RESEARCH DIVISION REPORT #44 1

Raising 

the Barre:

The Geographic, Financial, 

and Economic Trends of 

Nonprofit Dance Companies

A Study by Thomas M. Smith

Research Division Report #44
COVER PHOTO

Hubbard Street Dance Chicago’s production of 

Jim Vincent’s counter/part.

(Photo by Todd Rosenberg)
Raising 

theBarre:

The Geographic, Financial, 

and Economic Trends of 

Nonprofit Dance Companies

A Study by Thomas M. Smith

Foreword by Douglas C. Sonntag

Edited by Bonnie Nichols

Contributions by Janelle Ott and Don Ball

Research Division Report #44
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Smith, Thomas M., 1969-

Raising the barre: the geographic, financial, and economic trends of

nonprofit dance companies: a study by Thomas M. Smith; foreword

by Douglas C. Sonntag; edited by Bonnie Nichols; contributions by 

Janelle Ott and Don Ball.

p. cm. -- (Research Division report; #44)

1. Dance companies--Economic aspects--United States. 2. Nonprofit

organizations--Economic aspects--United States. 3. National Endowment

for the Arts. I. Nichols, Bonnie. II. Ott, Janelle. III. Ball, Don,

1964- IV. Title. V. Research Division report (National Endowment for 

the Arts. Research Division); 44.

GV1785.8.S65 2003

792.8--dc22

2003015218

This report was produced by the National Endowment for the Arts Research Division

Tom Bradshaw, Director

Acknowledgements

The NEA Research Division would like to thank 

Kelly Barsdate (National Assembly of State Arts Agencies), 

Thomas Pollak (National Center on Charitable Statistics), 

and John Munger (Dance/USA) for their contributions 

and counsel; and Stephanie Colman (former division 

assistant with the NEA Dance Department) for her 

database assistance. 

August 2003
Foreword ................................................................................................................1

Executive Summary ..............................................................................................5

Introduction............................................................................................................9

Datasets ................................................................................................................11

Significant Findings ............................................................................................13

Location and Growth of Nonprofit Dance Companies....................................17

Starts and Terminations of Nonprofit Dance Companies................................23

Finances of Nonprofit Dance Companies ........................................................27

The NEA’s Role in Supporting Dance Companies ..........................................33

Conclusion ............................................................................................................37

References ............................................................................................................39

Appendix ..............................................................................................................41

6

Table of Contents
American dance is a fugitive art, resistant to

capture, elusive in definition, and difficult

to quantify. Providing this discipline with

boundaries is particularly hard. The nation’s

dance field is encyclopedic in the forms, techniques, cultures, and aesthetic philosophies it

represents. It contains the traditional, vernacular, and high art dances of hundreds of cultures

and nations. To understand more clearly this

ephemeral art form and the environment in

which it works, the National Endowment for

the Arts (NEA) commissioned a study to examine dance companies over the last decade, titled

Raising the Barre: The Geographic, Financial, and

Economic Trends of Nonprofit Dance Companies.

It is my hope that this document will provide 

a basis from which to look at the effects of 

economic forces on the artistic fortunes of

dance companies.

Charting this terpsichorean landscape was inadvertent; the National Endowment for the Arts

became an archivist for the concert dance world

by default. Each year, applications act as an

annual snapshot of dance companies, presenters, and service organizations. Accumulated

grant files contain the comprehensive history 

of American dance in the last half of the 20th 

century. The other two databases used in this

study, the Unified Database of Arts

Organizations (UDAO) and the economic 

census, are also derived from federal sources.

There is a certain irony that the most evanescent means of artistic expression would find 

its history preserved in government archives. 

These datasets document a period of change

and upheaval for American concert dance.

During the decade, dance companies changed

how they generated income, both earned and

unearned. It was also a period of significant

social transformation that had a profound

impact on cultural organizations and the role of

the artist in American society. In addition to

using movement to express an aesthetic vision,

choreographers and companies were expected

to assume new responsibilities as performers,

educators, community activists, cultural commentators, conservators, and curators.

Over time, the means employed by the Arts

Endowment to gather information on its applicants has followed the evolution of the field.

Categories for funding and the determination of

financial priorities came from recommendations

made each year by panelists drawn from the

professional dance field. Panelists’ recommendations reflected the need to recognize the 

continuous change in the artistic and administrative structure of dance organizations. These

alterations responded to the individual needs 

of choreographers and dancers, while others 

were in reaction to governmental or economic 

imperatives—the need to establish a nonprofit

organization, for instance. 

Cognizant of the evolution of company structure, the National Endowment for the Arts did

not establish a formal definition of what constitutes a dance company, relying instead on its

applicant pool to define the shifting edges of the

1 RAISING THE BARRE

6 Foreword

American Ballet Theatre’s 

production of Frederick Ashton’s

The Dream featuring Alessandra

Ferri and Ethan Stiefel. 

(Photo by Jack Vartoogian)
art form’s institutional boundaries. Over the

years, in addition to artistic excellence, various

characteristics were used to help define which

organizations would have priority in funding

decisions. These characteristics usually 

reflected the concerns of the time, among them

dancers’ employment for a specific period of

time, professional administrative staff, nonprofit

status, and a track record of production.

To understand the significance of the numbers

in this study and how dance companies

changed, it is necessary to recall what forces

were shaping the field’s artistry and finances.

At the beginning of the study, what had come 

to be called the “dance boom” was ending. 

The “dance boom” was the period from the

mid-1960s through the mid-1980s when dance 

companies—mainly ballet and modern—were

proliferating in communities across the country.

The “dance boom” was marked by explosive

growth in the number of companies, eager audiences, domestic and foreign presenters hungry

to showcase recent innovations in American

dance, and an abundance of new funding

opportunities at the local, state, and federal 

levels of government.

Modern dance, particularly companies performing the work of a single choreographer, reaped

the benefits of the new market demand, and

perfected the model for touring troupes. These

companies employed dancers for a significant

portion of the year with every expectation that

demand from audiences and presenters would

continue to sustain performances at home and

lucrative multi-week, regional, national, and

international tours. 

By the late 1980s, a system of support for dance

companies and choreographers was in place.

Independent choreographers received fellowships from the Arts Endowment based on their

demonstrated talent and promise of future

development. These grants were generally the

first grants awarded to artists as they began

their professional careers. Although these

grants were to support “artistic development” in

whatever way the recipient chose to define that

term (e.g. research, travel, extended study with

a mentor), Choreographer’s Fellowships were

most often used as small production grants to

hire dancers, pay for rehearsal space and time,

provide funds for costume design and construction, subsidize theater rental, and finally 

support performance. In short, to establish a

“company.”

As new dance companies grew, they began to

receive larger NEA grants that allowed them to

perform at home and on tour, and significantly,

as Thomas Smith’s analysis shows, to attract

more private dollars. Additionally, a network 

of committed dance presenters played host to

artists outside of their home locations, and 

nurtured artists at all stages of their careers.

Service organizations provided information,

communication, and a means of convening a

disparate field into a unified community. 

To enlarge both their audience and funding

base, ballet companies were in search of cities 

in which to establish second homes. The

Pennsylvania Ballet (Philadelphia, PA) and the

Milwaukee Ballet companies would embark on

a “joint venture” to share resources, as would

Pacific Northwest Ballet (Seattle, WA) and

Minnesota Dance Theater (Minneapolis, MN).

The Joffrey Ballet (now based in Chicago, IL)

had homes in New York and Los Angeles.

Cleveland Ballet’s second home was San Jose,

CA, Cincinnati Ballet’s in New Orleans.

Colorado Ballet (Denver, CO) and Tampa

Ballet (FL) joined forces. Ballet West (Salt

Lake City, UT) had a summer home in Aspen,

CO. Unfortunately, none of these relationships

have proven to be lasting. 

Throughout the 1980s a surge in immigration

from all parts of the world resulted in the

growth of companies and artists working in

specific cultural traditions. As audiences were

exposed to unfamiliar techniques and practices,

critics and artists first began struggling to

RESEARCH DIVISION REPORT #44 2
develop the rhetorical vocabulary that recognized the diversity of what was being performed on stages across the country. “Multicultural art,” “ethnic art,” “traditional art,”

“world dance,” and “fusion art” were all used in

an attempt to codify and understand the swiftly

developing choreographic forms that lay outside

of the worlds of ballet and modern dance. 

The era of expansion, however, was about to 

be replaced by a far more challenging time.

Modern dance companies, with their dependence on touring, were the first to feel the

tremors of the turbulent years to come. The

elimination of the Arts Endowment’s Dance

Touring Program in 1983, in response to a

reordering of the agency’s budgetary priorities,

had signaled a coming instability in the touring

market. And, indeed, as the years progressed,

touring became less remunerative, more unpredictable, with decreased geographic coherence.

One- or two-week residencies by a company

while on the road, long a staple of touring life,

became half-week or single-performance

engagements.

By the late 1980s, resources for touring had

eroded considerably, reflected in the uncertainty

of shifting audience taste, reductions in public

sector funding, and limitations on the number

of new companies the market could accommodate. By 1988, The Mark Morris Dance Group

had left the United States for Belgium and

Twyla Tharp gave up her modern dance company to join the American Ballet Theatre as an

artistic associate. That same year, in the

Atlantic Monthly, Holly Brubach announced

the end of the “so-called dance boom.” What

Raising the Barre notes however, is that the dance

boom’s finale did not necessarily mean a decline

in the formation of new companies. Instead,

the “end” was the beginning of a period of

increasing obstacles to the pursuit of a 

professional life in dance.

Federal governmental support for the arts

began its decline in real dollar terms during the

1980s, and continued to drop in the 1990s. As

the priorities for government funding were

changing, so too were those of the corporate

and foundation worlds, as social needs grew

more urgent. Cultural institutions looking for

dollars to support art often found themselves in

competition with social services agencies’ efforts

to address homelessness, immigration, poverty,

the needs of people with HIV/AIDS, and to

provide educational reform. 

As the decade of the 1990s progressed, the very

nature of art, its value and relationship to the

public sector, became the subject of intense

debate. The argument over the appropriate

federal role in funding the arts had particular

resonance for the dance field. The “dance

boom” was fueled in large part by the resources

of the National Endowment for the Arts, 

beginning with its first grant awarded to the

American Ballet Theatre in 1966. Arts

Endowment funding of individual choreographers, companies, presenters, service organizations, and the distribution of the arts through

the Dance Touring Program—and the national

broadcast of such programs as Dance in

America and Alive From Off Center—had a

profound impact on the growth of the field, its

organizational vitality, the sophistication and 

literacy of its audience, and its fecund artistry.

The end of the “dance boom” coincided with

the deaths of pioneer masters in modern dance

and ballet, and the unforeseen nightmare of

HIV/AIDS that would decimate the nation’s

cultural landscape and rob the dance world of

performers, choreographers, managers, critics,

costume and set designers, and supporters.

AIDS would also provide the subtext of loss,

grief, rage, and physical vulnerability that

underpins much of the choreography created

during the last decade of the 20th century. 

The artistic consequences of the disease will

play out for years to come, but one is readily

evident. Hundreds of dances record an artistic

response to what seemed an unstoppable devas3 RAISING THE BARRE
tation, from the elegiac Concerto Six Twenty-Two,

created by Lar Lubovitch in 1987, to the landmark and much argued about Still/Here, first

staged by Bill T. Jones in 1994.

Despite the short term of its actual existence,

the “dance boom” era companies created the

ideal that almost all subsequent artists would

aspire to emulate. This model was based on the

assumption that dance would remain a staple of

arts presenter programming; that financial subsidy would continue to make national touring

economically feasible; that Choreographer’s

Fellowships would be available to fund the

beginning explorations of emerging choreographers; and that significant funds, both public

and private, would encourage the establishment

of nonprofit dance companies able to support

dancers, choreographers, administrators, and

technical personnel. 

Raising the Barre makes clear that during the

final decade of the last century there were 

serious challenges regarding the veracity of core

assumptions on earned income, governmental

support, and charitable giving. Touring, as a

source of earned income, became unpredictable

and less remunerative. In 1995, in response to a

congressional mandate, NEA awards to individual artists were eliminated. The NEA budget

was cut from $175.9 million in 1992 (its highest

level) to $99.5 million in 1996. Consequently,

the percent of the average dance company’s

budget derived from NEA grants declined from

7.6 to 2.5. And according to studies that follow

trends in grant making, charitable donations to

the arts did not keep pace with allocations to

other sectors such as health care and education.

Dance companies of all genres face the reality

of a ruthlessly short lifecycle, and most companies formed in the early years of the century 

did not survive. That trend is still operative.

Today, the vast majority of American dance

companies are less than 40 years old. In a

review of the 1987 NEA Annual Report, grants

were awarded to 97 dance companies. Only 54

of those companies still function as dance 

companies in 2002. 

Each year, however, new artists replace those

companies that succumb to the rigors of 

survival. Between 1987 and 1997, the number

of nonprofit companies grew by 93 percent,

according to Smith’s report. In fact, dance

companies have become more widely dispersed

throughout the country, allowing more access 

to professional dance performances for all

Americans. Despite a drop in funding from the

NEA, dance companies saw an increase in 

average income throughout the 1990s, with

every $1 in NEA grants leveraging approximately $3.50 from other sources.

American dance, viewed as an artistic whole,

has proven to be remarkably resilient. The 

nonprofit model for developing a dance 

company has shown its ability to adapt to ever

evolving conditions while still providing a

framework in which artists can work.

Historically, American dance has responded to

the challenges of the moment with artistry, 

ingenuity, wit, and tenacity—all signs of hope

for a lively new century. 

Douglas C. Sonntag

Director of Dance

National Endowment for the Arts

RESEARCH DIVISION REPORT #44 4
Raising the Barre: The Geographic, Financial, and

Economic Trends of Nonprofit Dance Companies

was commissioned by the National Endowment

for the Arts as part of the agency’s ongoing

effort to conduct and disseminate research 

findings on arts organizations. The study draws

on three databases containing information 

related to nonprofit dance companies: (1) the

Unified Database of Arts Organizations

(UDAO), a newly available database produced

jointly by the Endowment, the National Center

for Charitable Statistics as part of the Urban

Institute, and the National Assembly of State

Arts Agencies; (2) the economic census, a census of business establishments conducted every

five years by the U.S. Census Bureau; and 

(3) a database of dance company applicants,

produced and maintained by the NEA dance

staff.

The three datasets vary somewhat in the time

periods covered. For example, the UDAO

covers 1989 through 1999, while the NEA

applicant database contains information from

1988 through 2000. The economic census is

conducted every five years, and therefore 

does not provide continuous year-over-year

information. In this report, most economic 

census data reference the years 1987 and 1997.

In combining the three data sources, Raising the

Barre examines key issues that took place 

during the decade of the late 1980s through 

the late 1990s.

The following summarizes the study’s key 

findings: 

Growth in the Nonprofit 

Dance Industry

Between 1987 and 1997, the number of 

nonprofit dance companies grew by 93 

percent. However, growth rates slowed during

the early and mid-1990s, likely due to lasting

effects of the 1990-91 recession, then increased

in 1996 and 1997.

On a regional basis, the Northeast and West

had the largest concentrations of dance companies. In 1997, there were 2.4 dance companies for every one million residents in the

Northeast, and 1.6 in the West. The Midwest

and South recorded 0.97 and 0.87, respectively. 

Over the 1987-1997 time frame, all regions

experienced growth in the number and 

concentration of dance companies. In fact,

growth in dance companies far outpaced 

population growth. For example, the West

experienced 19 percent population growth over

the 10-year time frame. Over the same period,

the region’s concentration of dance companies

(companies per one million residents) increased

by 100 percent. Though not quite as dramatic,

the other three regions showed similarly highpaced growth in dance company numbers and

concentration.

5 RAISING THE BARRE

6 Executive Summary

Bill T. Jones/Arnie Zane Dance

Company’s production of Bill T.

Jones’ Ballad featuring (from left

to right) Bill T. Jones, Germaul

Barnes, and Marc Mann. 

(Photo by Michael Mazzeo)
States with large populations (e.g., California,

Texas, New York, and Illinois) were also the

states with the highest number of dance companies. In 1997, New York ranked first with 81

nonprofit dance companies,1 and California

placed second with 45. New York’s nonprofit

dance company concentration was even

stronger when measured on a per capita basis.

For every one million New York residents in

1997, there were 4.5 dance companies, vs. 1.4

dance companies in California.

Compared to other performing arts establishments, such as theaters and symphony 

orchestras, more dance companies were 

located on the east and west coasts, with

heavier concentrations in New York,

California, Florida, and Massachusetts.

Theaters and symphony orchestras are more

evenly distributed throughout the country.

Though still concentrated in high-population

states, dance companies became more widely

dispersed throughout the country. In 1989, 

61 percent of dance companies were located in

seven highly populated states. By 1999, the

percentage of companies in these seven states

dropped to 54 percent. 

Even though there was significant growth in

the number of dance companies during the late

1980s through the late 1990s, the industry may

now be reaching a “steady state,” where

growth is curtailed because the number of

new companies (i.e., births) and the number

that close down (i.e., terminations) are 

moving closer together.

Financial Developments

Average income and expenses, adjusted for

inflation, increased throughout the late 1990s.

In 1999, for example, average income grew

by 13 percent to reach nearly $663,000. The

late 1990s budget increases signified a recovery

from the 1990-91 U.S. economic recession and

its lasting effects on the nonprofit dance 

industry. In 1994, average income dropped to

$377,000, a decline of 12 percent over the 1993

budget, and the lowest income level of the

1989-1999 time frame. 

Ballet companies took nearly six years to

recover from the recession, while modern and

ethnic dance companies recovered within

three years. It may be that non-ballet dance

companies more quickly adapt to budget constraints because they have, on average, shorter

planning periods, fewer large and complicated

sets, smaller administrative staffs, and other

characteristics that may give them more flexibility in dealing with budget changes.

The percentage of dance companies generating surpluses fluctuated throughout the 1989-

1999 time period studied. In 1989, for

instance, almost 67 percent reported surpluses.

In 1993, the share fell to a low of 54 percent,

likely reflecting lingering effects of the 1990-91

recession. By 1999, following an irregular 

up-and-down pattern, the share with budget

surpluses again increased, reaching 62 percent.

Dance company income is of two types: earned

(ticket and other sales) and contributed or

RESEARCH DIVISION REPORT #44 6

1 The figures quoted here were taken from the 1997 Economic Census, Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation sector. In enumerating

nonprofit dance companies, the economic census draws from establishments filing Form 990, which is used by organizations exempt

from income tax. Therefore, the figures reported here exclude for-profit dance companies; companies not required to file Form 990,

including those not formally organized as 501 (c)(3), i.e., tax-exempt entities; and companies subsumed within parent organizations (e.g., universities or museums).
unearned (contributions, gifts, and grants).

Over the decade examined, growth in ticket

and other sales outpaced growth in contributions. In 1989, average earned income, adjusted for inflation, was roughly $265,000, and

remained near this level until 1995, when it

increased to $327,000. Average earned income

generally increased in the remaining years,

reaching almost $468,000 by 1999—a 

76 percent gain over 1989 levels. By contrast,

average unearned income started at roughly

$174,000 in 1989, and remained fairly constant

in the remaining years. By 1999, average

unearned income had only increased by 

4.5 percent over 1989 levels to reach $182,000.

While the strong economy during the mid and

late 1990s probably helped dance companies

sell more tickets, declining government and

business support for dance companies served

to curtail growth in unearned income. In

1987, the NEA contributed 7.6 percent of all

unearned income. By 1997, this share fell to 

2.5 percent. As a percentage of total unearned

income, contributions from other government

sources and businesses also fell. 

However, contributions from individuals rose.

In 1987, individuals contributed 27 percent of

unearned income. This percentage increased

to 36 percent in 1997.2 Consequently, during

the decade examined, dance companies became

increasingly dependent on ticket sales and

donations from individuals to support their

budgets, and therefore, their artistic goals. 

Selling more tickets can mean increases in

donations. This study shows that for every $1

a dance company earned in ticket sales, it

received about 14 cents in contributions. This

is because ticket buyers are often asked to make

contributions when buying tickets, or are contacted later by fundraising staff. Also, corporations are more likely to award grants and advertise with companies that sell a lot of tickets. 

Ballet companies received more contributions

partly because they sold more tickets than

other types of dance companies (e.g., modern

or ethnic dance companies). Ballet company

name recognition and the staging of popular

ballets such as The Nutcracker and Swan Lake

help sell tickets and garner donations. Over the

decade studied, ballet companies received an

average of $50,000 to $100,000 more annually

in contributions than non-ballet dance groups.

Dance companies located in Illinois received

more contributions, on average, than companies located in other states. Illinois is home to

a number of businesses that make significant

donations to the arts (e.g., Polk Brothers and

the Sara Lee Foundation) and has a smaller

concentration of dance companies compared to

other large states such as New York, California,

and Texas. So, there is less competition for a

larger pool of contributed funding.

The Endowment’s Role in

Leveraging Contributions 

As discussed above, NEA support for dance

companies3 fell as a share of contributed

income over the period studied. NEA appropriations reached a high of $175.9 million in

1992, but were cut to $99.4 million in 1996.

The agency’s budget remained below $100 

million until 2001. Consequently, NEA 

funding for dance companies fell from an

average of $5.7 million between 1988-1995 

to $2.7 million in 1996.

7 RAISING THE BARRE

2 In 1997, individual contributions made up 45 percent of private giving to nonprofit dance companies. Private giving is defined

here as contributions from individuals, foundations, and business.

3 This paper examines the overall dance organization budget. During the period studied, the NEA also supported dance companies through programs such as “Challenge,” “Advancement,” and “Expansion Arts”, all of which are excluded from this analysis.
Despite reduced appropriations and the 

resulting decline in direct contributions to

dance companies, this study shows that the

NEA’s role in supporting nonprofit dance goes

beyond that of awarding grants. Through

required matching grants and other factors 

such as the prestige conferred to grantees, the

Endowment can also help channel contributions from private sources (i.e., individuals,

businesses, and foundations) and state and

local governments. This study shows that

every $1 in NEA grant funding leveraged

about $3.50 for dance companies from other

sources. For example, a dance company 

receiving a $15,000 grant from the Endowment

can expect to attract, on average, an additional

$52,500 in contributions from additional

sources.

RESEARCH DIVISION REPORT #44 8
Raising the Barre uses newly available

datasets to examine trends in the nonprofit4

dance field. Spanning the decade of the late

1980s through the late 1990s, this study provides a comprehensive look at factors such as

growth in the number of dance companies,

including trends in starts and terminations; geographic concentration; and financial aspects

such as the importance of ticket sales and the

effects of the 1990-1991 recession. This analysis is also the first to investigate the role the

National Endowment for the Arts plays in

leveraging funding for dance companies. 

The study found a heavy concentration of companies in key states, particularly New York, and

suggests that the industry may have reached a

steady state of slow growth. The analysis also

looks at dance company finances over the

decade, reporting a long contraction in income

and expenses during the early and mid 1990s,

and then a strong recovery at the end of the

decade, a pattern due, in part, to the lingering

effects of the 1990-1991 U.S. economic recession and its following recovery. 

The study also explores trends in the 

components of income, earned and unearned,

and found that, over the decade studied, dance

companies became more dependent on ticket

sales and contributions from individuals. Also,

companies that sold more tickets and spent

more on fundraising received more in contributions, a pattern that explains why ballet companies, on average, received more donations than

other types of dance troupes, such as modern or

ethnic companies. In addition, over the 10-year

period, the NEA contributed a smaller share of

unearned income. Financial support from the

agency, however, helped leverage funding from

other sources—for every $1 in NEA grants,

dance companies received from $3.50 to $16.45

in contributions from other sources.

Section 2 of this paper introduces and explains

the characteristics of the datasets used in the

study, and section 3 summarizes the report’s

salient findings. More detailed information is

found in the remaining sections 4, 5, 6, and 7,

which cover geographic location, starts and 

terminations, financial trends, and the effects 

of NEA grants. A conclusion is provided in 

section 8, followed by a three-part appendix.

9 RAISING THE BARRE

6Introduction

Flamenco Vivo Carlota Santana

dancers Carlota Santana and

Manola Rivera. 

(Photo by Lois Greenfield)

“

4 The terms “nonprofit” and “tax-exempt” are used to describe dance companies that do not have private owners to whom profits

are distributed. Nonprofit companies with $25,000 or more in income must file IRS Form 990.
RESEARCH DIVISION REPORT #44 10

Lar Lubovitch Dance Company’s 

production of Lar Lubovitch’s 

Men’s Stories featuring Scott Rink. 

(Photo by Len Price)
Unified Database of Arts

Organizations

The Unified Database of Arts Organizations(UDAO)5 is a relatively new database

produced jointly by the National Endowment

for the Arts; the Urban Institute, National

Center for Charitable Statistics; and the

National Assembly of State Arts Agencies. The

UDAO counts arts organizations filing Form

990, Return of Organizations Exempt from

Income Tax, which is required of tax-exempt

establishments with $25,000 or more in annual

income. Since it is based on Form 990 filings,

the UDAO contains detailed financial variables

and data showing dance company starts and

terminations. Of the three sources, it is the

only dataset to provide continuous, year-to-year

information on the broad population of 

nonprofit dance companies. In this study, the

UDAO covers 1989 through 1999, and only

performing dance companies, as opposed to

schools, were included.

NEA-Dance Applicants

Another new source of information on the 

nonprofit dance industry is the National

Endowment for the Arts-Dance Applicant

(NEA-DA) database, produced by the agency’s

dance staff. For each year covered by the 

database (corresponding to grant years 1988

through 2000)6

, the NEA-DA shows the 

applicant’s state, earned income, contributed

income, total expenses, and NEA grants.

Unlike the UDAO and economic census data,

the NEA-DA counts only those dance companies that applied for NEA grants; it is not a 

census of the nonprofit dance industry. But it

does provide the most reliable information

about dance company genre, for example, ballet

and modern. It is also the only data source

identifying NEA grants, a variable necessary 

to study the federal government’s role in 

leveraging funding from other sources.

Economic Census

The U.S. Census Bureau conducts a census of

business establishments every five years. This

study focuses on the tax-exempt dance companies counted in 1987, 1992, and 1997, the most

recent year of data available from the economic

11 RAISING THE BARRE

6 Datasets

Jazz Tap Ensemble’s 

production of 

Lynn Dally’s Solea. 

(Photo by Paul Antico)

5 In this paper, the UDAO includes 1998 and 1999 data from the Digital Database, or DD, also available from the Urban

Institute, National Center for Charitable Statistics.

6 The NEA-DA reports both grant and financial years. For example, a company applying for a grant in 2000 reported its 

financial information (income and expenses) for 1998. This paper shows NEA-DA by grant year. 
census.7 Under U.S. code, the Census Bureau

does not release information about individual

business establishments. Instead, data are

totaled for geographic areas, for example, the

U.S. and individual states, and by genre such 

as ballet or modern dance companies. The EC

counted 188 tax-exempt dance companies in

1987. This number grew to 275 in 1992, and

363 in 1997. The EC provides detailed breakdowns of dance company revenue, including

revenue from ticket sales, contract fees, 

merchandise sales, and contributions.

RESEARCH DIVISION REPORT #44 12

7 Data from the 2002 economic census are not yet available.
This report draws from research using all

three sources (UDAO, NEA-DA, and

EC), applying the dataset best suited to the 

specific topic at hand. Because each dataset

was designed to serve a different purpose, various approaches were used to capture (that is,

include or exclude) dance companies. As a

result, the three sources provide somewhat 

different counts of nonprofit dance companies.8

So, readers should focus on the overall trends

and conclusions presented rather than the different counts produced by each of the sources.

The following are significant findings and the

datasets used in the specific analysis reported:

Growth, Concentration, and

Location of Dance Companies

Between 1987 and 1997, the number of 

nonprofit dance companies in the U.S. grew

from 188 to 363 companies, or 93 percent. 

The Northeast had the largest number of dance

companies (124 in 1997) but showed similar

growth (59 percent) as that of the West (56

percent). For all regions, the rate of growth 

for dance companies slowed between 1992 

and 1997 (EC). On a year-by-year basis, the

number of nonprofit dance companies grew 33 

percent between 1989 and 1992 but remained

constant (1 percent growth) between 1992 and

1995. (UDAO) 

New York and California were the top two

states in number of companies. The number 

of companies in New York increased from 

48 (1989) to 66 (1999) and the number of 

companies in California increased from 40

(1989) to 53 (1997). (UDAO) 

In 1999, New York had 3.2 dance companies

for every one million state residents.

Massachusetts had 2.1, and California and

Florida each had 1.6. Though concentrated 

in high population states, dance companies

became more widely dispersed throughout the

country. In 1989, 61 percent of dance companies were located in California, New York,

Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts,

and Illinois. By 1999, the percentage of 

companies in these seven states fell to 

54 percent. (UDAO) 

13 RAISING THE BARRE

6 Significant Findings 

The Joffrey Ballet of Chicago’s

production of Gerald Arpino’s

L’Air d’Esprit featuring 

Maia Wilkins. 

(photo by Herbert Migdoll)

8 The author analyzed each of the datasets independently and prepared three draft reports on the findings. These reports, one for

each dataset, are available from the author or from the Research Division of the National Endowment for the Arts. 
The growth of dance companies outpaced the

growth of population in all regions of the U.S.

The Northeast had a concentration of 1.3 

companies per 1 million residents in 1987 and 

a concentration of 2.4 companies per 1 million

residents in 1997. The West also doubled the

concentration of companies during this 10-year

period, with a concentration of 0.8 companies

per 1 million residents in 1987 and 1.6 companies per 1 million residents in 1997. (EC) 

Between 1987 and 1997, the number of ballet

companies increased from 78 to 127 and the

number of modern dance companies went up

from 33 to 88. Combined, ballet and modern

dance troupes made up almost 60 percent of all

tax-exempt dance organizations. (EC)

Starts and Terminations of 

Dance Companies

In 1989 through 1993, the “birthrate” (starts

per 100 companies) followed a variable upand-down period, and then steadily fell from 

8.4 in 1994 to 0.6 in 1998. Starts were concentrated in New York and California, which were

also the states with the largest numbers of

dance companies. Terminations, though smaller

in number and more difficult to track, slightly

declined. Over the decade studied, one-third 

of dance company terminations occurred in

Florida and Texas. (UDAO)

This combination of decreasing starts and

increasing terminations suggests that the nonprofit dance industry may be reaching a “steady

state,” or a period of slow growth. For example, the UDAO shows that the number of nonprofit dance companies declined from 359 in

1998 to 356 in 1999, a percentage change of

–0.8 percent. A saturation of dance companies

in a few key areas, say in New York or

California, may be contributing to a steady state

in the number of dance companies. (UDAO)

Financial Trends in the 

Nonprofit Dance Industry

Average real income and expenses of dance

companies declined between 1991 and 1994,

likely reflecting the effects of the 1990-1991

economic recession, then generally increased in

1995 through 1999. On average, ballet companies took six years to recover, and modern and

ethnic companies recovered within three years.

(UDAO) 

Dance company income is of two types: earned

(ticket and other sales) and unearned (contributions, gifts, and grants). As an indicator of

financial success, the Earned Income Ratio

(EIR) measures earned income as a percentage

of total income. After declining in 1990 and

1991, the EIR for nonprofit dance companies

generally followed an upward trend in the

remaining years of the decade, increasing from

62.3 percent in 1992 to 70.6 percent in 1999.

This upward movement in the EIR suggests

that the industry’s financial conditions improved

during the 1990s. (UDAO)

The EC reports that earned income was 54 

percent of total income in 1997, and admission

receipts (ticket sales) and contract fees (for

example, touring fees) were the largest sources.

Combined, admissions and contract fees

accounted for 77 percent of all earned income

in 1997. Merchandise sales, patron fees, royalties, and other sources made up the remaining

23 percent. (EC)

In 1987, the NEA contributed 7.6 percent of all

unearned income. By 1997, this share fell to 2.5

percent. As a share of total unearned income,

RESEARCH DIVISION REPORT #44 14
15 RAISING THE BARRE

contributions from other government sources

and businesses also fell. But contributions 

from individuals rose. In 1987, individuals 

contributed 27 percent of unearned income.

This percentage increased to 36 percent in

1997. So, over the decade studied, nonprofit

dance companies became increasingly dependent on ticket sales, contract fees, and individual

contributions. (EC)

Selling more tickets can mean increases in

donations. This study shows that for every 

$1 a dance company earned in ticket sales, it

received 14 cents in contributions. This is

because ticket buyers are often asked to make

contributions when buying tickets, or are 

contacted later by fundraising staff. Also, 

corporations are more likely to award grants

and advertise with companies that sell a lot of

tickets. (UDAO and NEA-DA) 

Ballet companies received more contributions

partly because they sold more tickets than other

types of dance companies (e.g., modern or 

ethnic dance companies). Ballet company name

recognition and the staging of popular ballets

such as The Nutcracker and Swan Lake helped sell

tickets and garner donations. Over the decade

studied, ballet companies received an average of

$50,000 to $100,000 more annually in contributions than non-ballet dance groups. (UDAO

and NEA-DA)

NEA Support for Nonprofit 

Dance Companies

In 1992, NEA appropriations peaked to reach

nearly $176 million. In that year, the agency

awarded $5.6 million to nonprofit dance companies, or 3.2 percent of its budget. But, in 1996,

the agency’s appropriations were cut to 99.5

million, a 43 percent reduction, and grants to

dance companies dropped to $2.7 million, or 

2.7 percent of the agency’s budget. By 2000,

the agency awarded 2.2 percent of its $97.7 

million budget to support dance. (NEA-DA)

Between 1988 and 2000, the number of dance

companies applying for NEA grants remained

fairly stable, ranging from 150 to 220 companies. But, as the agency’s appropriations

declined, the average grant to dance companies

declined too. The average grant awarded to

dance companies in 1988 was $53,280. By

2000, the average grant awarded to dance 

companies dropped to $19,000, about 35 

percent of its nominal value in 1988. 

(NEA-DA)

Despite reduced appropriations and the 

resulting decline in direct contributions to

dance companies, the NEA helped channel 

contributions from private sources (individuals,

businesses, and foundations) and state and local

governments. Over the period studied, every

$1 in NEA grant funding leveraged about $3.50

for dance companies from other sources. The

study also found that non-NEA contributors

were more likely to fund dance companies that

sold a lot of tickets, ran budget surpluses, and

were older and more established. These findings indicate that the NEA may play a special

role in identifying new talent. As the agency

awards grants based largely on artistic excellence, it may discover dance companies that are

not yet well established or well known to other

contributors. An NEA grant may signal to

other contributors, particularly foundations,

that such a company is worthy of financial 

support. (NEA-DA and UDAO)
RESEARCH DIVISION REPORT #44 16

Mark Morris Dance Group’s 

production of Mark Morris’ Grand Duo.

(Photo by Mark Royce)
National and Regional Growth 

in the Number of Nonprofit

Dance Companies

Chart 1 shows the number of dance companies recorded by the UDAO and EC.

Combined, the EC and UDAO showed strong

growth in the number of dance companies in

the decade of the late 1980s to the late 1990s.

For example, the number of tax-exempt dance

companies counted by the EC more than

tripled, rising from 122 in 1987 to 363 in 1997.9

The UDAO also recorded growth over the

decade. Between 1989 (the first year tracked

by the UDAO) and 1999, this data source

reported a 51 percent gain in nonprofit companies, increasing from 236 to 356. Lingering

effects of the 1990-1991 recession likely 

contributed to the slowdown shown in 1993,

1994, and 1995. During these years, the number of dance companies increased by only 1 to 2

percent. Following this slow period, the number of dance companies again rose, reaching

360 in 1997, and remained near that level in

1998 and 1999, suggesting that the dance 

industry may have reached a “steady state,” 

discussed more fully in section 5. 

Table 1 shows the number of dance companies

by genre and region for the EC years 1987,

1992, and 1997. Between 1987 and 1997, the

Northeast and the West showed the largest

increases in tax-exempt dance companies, 

gaining 59 and 56 companies, respectively. 

In all regions but the Northeast, growth in 

the number of dance companies was stronger 

during the 1987 through 1992 period. The

1990-1991 recession may have slowed growth

during the 5-year period of 1992 through 1997. 

By genre, the EC shows that most of the

regional growth in dance companies was in 

the modern dance category. Between 1987 and

1997, for example, the number of modern dance

companies increased from 18 to 47 in the

17 RAISING THE BARRE

6 Location and Growth of 

Nonprofit Dance Companies

Lar Lubovitch Dance Company’s production of Lar Lubovitch’s Concerto Six Twenty-Two

featuring Leonard Meek, Kathy Casey, and Ronni Favors. (Photo by Jack Mitchell)

9 Some of the EC growth was due to improved methods in identifying business establishments. 

0

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

UDAO Economic Census

Chart 1.

Number of Nonprofit Dance Companies: UDAO & EC

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

UDAO Economic Census

1987 1987 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Number of Companies 

Year
Northeast Region (Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire,

Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York,

New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) 

North Central Region (Michigan, Ohio, Indiana,

Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North

Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas) 

South Region (Delaware, Maryland, District of

Columbia, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina,

Georgia, Florida, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee,

Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma,

and Texas) 

West Region (Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New

Mexico, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, Washington,

Oregon, California, Hawaii, and Alaska)

Northeast, and from 4 to 21 in the West. The

South, however, showed more growth in the

number of ballet companies, increasing from 23

to 49. Growth rates for the combined category

labeled “Folk, Ethnic, Jazz, and Tap” were

more difficult to track. For example, between

1992 and 1997, the number of companies in this

category dropped from 39 to 30 while companies not reporting a genre on the census questionnaire increased from 70 to 118. This 

pattern suggests that, over time, some growth 

in the number of ethnic and jazz and tap 

companies was hidden in the “Not Designated” 

category.

RESEARCH DIVISION REPORT #44 18

Table 1.

Number of Tax-Exempt 

Dance Groups by Region

Region 1987 1992 1997

Northeast

Ballet 20 24 21

Modern 18 31 47

Folk, Ethnic, Jazz & Tap 4 16 11

Not Designated 23 18 45

NE TOTAL 65 89 124

North Central

Ballet 18 24 26

Modern 6 7 13

Folk, Ethnic,Jazz & Tap 2 10 5

Not Designated 10 10 17

NC TOTAL 36 51 61

South

Ballet 23 36 49

Modern 5 7 7

Folk, Ethnic, Jazz & Tap 0 5 2

Not Designated 10 18 24

S TOTAL 47 66 82

West

Ballet 17 24 31

Modern 4 13 21

Folk, Ethnic, Jazz & Tap 5 8 12

Not Designated 14 27 32 

W TOTAL 40 69 96

TOTAL by GENRE

Ballet 78 108 127

Modern 33 58 88

Folk, Ethnic, Jazz & Tap 11 39 30

Not Designated 66 70 118

Total Tax-Exempt 

Dance Companies 188 275 363

Source: 1987, 1992, 1997 economic censuses.
19 RAISING THE BARRE

Chart 2.

Number of Companies in New York and California

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1987 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Year Source: 2000 UDAO

# Comp / 1 Million Pop.

NY

CA

Chart 3.

Number of Companies Per Million Residents–NY, CA, FL, MA

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

Year Source: 2000 UDAO

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Number of Companies

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Number of Companies/Million Population

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

Year Source: 2000 UDAO

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

NY

CA

NY per Mil. Pop

FL per Mil. Pop

CA per Mil. Pop

MA per Mil. Pop
Regional and State Concentration

of Dance Companies

Chart 2 shows the number of nonprofit dance

companies in New York and California, the two

states with the highest number of dance companies. In 1999, for example, New York had 66

companies and California had 53. Combined,

the two states were home to one-third of all

nonprofit dance companies counted by the

UDAO in that year.

Chart 3 goes beyond basic counts to show 

concentration, or the number of companies per

one million residents, for the top four states:

New York, California, Florida, and

Massachusetts. New York’s concentration of

dance companies towered above the other

states, exceeding three companies for every one

million residents for most of the decade.

Massachusetts, which ranked sixth in the number of dance companies tracked by the UDAO,

was second in concentration throughout most of

the 1989 through 1999 period. In 1999, for

example, Massachusetts had a concentration of

2.1 companies. California and Florida each had

approximately 1.6 companies for every one 

million residents in 1999. 

Table 2 shows the number and concentration 

of dance companies by region. In each of the

years covered by the EC, the Northeast, which

includes New York and Massachusetts, outpaced the other regions. Dance company 

concentration in this region reached 2.4 

companies per one million residents in 1997.

The West, including California, ranked second, 

rising from 0.8 companies per one million 

residents in 1987 to 1.6 in 1997. The table also

shows that growth in the number of dance 

companies exceeded population growth in all

four regions. Between 1987 and 1997, for

example, population in the West increased by

19 percent. During the same time frame, the

dance company concentration in that region

increased by 100 percent. 

Table 3, also based on the EC, shows that dance

companies were more heavily concentrated in

the Northeast than theatrical groups and 

symphony orchestras, which, along with dance,

are major components of the nonprofit 

performing arts industry. In 1997, for example,

34 percent of dance companies were located in

the Northeast. By contrast, about 28 percent 

of theatrical groups and 23 percent of symphony orchestras were based in this region.

Table 2 shows the number and concentration 

of dance companies by region. In each of the

years covered by the EC, the Northeast, which

includes New York and Massachusetts, outpaced the other regions. Dance company concentration in this region reached 2.4 companies

per one million residents in 1997. The West,

including California, ranked second, rising from

0.8 companies per one million residents in 1987

RESEARCH DIVISION REPORT #44 20

Table 2.

Concentration of Companies Per Region

1987 1987 1987 1992 1992 1992 1997 1997 1997

Population Companies Co./Mil. Population Companies Co./Mil. Population Companies Co./Mil.

Region (Millions) Pop. (Millions) Pop. (Millions) Pop.

Northeast 50.3 65 1.3 51.0 89 1.7 51.5 124 2.4

Midwest 54.3 36 0.7 60.7 51 0.8 62.6 61 1.0

South 87.9 47 0.5 88.1 66 0.7 94.1 82 0.9

West 49.7 40 0.8 55.1 69 1.3 59.3 96 1.6

Source: 1987, 1992, 1997 economic censuses.
to 1.6 in 1997. The table also shows that

growth in the number of dance companies

exceeded population growth in all four regions.

Between 1987 and 1997, for example, population in the West increased by 19 percent.

During the same time frame, the dance company concentration in that region increased by

100 percent. 

Table 3, also based on the EC, shows that dance

companies were more heavily concentrated in

the Northeast than theatrical groups and symphony orchestras, which, along with dance, are

major components of the nonprofit performing

arts industry. In 1997, for example, 34 percent

of dance companies were located in the

Northeast. By contrast, about 28 percent of

theatrical groups and 23 percent of symphony

orchestras were based in this region. 

21 RAISING THE BARRE

Table 3.

The Location of Nonprofit Dance Groups,

Theatrical Groups, and Symphony Orchestras, 1997

Dance Theatrical Symphony

Groups Groups Orchestras

No. % No. % No. %

Northeast 124 34.2% 407 27.5% 194 23.1%

Midwest 61 16.8% 335 22.6% 188 22.3%

South 82 22.5% 412 22.6% 188 22.3%

West 96 26.5% 327 22.1% 240 28.6%

TOTAL 363 1481 840

Source: 1987, 1992, 1997 economic censuses.

Chart 4.

Percentage of Nonprofit Dance Companies in Top Seven States

48%

50%

52%

54%

56%

58%

60%

62%

Percentage of Companies

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Year Source: 2000 UDAO
RESEARCH DIVISION REPORT #44 22

Muntu Dance Theatre’s production of

Abdoulaye Camara’s Balante featuring 

Uche Omoniyi and Harry Detry. 

(Photo by Kwabena Shabu)
I

n addition to looking at growth rates in the

number of dance companies, this analysis

also investigated trends in starts (births) and

terminations of dance companies in the late

1980s to late 1990s decade. Dance company

start dates are designated on the company’s IRS

Form 990. A termination is also shown on the

form if the company reports a “Final Filing”

status. Form 990 filings do not fully capture

dance company starts and terminations because

small organizations with less than $25,000 in

income are not required to file. So, a small

company may operate for several years before it

files its first Form 990 showing a starting date,

or it may go on after its final filing. That aside,

starts and terminations found on Form 990

forms, captured by the UDAO, offer an interesting glimpse at growth in nonprofit dance

during the decade. The results indicate that the

industry may have reached a “steady state,” or 

a pattern of slow growth.

Chart 5 and Table 4 show starts and birthrates,

calculated as starts as a percentage of companies, in 1989 through 1998. Starts followed an

uneven up-and-down pattern in 1989 through

1993, and then consistently fell from 1994

through 1998. The birthrate tended to fall

throughout the time period. The two states

with the largest number of dance companies,

New York and California, were also the states

with the largest number of births. Genre is not

easily identified using Form 990 start data

23 RAISING THE BARRE

6 Starts and Terminations of

Nonprofit Dance Companies

Mark Morris Dance Company’s

production of Mark Morris’ V.

(Photo by Robbie Jack)

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Year Source: 2000 UDAO

# Companies

NY

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Number of Companies

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Year Source: 2000 UDAO

Chart 5.

Starts of Tax-Exempt

Dance Companies
because many starting companies did not indicate their type. Of the 198 new organizations

counted in Table 4, 78 identified themselves as

ballet companies and 26 classified themselves as

either ethnic or modern dance troupes.

Terminations were small in number and more

difficult to estimate. However, over the 1989

through 1997 period, the years in which terminations could be tracked, the termination rate

(terminations per 100 companies) tended to

increase from less than 1 (0.78) at the beginning

of the period to 4.2 during at the end. The

states with the highest number of terminations

were Florida (4), Texas (3), and New York (2)

and Kansas (2).

This pattern of decreasing starts and increasing

terminations exhibited in the late 1990s suggests that the nonprofit dance industry may

have reached a steady state or pattern of slow

growth. In fact, in 1996, birth and termination

rates converged at 4.5 and 4.2, respectively.

Evidence of a steady state is also shown in

Chart 6 and Table 5, which illustrate growth

rates in the number of dance companies.

Though lingering effects from the 1990-1991

recession probably slowed growth in the mid

1990s, growth rates reached zero at the end of

the decade, a time marked by strong economic

growth.

A steady state in the number of dance companies can occur because the dance audience isn’t

growing or because the number of dance 

RESEARCH DIVISION REPORT #44 24

Table 4.

Births and Birth Rate Per Year

Number of Number of Birth

Births Companies Rate

Year B N BIN

1989 26 236 11.0

1990 19 247 7.7

1991 27 278 9.7

1992 18 311 7.1

1993 28 317 8.8

1994 27 323 8.4

1995 24 328 7.3

1996 16 358 4.5

1997 11 360 3.1

1998 2 359 0.6

Source: 2000 UDAO

Chart 6.

Growth in Number of Nonprofit Dance Companies: 1989 - 1999

1998-

1990

1990-

1991

1991-

1992

1992-

1993

1993-

1994

Period Source: 2000 UDAO

1994-

1995

1995-

1996

1996-

1997

1997-

1998

1998-

1999

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

11%

12%

13%

Percent Growth
companies in key areas, such as New York or

California, is reaching its maximum sustainable

level. While the size and growth of dance 

audiences is beyond the scope of this paper10

Chart 2, discussed in section 4, shows that the

number of dance companies in New York

tapered off from 69 in 1998 to 66 in 1999.

Growth slowed in California too—after increasing to 58 companies in 1997, the number

dropped to 52 in 1998 and 53 in 1999.

25 RAISING THE BARRE

Table 5.

Number and Growth in

Nonprofit Dance Companies

Number of Growth in Dance

Dance Companies

Year Companies Previous YearCurrent Year

1989 236

1990 247 4.7%

1991 278 12.6%

1992 311 11.9%

1993 317 1.9%

1994 323 1.9%

1995 328 1.6%

1996 358 9.2%

1997 360 0.6%

1998 359 -0.3%

1999 356 -0.8%

Source: 2000 UDAO

10 For more information on ballet and dance attendance, see Research Division Note #81, “2002 Survey of Public Participation 

in the Arts,” July 2003.
RESEARCH DIVISION REPORT #44 26

Jazz Tap Ensemble’s production of 

Lynn Dally’s I Hear a Rhapsody

featuring Channing Cook Holmes 

and Charon Aldredge. 

(Photo by Paul Antico)
This section examines three main areas: 

(1) trends in income and expenses and 

the percentage of companies that reported 

surpluses; (2) the connections between earned

income, unearned income, and expenses; and

(3) sources of income. 

6.1 Income, Expenses, and Surpluses 

Healthy finances enable dance companies to

perform quality work, expand dance audiences,

and achieve other goals set by nonprofit performing arts organizations. The dance industry’s finances (as measured by income and

expenses) weakened during the early and mid

1990s, then sharply increased in the latter part

of the decade. The declines in income and

expenses during the early and mid 1990s 

probably resulted, in part, from the 1990-1991

economic recession; the financial gains shown in

the late 1990s likely reflected the strong U.S.

economy at that time. 

As shown in Chart 7, real11 income (averaged12

across all performing nonprofit dance companies in the UDAO) decreased from $500,786 in

1990 to $377, 213 in 1995, a drop of nearly 25

percent. Income recovered to $577,527 in 1997,

and shot up to $662,506 in 1999. Real expenses

followed a similar pattern.

Also, the timing and degree of contraction and

expansion varied by type or genre of organization. For example, it took six years for ballet

companies to recover from the contraction of

the early and mid 1990s. In 1991, real income

(averaged across all performing ballet companies in the UDAO) dropped by 22 percent, 

and then remained flat from 1992 through 

1996. The recovery came in 1997 when ballet 

company income increased by 23 percent.

But income reported by modern dance 

companies generally grew throughout the

1990s, showing only a small decline of 4.3 

percent in 1992, and then jumping by 19.5 

percent in 1995. Ethnic dance companies were

hit hard in the early 1990s, with income falling

by 26 percent between 1990 and 1993, then

recovering three years later in 1996, when 

revenue increased by 37 percent. These findings suggest that non-ballet companies adapt

more quickly to budget constraints because

they have, on average, shorter planning periods,

fewer large and complicated sets, smaller

administrative staffs, and other characteristics

that give them more flexibility in dealing with

budget changes.

27 RAISING THE BARRE

6 Finances of Nonprofit 

Dance Companies

Muntu Dance Theatre’s 

production of Idy Ciss’ Fangama.

(Photo by Kwabena Shabu)

11 Measured in constant 1992 dollars to adjust for inflation.

12 To be consistent with other averages shown in this report, average income and expenses were calculated using arithmetic means.

Median values, which better control for the high levels of income and expenses reported by a few organizations, mainly ballet

companies, produced lower averages. Also, median income and expenses generally decreased throughout the 1989 through 1990

time frame, with near flat growth in 1995, 1996, and 1997. The differences between averages calculated as means vs. averages 

calculated as medians stem from the influence of income and expenses of large ballet companies.
Another indicator of financial well-being is

whether or not a dance company generates a

surplus, or a positive difference between income

and expenses in a given year. Like the patterns

shown for income and expenses, the percentage

of dance companies reporting a surplus fell in

the early 1990s, then generally increased in the

late 1990s. The share of companies reporting 

a surplus reached a low of 54 percent in 1993,

and then followed an uneven up-and-down 

pattern in the remaining years, recovering to 62

percent in 1999. Chart 8 illustrates this trend.

RESEARCH DIVISION REPORT #44 28

Total Expenses

Total Income

Chart 7.

Average Income and Expenses for Nonprofit Dance Companies

Chart 8.

Percentage of Nonprofit Dance Companies Reporting Surplus

$300,000

$350,000

$400,000

$450,000

$500,000

$550,000

$600,000

$650,000

$700,000

$ Real Dollars (1992 base)

Total Expenses

Total Income

Year Source: 2000 UDAO

52%

53%

54%

55%

56%

57%

58%

59%

60%

61%

62%

63%

64%

65%

66%

67.%

68.%

Percentage of Companies

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Average values measured in constant 1992 dollars. Source: 2000 UDAO

Year

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
6.2 Earned and Unearned Income

Dance company income is of two types:

earned (ticket and other sales) and unearned

(contributions, gifts, and grants). Over the

decade examined, growth in ticket and other

sales outpaced growth in contributions. In

1989, average earned income, adjusted for

inflation, was $265,325, and remained near

that level until 1995, when it increased to

$327,237. Average earned income generally

increased in the remaining years, reaching

$467,953 by 1999—a 76 percent gain over

the 1989 figure. By contrast, average

unearned income started at approximately

$174,411 in 1989 and remained fairly 

constant in the remaining years. By 1999, 

average unearned income had only increased

by 4.5 percent over 1989 levels to reach

$182,268.

Chart 10 shows this strength in ticket sales

over contributions through the earned income

ratio (EIR), which is calculated as earned

income divided by total income. The EIR

reveals that the nonprofit dance industry’s

financial health improved during the mid and

late 1990s. Following declines in 1990 and

1991, the ratio generally increased in the

remaining years, reaching 70.6 percent by

1999.

29 RAISING THE BARRE

Chart 9 

Expenses, Earned Income,

and Unearned Income

Chart 10 

Earned income Ratio for 

Nonprofit Dance Companies

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Year

Average values measured in constant 1992 dollars. Source: 2000 UDAO

0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

56%

58%

60%

62%

64%

66%

68%

70%

72%

Real Dollars (1992 base)

Earned Income as a Percentage of Total Income

Year Source: 2000 UDAO

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Expenses

Earned Income

Unearned Income
The Connections Between 

Earned Income, Unearned

Income, and Expenses

Though real earned income generally grew

more rapidly than unearned income, particularly in the late 1990s, the two sources of revenue

are actually closely related. Ticket buyers are

often asked to make contributions when buying

tickets, or are contacted later by fundraising

staff. Also, businesses are more likely to award

grants and advertise with companies that sell 

a lot of tickets. Accordingly, this study found

that every $1 in ticket sales generated about 

14 cents in contributions. Correlation analysis,

detailed in the appendix of this paper, further

supports this relationship. The correlation 

coefficient (a number ranging between 0 and 1,

with 0 meaning two variables are unrelated, and

1 indicating two variables are perfectly related)

between earned income and contributed income

was 0.90, quantifying a strong relationship

between the two revenue sources.

Unearned income is also related

to expenses. As dance companies

stage more or larger productions,

engage in more outreach, and

spend more on fundraising, they

receive more in contributions.

As a result, the correlation coefficient between unearned income

and expenses was high, 0.95. 

The income, both earned and

unearned, and expenses of ballet

companies help illustrate this

point. The staging of popular

ballets such as The Nutcracker

and Swan Lake help ballet 

companies sell more tickets 

and garner more contributions.

They also have larger budgets 

for fundraising. As a result, 

this study found that ballet 

companies received an average of $50,000 to

$100,000 more annually in contributions than

modern, ethnic, and other (jazz and tap, for

example) troupes.

As an interesting aside, the analysis also found

that dance companies located in Illinois

received more contributions, on average, 

than companies located in other states. This is 

probably because Illinois is home to a number

of businesses that make significant donations to

the arts (such as Polk Brothers and the Sara

Lee Foundation) and has a smaller concentration of dance companies compared to other

states with large populations, such as New

York, California, and Texas.

6.3 Sources of Revenue 

While the strong economy during the mid and

late 1990s probably helped dance companies

sell more tickets, declining government and

RESEARCH DIVISION REPORT #44 30

25.4%

17.6%

5.0%

2.9%

6.9%

10.7%

10.1%

8.3%

Figure 1.

Share of Tax-Exempt Dance Company

Revenue by Source, 1987

Admission receipts

Contact fees for entertainment

Other amount from patrons,

customers, and contract fees

Contributions-National

Endowment for the Arts

Contributions-other

government sources

Contributions-individuals

Contributions-foundations

Contributions-business and

industry

Source: 1987 Economic Census
business support for dance companies served 

to curtail growth in unearned income. In 1987,

admission receipts (ticket sales) were 25.4 

percent of total revenue; by 1997, this share

increased to 30 percent. During the same 

10-year period, NEA and other government

support, combined, declined from nearly 

10 percent of income to about 7 percent.

Business contributions fell, though slightly,

from 8.3 percent of revenue in 1987 to 8.0 

percent in 1997.

Contributions from individuals rose, however.

In 1987, individuals contributed 10.7 percent 

of revenue. This share rose to 16.2 percent 

of revenue in 1997. These results show that, 

over the decade studied, dance companies

became increasingly dependent on ticket sales

and donations from individuals to support their

budgets, and therefore, their artistic goals.

31 RAISING THE BARRE

30.0%

11.5%

1.1%

5.8%

5.2%

16.2%

12.1%

8.0%

Figure 2.

Share of Tax-Exempt Dance Company

Revenue by Source, 1997

Admission receipts

Contact fees for entertainment

Other amount from patrons,

customers, and contract fees

Contributions-National

Endowment for the Arts

Contributions-other

government sources

Contributions-individuals

Contributions-foundations

Contributions-business and

industry

Source: 1987 Economic Census
RESEARCH DIVISION REPORT #44 32

Bill T. Jones/Arnie Zane Dance Company’s

production of Bill T. Jones’ Still/Here. 

(Photo by Beatriz Schiller)
Grants to Dance Companies

Between 1988 and 2000, the number of nonprofit dance companies applying for NEA

grants was fairly stable, ranging from a high of

218 in 1988 to a low of 148 in 1996. On the

other hand, NEA funding was unstable during

the decade. In 1996, the agency’s appropriations were cut by nearly 40 percent from the

$162.3 million it received the year before, and

grant awards to dance companies fell correspondingly. In nominal dollars (not adjusted

for inflation), the average NEA grant to dance

companies fell to $19,009 in 2000, about 35 

percent of its 1988 nominal value.13

Table 6 shows average NEA grants, adjusted

for inflation, for ballet, modern, ethnic, and

“other” (for example, tap and jazz) dance 

companies.14 Of the four categories, ballet

companies experienced the largest decrease in

support. Between 1988 and 2000, the average

real grant to ballet groups dropped from

$120,760 in 1988 to $20,671 in 2000—an 82

percent cut. Average real grants to modern

dance companies were down 65 percent, and

support for ethnic and other dance troupes

declined by 54 percent and 53 percent, 

respectively.

33 RAISING THE BARRE

6 The NEA’s Role in 

Supporting Dance Companies

San Francisco Ballet’s production of Helgi Tommason’s Prism. (Photo by Marty Sohl)

Table 6.

NEA Budget and Allocation To Dance Companies

Year Average Dance Total NEA Total NEA % NEA Budget

Grant Funded Grants To Dance Appropriations To Dance 

Companies 

1988 $53,280 $5.643,700 $167,731,000 3.4%

1989 $49,872 $6,034,500 $169,090,000 3.6%

1990 $48,728 $5,993,500 $171,255,000 3.5%

1991 $54,198 $5,630,600 $174,081,000 3.2%

1992 $46,815 $5,617,820 $175,955,000 3.2%

1993 $51,119 $5,572,000 $174,459,000 3.2%

1994 $49,221 $5,562,000 $170,288,000 3.3%

1995 $55,582 $5,447,820 $162,311,000 3.4%

1996 $30,278 $2,725,000 $99,470,000 2.7%

1997 $59,474 $3,449,500 $99,494,000 3.5%

1998 $29,544 $2,334,000 $98,000,000 2.4%

1999 $23,414 $2,177,500 $97,966,000 2.2%

2000 $19,009 $2,167,000 $97,688,000 2.2%

13 This study examined the overall dance budget. During the period examined, the NEA also supported dance companies through

programs such as “Challenge,” “Advancement,” and “Expansion Arts,” all of which are excluded from the analysis.

14 Ballet and modern dance companies have received larger NEA grants because they have, on average, larger budgets and engage

in more expensive projects than ethnic and other dance troupes.

Source: 2001 NEA-DA All values are nominal dollars.
Though ballet companies shouldered

the strongest declines in average NEA

grant awards, ballet was less dependent on NEA funding than other dance

companies. For any year shown in

Table 7,15 NEA contributions as a

share of total unearned income were

lowest for ballet companies. In 2000,

for example, NEA grants made up only

0.75 percent of unearned income for

ballet companies, but 13.2 percent for

ethnic dance companies.

Leveraging Contributions

from Other Sources

The arts community has long accepted

the idea that NEA grants leverage 

contributions from other sources. 

The research community, however, has

questioned the relationship between

government and non-government 

contributions.16 During the time period

covered by this study, for example,

NEA contributions to dance companies

fell and contributions from individuals

and foundations rose, suggesting a

potential “crowding-out effect.”

By combining information from the

UDAO and NEA-DA, this study is 

the first to methodically investigate the

NEA’s role in leveraging funding for

nonprofit dance companies. A regression model, detailed in the appendix,

shows that, during the late 1980s

through late 1990s, every $1 in NEA

grant funding leveraged about $3.50 in

contributions from other sources. 

RESEARCH DIVISION REPORT #44 34

Table 7.

Average NEA Grant Awarded by Genre

Year Average Average Average Average

Ballet Grant Modern Grant Ethnic Grant ‘Other’ Grant 

1988 $120,760 $48,730 $19,958 $20,794

1989 $106,343 $43,788 $19,302 $24,816

1990 $99,907 $44,271 $16,388 $16,531

1991 $92,479 $50,769 $17,193 $18,131

1992 $78,175 $41,974 $15,182 $17,560

1993 $89,055 $46,494 $16,199 $15,346

1994 $75,704 $44,784 $17,332 $16,126

1995 $76,671 $52,753 $18,100 $16,072

1996 $35,282 $30,195 $10,712 $11,400

1997 $74,968 $53,659 $25,732 $33,784

1998 $39,512 $26,446 $11,250 $16,315

1999 $30,480 $20,719 $7,898 $10,970

2000 $20,671 $17,209 $8,987 $9,653

Table 8.

NEA Grants as a Percentage of Unearned Income

(Contributions, Gifts, and Grants)

Year ALL Ballet Modern Ethnic Other

1988 13.08% 7.95% 29.60% 28.68% 19.92%

1989 11.49% 6.70% 25.90% 22.61% 23.85%

1990 9.29% 5.49% 21.13% 24.02% 10.94%

1991 10.14% 5.88% 20.87% 16.75% 10.74%

1992 8.65% 4.65% 20.40% 17.53% 12.99%

1993 10.13% 6.37% 22.80% 16.43% 10.19%

1994 8.85% 5.71% 18.37% 16.52% 7.11%

1995 42.53% 29.77% 54.61% 43.11% 37.47%

1996 4.87% 2.12% 11.05% 12.34% 6.06%

1997 7.58% 3.87% 20.09% 33.23% 19.62%

1998 3.78% 2.02% 11.10% 12.41% 9.75%

1999 3.03% 1.48% 8.43% 11.81% 3.18%

2000 3.62% 0.75% 4.99% 13.18% 11.66%

Source: 2001 NEA-DA. Average values measured in constant 1992 dollars.

Source: 2001 NEA-DA

15 The high percentages shown in Table 6 for 1995 reflect the agency’s efforts to award comparatively large grants to fewer, bigger

arts organizations in that year.

16 Warr (1982), Roberts (1984), and Bergstom et. al. (1986) propose theoretical one-to-one crowding out between government

funding and private contributions. Other research has found negative relationships between government funding and private 

contributions—Kingma (1989), for example, found a “crowding-out” between government and private funding for public radio.
For example, a company that received a

$15,000 grant from the NEA received, on 

average, an additional $53,500 in donations

from businesses, foundations, individuals, and

other government sources. In addition, the

$3.50 was the most conservative finding of the

study. Restricting the model to the years 1998

and 1999, a period of strong economic growth,

yielded a much higher result—$16.45 in contributions for every $1 in NEA funding.

The statistical model also reveals that non-NEA

contributors were more likely to fund dance

companies that sold a lot of tickets, ran budget

surpluses, and were older and well established.

These findings suggest that the NEA may play

a special role in identifying new talent. When

considering applications sent by companies

throughout the country, the agency’s dance staff

and reviewing panels (comprised of dance-field

experts from outside the agency) consider a

host of factors, but quality of the company’s

proposed project is a chief criterion. Through

this process, the NEA may discover dance 

companies that are not yet well established or

well known to the larger contributing community. An NEA grant may signal to other contributors, particularly foundations, that such a 

company is worthy of financial support.

35 RAISING THE BARRE
RESEARCH DIVISION REPORT #44 36

Flamenco Vivo Carlota Santana’s 

founder and choreographer 

Carlota Santana. 

(Photo by Lois Greenfield)
I

n 2001, the U.S. economy again fell into

recession. Since this study ends with data

from the late 1990s, it cannot capture growth

and financial conditions now facing nonprofit

dance companies. However, based on the

model used in this study, and if the effects of

the 2001 recession mirror what happened to

dance companies in the early and mid 1990s,

earned income may fall by as much as 

30 percent.

Dance companies may be taking an even harder

hit from decreases in contributed income.

Recent press articles report that nonprofit

dance companies are hurting from falling 

ticket sales and cuts (in some cases drastic cuts)

in contributions from state and local governments.17 The Foundation Center reports that,

after increasing in the late 1990s and into 2000

(due in part to high stock values at that time),

foundation giving will fall during the next 

couple of years.18 And, though NEA appropriations increased in 2001, the agency’s funding

remained flat at about $115 million in 2002 

and 2003.

Historically, some sectors of the economy, 

such as select manufacturing industries, have

emerged stronger from recessions—the painful

losses in profits and ensuing layoffs forced some

firms to employ more efficient business operations. These leaner firms were then poised for

increases in profits and market share as the

economy expanded. But the nonprofit nature

of dance makes it difficult to predict how dance

companies will manage the current economic

weakness. It’s possible that dance organizations

will endure by cutting costs and implementing

new measures to increase ticket sales and

attract contributions. Research suggests that

these measures may include new advertising

and marketing campaigns (Yesselman, 1983)

and increases in education and outreach 

(Smith, 1998). 

37 RAISING THE BARRE

6 Conclusion

American Ballet Theatre’s 

production of Kevin McKenzie’s 

Swan Lake featuring 

Irina Dvorovenko. 

(Photo by MIRA)

17 See “Starting Here,” Dance Magazine, June 2003. And also see BBC News, World Edition, “US Arts Face Devastating Cuts,”

June 12, 2003.

18 See Arts Funding IV “Highlights,” available on the Foundation Center’s website at www.fdncenter.org.
RESEARCH DIVISION REPORT #44 38
Bergstrom, Theodore C., Lawrence E. Blume 

and Hal R. Varian (1986), “On the Private

Provision of Public Goods,” Journal of Public

Economics, February, vol. 29, pp. 25-49.

Brooks, Arthur (2000), “Public Subsidies and 

Charitable Giving: Crowding Out, 

Crowding In, or Both?” Journal of Policy 

Analysis and Management, vol. 19 (3), 

pp. 451-464.

Bureau of Economic Analysis (2000), National 

Income and Product Accounts, U.S.

Department of Commerce.

Foundation Center (2003), Arts Funding IV, 

“Highlights.”

Illinois Economic Association (2001) “The State

of The Arts: A Panel on the Economics

and Finances of Performing Arts in Illinois,”

University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago.

Jones, Philip R. (1983), “Aid to Charities,” 

International Journal of Social Economics, 

vol. 10 (2).

Kingma, Bruce (1989), “An Accurate Measure 

of the Crowd-out Effect, Income Effect, and 

Price Effect for Charitable Contributions,” 

Journal of Political Economy, vol. 97,

pp. 1197-1207.

Kotler, Philip and Joanne Scheff (1997), 

Standing Room Only: Strategies for 

Marketing the Performing Arts, Harvard 

Business School Press.

Lindsey, Lawrence and Richard Steinberg 

(1990), “Joint Crowd Out: An Empirical 

Study of the Impact of Federal Grants on 

State Government Expenditures and 

Charitable Donations,” working paper 

#3226, National Bureau of Economic 

Research.

Munger, John (2000), “Wrapping the Nineties: 

Highlights from the 1999 Data Survey,”

Dance/USA Journal, Vol. 17 (2),

pp. 14-17, 28.

Munger, John (2001), “Dancing with Dollars 

in the Millennium: A Ten-Year Summary

of Trends,” Dance Magazine, April, pp. 3-14.

Nichols, Bonnie and Thomas M. Smith (2001), 

Growth In the U.S. Dance Fields: Evidence from 

the 1987, 1992 and 1997 Economic Census, 

National Endowment for the Arts Research 

Report.

Roberts, Russell D. (1984), “A Positive Model 

of Private Charity and Public Transfers,”

Journal of Political Economy, February, 

vol. 92, pp. 136-148.

Schiff, Jerald (1985), “Does Government 

Spending Crowd Out Charitable 

Contributions,” National Tax Journal, 

vol. 38 (4), December, pp. 535-546.

Schiff, Jerald (1990), Charitable Giving and 

Government Policy: An Economic Analysis,

Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press.

39 RAISING THE BARRE

6 References
Smith, Thomas M. (1998), “The Demand for 

Culture: A Human Capital Analysis,”

mimeo.

Smith, Thomas M. (2001a), Economic 

Conditions of the Nonprofit Dance Field 1989

1997: Evidence from the Unified Database of Arts 

Organizations, National Endowment for the 

Arts Research Report (ERIC).

Smith, Thomas M. (2001b), Economic 

Conditions of the Nonprofit Dance Field 

1986-1999: Evidence from the National 

Endowment for the Arts—Dance Applicant 

Database, National Endowment for the Arts 

Research Report (ERIC).

Smith, Thomas M (2003), “The Effect of NEA 

Grants on the Contributions to Nonprofit 

Dance Companies,” Journal of Arts 

Management, Law and Society, Forthcoming. 

Steinberg, Richard (1985), “Empirical Relation 

Between Government Spending and 

Charitable Donations,” Journal of Voluntary 

Action Research, vol. 14, Spring-Summer, 

pp. 54-64.

Warr, Peter G. (1982), “Pareto Optimal 

Redistribution and Private Charity,” 

Journal of Public Economics, October, 

vol. 19, pp. 131-138.

Yesselman, Robert (1983), “Dance: 

Management, Marketing, and 

Schizophrenia,” in Joseph V. Melillo, ed. 

Market The Arts, FEDAPT, New York.

RESEARCH DIVISION REPORT #44 40
6 Appendix

I. Dance/USA Survey Results

Based on information from Dance/USA 

member companies,19 Munger20 (2001) 

reported on the trends of dance companies

throughout the 1990s. In this report, Munger

suggested that there were several trends 

present: large ballet companies experienced

growing revenue budgets despite declining

audiences; medium ballet companies experienced similar declining audience, but countered

with internal cost-controls on payroll and

increased ticket prices; medium-sized modern

dance companies found touring revenue was

responsible for a larger portion of total earnings. Munger also found that the percentage of

ballet and modern companies that reported 

surpluses dropped in 1991, increased throughout the early 90s, and dropped again in the 

mid-to-late 90s. With respect to contributions, 

Munger found a decrease in the amount of 

government grants and an increased reliance 

on individual donations. Overall, Munger sees

that the strong companies are becoming

stronger, while the smaller companies are challenged to establish themselves in the market. 

Many of the results listed in Munger (2001) are

similar to the findings presented in this report

(Smith, 2002). These similarities include:

1. Munger found that approximately 65-70 

percent of ballet and modern companies 

were profitable—reported a positive 

difference between income and expenses

for a given year. He also found a decrease

in the percentage of companies reporting 

a profit in 1991 and 1997. 

2. Munger found that large ballet companies

had an average Earned Income Ratio—

earned income as a percentage of total

income—of 57 percent, small ballets had

an EIR of 52 percent, large modern 

companies had an average EIR of 55 

percent and medium moderns reported 

an average EIR of 44 percent. 

3. The companies in the Dance/USA data

show two trends with respect to government funding: a decrease in the percentage

of companies that received government

support and a decrease in the average 

dollars funded (pp. 11). An analysis of the

NEA-DA identified that although the

average dollar amount of each grant from

the NEA to dance companies decreased,

the percentage of grant applications 

funded by the NEA steadily and slightly

increased between 1995 and 2001. 

41 RAISING THE BARRE

19 John Munger writes an annual report for Dance/USA based on the information from its survey of member companies. 

The 1999 Dance/USA report included 34 companies.

20 An overview of the surveys throughout the 90s is found in: John Munger, “Dancing with Dollars in the Millennium: 

A Ten-Year Summary of Trends,” Dance Magazine, April 2001, pp. 3-14.

Appendix Table 1.

Number of NEA Grants Funded and Rejected

Grant Grant Applications Applications Average*

Year Applications Funded Funded Grant Funded

1988 210 106 50% $53,280

1989 216 121 56% $49,872

1990 218 123 56% $48,728

1991 206 104 50% $54,198

1992 195 120 62% $46,815

1993 204 109 53% $51,119

1994 206 113 55% $49,221

1995 205 98 48% $55,582

1996 185 90 49% $30,278

1997 159 58 36% $59,474

1998 148 79 53% $29,544

1999 174 93 53% $23,414

2000 201 114 57% $19,009

2001 217 121 56% $16,537

Source: 2001 NEA-Dance Applicant 

*Average values-arithmetic means- are in nominal dollars.
4. The Dance/USA companies replaced 

lost government grants with individual

contributions. In fact, many companies

increased individual contributions by more

than the lost government funding. Figures

1 and 2 in this analysis report a similar

trend from the 1987 and 1997 Economic

Census. 

Although the Dance/USA dataset is smaller

than the three datasets used in this analysis,

both reports found similar results across the

dance field. Each dataset provided its own

perspective on dance companies. The advantage of the Dance/USA dataset was that the

surveyors asked member companies about

detailed financial information (i.e. touring 

revenue). The advantage of the UDAO, NEADA, and EC was that they included a large

number of companies and a large array of

demographic and financial variables. When the

three datasets were used together they provided

an unprecedented in-depth look at the dance

field. 

II. Interrelation Between

Expenses, Earned Income 

and Contributions:

Correlation coefficients were estimated for

dance companies across the U.S. between 1989

and 1997 in order to gain a better understanding of the relationship between earned income,

unearned income, and expenses. A correlation

coefficient is arrived at through a statistical

technique that tracks the closeness or association between two variables. The coefficient

ranges between 0.00 (no connection) and 1.00

(perfectly connected). 

The correlation coefficients show that for a

given period, t, current expenses, income, and

contributions were highly associated with each

other. Current expenses were a bit more correlated with earned income (0.978) than current

contributions (0.950), although not dramatically

so. It is important to note that expenses for a

given year were highly correlated to the earned

income and contributions received the previous

year. The association between this year’s

expenses and last year’s income underscores the

importance of revenue in dictating future

expenses—a company may be unable to present

RESEARCH DIVISION REPORT #44 42

Appendix Table 2.

Correlation Coefficients for Expenses, Earned Income, and Contributions

Earned Earned

Expenses Income Contributions Expenses Income Contributions Expenses Income Contributions

tt t t-1 t-1 t-1 t-2 t-2 t-2

Expenses t 1.00 0.978 0.950 0.852 0.828 0.786 0.685 0.660 0.621

Earned Income t 0.978 1.00 0.903 0.836 0.840 0.753 0.687 0.676 0.606

Contributions t 0.950 0.903 1.00 0.816 0.769 0.789 0.638 0.596 0.603

Expenses t-1 0.852 0.839 0.816 1.00 0.980 0.948 0.681 0.655 0.621

Earned Income t-1 0.828 0.840 0.769 0.980 1.00 0.903 0.675 0.655 0.601

Contributions t-1 0.786 0.753 0.789 0.948 0.903 1.00 0.652 0.606 0.625

Expenses t-2 0.685 0.687 0.638 0.681 0.675 0.652 1.00 0.983 0.947

Earned Income t-2 0.660 0.676 0.596 0.655 0.665 0606 0.983 1.00 0.909

Contributions t-2 0.621 0.606 0.603 0.621 0.6014 0.625 0.947 0.909 1.00

Source: 2000 UDAO

* t,t-1, and t-2 indicate time periods:t is current year,t-1 is one year ago, and t-2 is two years ago.
the program of their choice next year if it falls

short in earned and unearned income this year.

Although “making a profit” may not be the 

primary goal of a company, the relationship

between current expenses and income from 

the last two years does confirm that companies

may not be able to reach artistic goals without

reaching budget goals. 

III. Leveraging Effect of 

NEA Grants

Section 7 of this paper reported that the 

NEA had a leveraging effect on private and

non-NEA contributions to nonprofit dance

companies. It should be noted that some studies have found a negative relationship between

public grants and private contributions. 

In studies of public funding to social services

and hospitals—Jones (1983), Schiff (1985,

1990), Steinberg (1985), and Lindsey and

Steinberg (1990)—government contributions

have the effect of pushing away additional 

contributions from private individuals and other

government sources. This ‘crowding out’ exists

because these government contributions signal

individuals and other government agencies that

the needs of a specific industry (or nonprofit 

organization) are being met. The reason that 

a leveraging or ‘crowding in’ effect was found 

in the nonprofit dance field may be because 

the NEA signals that the industry, or specific 

company, is particularly worthy of additional

funding. In fact, many industry leaders have

identified NEA grants as a “Stamp of

Excellence” (Illinois Economic Association,

2001). 

43 RAISING THE BARRE

Appendix Table 3.

OLS Coefficients*: The Marginal Effect of NEA grants on Private

and Non-NEA Public Contributions to Nonprofit Dance Companies

Coefficients with (t-stats in parenthesis)

Dependent Private + Private +

Variables Non-NEA Non-NEA

Independent Contributions1 Contributions

Variables

ß t-stat ß t-stat

Constant -19927 (0.200) 134127*** (3.331)

NEA Grant 3.24*** (3.042) 3.54*** (3.647)

Current Fundraising Exp. 5.67*** (23.45) 5.40*** (17.27)

Last Year’s Surplus 0.032 (0.757) -0.032** (2.071)

Last Year’s Public Service Revenue 0.061*** (4.29) 0.273*** (12.50)

Ballet 54738* (1.872) -9155 (0.308)

Ethnic 4397 (0.069) 11991 (0.175)

Modern 16384 (0.380) -71935* (1.689)

N 1175 1260

Adj-R2 0.8737 0.8860

Sig at 0.10 * (235 companies between (210 companies between

Sig at 0.01 ** 1992 and 1996: 1175 1992 and 1997: 1260Sig at

0.001*** total companies) total companies)

* Selected Coefficients: The model includes variables measuring the state where the company is located as well as the year of

operation. 

1. These results are similar to estimates reported in Smith (2003) with the exception of a modified fundraising variable and the

time period of several financial variables.

➤

➤
A n analysis was conducted on 235 companies

between 1992 and 1996, 210 companies

between 1992 and 1997, and 177 nonprofit

dance companies between 1998 and 1999. 

The analysis is similar to the time-series and

cross-section estimates presented in Smith

(2003). Depending on the time frame of the

analysis, the results suggest that every $1 from

NEA grants leveraged between $3.25 and

$16.50 in non-NEA donations. Current

fundraising expenditure, current program 

service revenue, and ending the year with a 

surplus also had a significant effect on private

contributions. The program service revenue

and surplus from the previous year also had

important implications for non-NEA contributions and grants. 

The results also indicated that NEA grants had

a positive effect on non-NEA public funding.

The financial reality of the company, especially

the fundraising expenditure of the company, 

did not have as large of an impact on other 

government contributions. In fact, fundraising

expenditure had a negative relationship with

respect to non-NEA government contributions. 

RESEARCH DIVISION REPORT #44 44

Appendix Table 4.

OLS Coefficients: The Marginal Effect of NEA grants on 

Private and Non-NEA Public Contributions to Nonprofit Dance Companies 

(177 companies in both 1998-1999: 354 total observations)

Coefficients with (t-stats in parenthesis)

Dependent Private Non-NEA Private+ 

Variables Contributions Public Non-NEA

Independent Contributions Contributions

Variables

Constant -32699 (0.646) 30856** (2.19) -1843.32 (0.033)

NEA Grant 14.49*** (6.13) 2.967*** (4.51 ) 16.45*** (6.33)

Current Fundraising Exp. 12.69*** (7.23) -6.307*** (12.92) 6.38*** (3.311)

Current Surplus 0.591*** (12.85) 0.302*** (23.65) 0.894*** (17.67)

Current Public Service Rev. 0.390*** (10.71) 0.027** (2.733) 0.417*** (0.040)

Ballet 347.40 (0.006) -4532.08 (0.302) -4184.68 (0.071)

Ethnic -12584 (0.138) 5200.71 (0.205) -7383.34 (0.074)

Modern -37502 (0.513) -1837.44 (0.090) -39339 (0.490)

Other Benchmark Benchmark Benchmark

Location

NY -46890 (0752) 6625.89 (0.382) -53516 (0.781)

CA 61159 (0.912) 6317.06 (0.339) 67476 (0.915)

MA -6754.61 (0.043) -16401 (0.374) -23155 (0.134)

DC 40323 (0.238) -19713 (0.419) 20611 (0.111)

IL 248441*** (1.972) -46198 (1.318) 202243 (1,460)

FL 212682** (2.296) 10455 (0.406) 223136** (2,191)

Year 1999 63221 (1.480) 1790.05 (0.151) 65011 (1.384)

N 354 354 354

Adj-R2 0.9426 0.7710 0.94162

Sig at 0.10 *

Sig at 0.01 **

Sig at 0.0q1 ***

➤

➤
50 RAISING THE BARRE
RESEARCH DIVISION REPORT #44 51

Blanck page
52 RAISING

1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20506-0001

202-682-5400

www.arts.gov