folk Organizations: Baseline Data from the National Center for 

Charitable Statistics.” Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society 35, 

no. 3 (Fall 2005): 189-203.

Roque, Sara. “Aboriginal Arts Projects Programs Report.” Unpublished 

report, Ontario Arts Council, May 29, 2012. 

356
Part II

Ruffins, Fath David. “Culture Wars Won and Lost: Ethnic Museums on 

the Mall, Part I: The National Holocaust Museum and the National 

Museum of the American Indian.” Radical History Review 68 (Spring 

1997): 79-100.

———. “Culture Wars Won and Lost, Part II: The National AfricanAmerican Museum Project.” Radical History Review 70 (Winter 1998): 

78-101.

Sidford, Holly. Fusing Arts, Culture and Social Change: High Impact Strategies for 

Philanthropy. Washington, DC: National Committee for Responsive 

Philanthropy, October 2011. http://www.ncrp.org/paib/artsculture-philanthropy.

Smith, Charles C. “Opening the Gate: Town Hall on Pluralism in 

Performing Arts.” Unpublished report, April 2010. 

Staub, Shalom. Small Organizations in the Folk and Traditional Arts: Strategies 

for Support. Santa Fe, NM: Fund for Folk Culture, 2003. https://

scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/handle/2022/3851.

Strategic Moves and CAPACOA. Supplementary Report on Presenting and 

Aboriginal Communities; The Value of Presenting: A Study of Arts Presentation in 

Canada. Ottawa: Strategic Moves/CAPACOA, August 2012. http://

www.diffusionartspresenting.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/

Special_Report_Aboriginal_Presenting_AmendedAug2012.pdf.

The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: beyond the non-profit industrial complex. 

Edited by INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence. Cambridge, 

MA: South End Press, 2007.

Trépanier, France. Aboriginal Arts Research Initiative: Report on Consultations. 

Ottawa: Canada Council for the Arts, June 2008. http://canadacouncil.

ca/~/media/files/research%20-%20en/aboriginal%20arts%20

research%20initiative%20aari/aarifinalreport.pdf.

———. Final Report: Aboriginal Arts Administration Forum. Banff: Banff 

Centre, September 2008. http://www.banffcentre.ca/indigenousleadership/library/pdf/aaa-final-report.pdf.

Trépanier, France and Chris Creighton-Kelly. Understanding Aboriginal Arts 

in Canada Today: A Knowledge and Literature Review. Ottawa: Canada 

Council for the Arts, December 2011. http://www.canadacouncil.

ca/en/council/research/find-research/2012/understandingaboriginal-arts.

Vega, Marta Moreno. “The Purposeful Underdevelopment of Latino 

and Other Communities of Color.” In Voices from the Battlefront: 

Achieving Cultural Equity, edited by Marta Moreno Vega and Cheryll 

Y. Greene, 103-108. Trenton, New Jersey: Africa World Press, 1993.

Whang, Vanessa. “Arts Funding and Cultural Diversity in the United 

States.” Unpublished report, Ford Foundation, April 2004. 

Wilks, Talvin. “The Tradition of Defining a Tradition.” HowlRound

(blog) (March 10, 2013). http://www.howlround.com/the-traditionof-defining-a-tradition.

357
Image 65. Members of the Arlekin Players Theatre rehearse for their production of The Bear at the International Theater Festival in 

Monaco, 2013. Pictured: Igor Golyak, Alana Kumalagova, Edward Snitkovsiy, and Gene Rzvvin. Photograph by Mikhail Gorbatov. 

Reproduced by permission from Arlekin Players Theatre.

358