D A N C E M A K E R S 

A study report published by the 

National Endowment for the Arts 

By Dick Netzer and Ellen Parker 

based on a survey conducted by 

Alyce Dissette and Richard J. Orend 

L RARY
 

NATIONAId
 

ENDOWMENT
 

FOR THE
 

ARTS
 


Dancemakers is Research Division 

Report #28 in a series on matters of 

interest to the arts community commissioned by the Research Division of 

the National Endowment for the Arts. 

It is published in association with the 

Publications Division. 

National Endowment for the Arts 

Washington, DC 20506 

First Printing, October 1993 

Dancemakers: a study report on choreographers in four 

American cities. 

p. cm.--(Research Division report; #27) 

Includes bibliographical references (p.) 

1. Choreographers--United States. 

2. Choreographers--United States--Social conditions. 3. Occupational surveys--United States. 

I. Series: Research Division report (National 

Endowment for the Arts. Research Division) ; 27. 

GV1785.A1D29 1993 

792.8’2’0922--dc20 

[B]	 93-38770 

CIP 

Overleaf: Father of 

classical dance on the 

West Coast, Willam 

E Christensen directs 

young men of the 

Oakland Ballet. He 

first choreographed 

this work in 1950. 
Foreword 

Dancemakers 

Acknowledgements 

A Word of Thanks 

Executive Summary 

The Report in Brief 

Chapter One 

Background 

Chapter Two 

How the Study Was Done 

Chapter Three 

General Findings 

Chapter Four 

Financial Findings 

Chapter Five 

Choreography: A Profession at Risk 

Appendices 

Participants 

Questionnaire 

Authors 

11
 

14
 

22
 

28
 

36
 

54
 

72
 

81
 

84
 

94
 

Dancemakers 

The word choreographer is too fancy for what
 

I do. Dance supplier is better. Dance does not
 

exist unless someone provides it.
 

George Balanchine 

"Choreographer" is what we call someone who makes dances, a 

dance maker. Just as composer is what we call someone who makes 

music--"makes" in the sense of creates or calls into being. 

In numbers, choreographers are among the smallest of this country’s 

population of professional art makers. But their work is acclaimed 

worldwide and seen by millions--on concert stages, in musical 

theaters, in operas, in the movies and on television, and in music 

videos. (Some say that Fred Astaire and his collaborator Hermes Pan 

were among America’s greatest choreographers; they created work 

for the two-dimensional medium of film.) 

Choreographers may arrange or rearrange traditional patterns, steps 

and sequences; they may create or recreate story ballets or dances 

that have a narrative thread. They may work in the realm of "pure" 

or "abstract" movement--creating dance that has no equivalent in 

any other form. For them, the dance and the dancing, the movement 

and the patterns of movement, are what the dancing is "about." 

Choreographers in the United States can specialize in any of the 

world’s array of dance forms, to name but a few: hip-hop, ballIndependent San 

Francisco choreographer/dancer June 

Watanabe solos in 

Remy Charlip’s 

Red Towel Dance. 
room, jazz, tap, clogging, folkloric, ice dancing, modern, and ballet. 

They may be keepers of traditional forms, restoring and revitalizing 

ancient expressions of communities in which dance is an intrinsic 

part of the rituals and cycles of life. 

From its very beginning, the National Endowment for the Arts 

recognized the signal importance of choreographers in the evolution 

and sustained excellence of the performing arts. Ever since, our 

panels have affirmed the centrality of choreographers to the creative 

vitality of dance and have sought ways to encourage and assist 

their work. 

The life of a choreographer is beset with difficulties, beginning with 

the need for human bodies--dancers--to work with, and appropriate spaces in which to create, rehearse and perform the dances. 

There may come a time when choreographers make their dances 

without humans and have them performed in "virtual reality" or 

some other lifelike medium. But for now, there are a few basic, very 

pragmatic resources needed to make dances. Apart from dancers, 

time, money, and space are chief among them: Time to develop ideas 

and try them out, and to work with dancers on them, rehearse them 

and keep them in performance; money to pay dancers and allied 

artists and technicians and to put the dances in front of the public for 

their enjoyment, and space to work and perform in. Coupled with 

all this are performance opportunities; without these the dance does 

not exist for all intents and purposes. These core resources are in 

short supply today. 

This study is an attempt to get at basic concerns and life conditions 

of choreographers who make dances as a professional pursuit that 

can be regarded as having some dignity. 

Since this is the first known study of this kind about choreographers, it can provide a baseline and point of reference for future 
looks. We believe it to be an important first step, despite being 

flawed and incomplete in several respects (for example, in having 

to limit to four cities the locales in which choreographers were surveyed). Although we cannot safely presume that the study findings 

apply to all choreographers nationwide, we can say that what we 

learned seems to be true of a representative sample of choreographers working in four key places--and that we now know much 

more about them than was known before. 

The range of forms in which the choreographers are working is 

impressively broad. Still, most of the artists fit the general category 

of modern dance--an area of dance in which the term "choreographer" is understood to be a creative artist making work that is 

innovative and fresh, a departure from what has come before. 

The study’s findings are bleak, especially as they reveal the exceptionally low economic status of choreographers compared with their 

uncommonly high educational levels, the lack of adequate outlets 

for their work to be seen by the public, and the abject lack of basic 

amenities that other professionals regard as entitlements such as 

health insurance, a predictable income, advancement at an appropriate stage of development and achievement, and an acknowledgement of the value of their hard work. 

Our choreographers turn out in the main to be women in their mid 

years who cannot look forward to a better life ahead. Of course 

no one asked them to be choreographers. It isn’t as though being a 

choreographer in the United States were valued, by and large. It 

isn’t a common career choice. Nor is it written anywhere that 

choreographers should expect to make a decent living from making 

dances. Nonetheless, the Arts Endowment believes that choreographers perform service of the highest public importance: the fruits of 

their work make visible the strivings of our people, our dreams and 

hopes, our nightmares and disillusions, our times and the times and 
10 values of those who preceded us. Perhaps only at such time that our 

society values art and artists more can choreographers look forward 

to a decent standard of living from their professional calling. 

The study cannot by itself change the way choreographers go about 

their work. Nor does it attempt to address the "matter" of what 

choreographers do--the art and craft of dance making, the dances 

themselves, or the connection (if any) between the conditions in 

which choreographers work and the quality and character of what 

they are doing. 

They dearly aren’t in it for the money. Despite meager rewards, 

and notwithstanding a level of difficulty that is causing some artists 

to leave either the field or the country, choreographers continue to 

make dances that excite and inspire us, that cause us to think about 

life differently, to understand things about ourselves through movement expression, and to engage in an art experience that is deeply 

human. In this sense, they are "driven" by an impulse, need and 

calling. 

This study can help us better understand what life is like for 

choreographers and how they view their working lives and their 

future. We hope that it may lead to actions that will help improve 

the quality of life for American artists and, thus, the quality of life 

for all of us. By seeing conditions as they are, we can be guided 

to think about how they could be improved for artists working now 

and those coming up. By helping artists better realize their potential, we enrich the possibilities for all of us to lead more fulfilled 

lives as creative beings. 

Sali Ann Kriegsman 

Director 

Dance Program 

National Endowment for the Arts 

August 1993 
A Word of Thanks 

Dancemakers, the summary of a benchmark study of living choreographers in four cities, is the work of many hands. The need for the 

study it describes was recognized several years ago by the Dance 

Program and the Research Division at the National Endowment for 

the Arts. Dance Program Director Sali Ann Kriegsman and Assistant 

Director Andrea Snyder and Research Director Tom Bradshaw subsequently oversaw the project through its several phases. 

One of the Program’s first acts was to recruit a committee of advisors, people involved in dance throughout the country. That committee comprised the following people: 

Trisha Brown, Trisha Brown Dance Company;
 

Bonnie Brooks, Dance/USA;
 

Randy Duncan, Joseph Holmes Dance Company;
 

Kim Euell, City Celebration;
 

Ian Horvath, The Carlisle Project;
 

Carol Keegan, communication/research consultant;
 

Mike Malone, choreographer;
 

Amaniyea Payne, Muntu Dance Theater;
 

Carla Perlo, Dance Place;
 

Wendy Rogers, choreographer;
 

Merian Soto, Pepatian;
 

Clark Tippett, American Ballet Theatre;
 

Jelon Vieira, DanceBrazil;
 

David White, Dance Theatre Workshop.
 

Ian Horvath and Clark Tippett have since died of AIDS, as has 

Peter Tumbleston who is named below, and we mourn their passing. 
In time, an impressive range of organizations agreed to lend their 

good offices. These were: 

Chicago Dance Coalition; 

Dance Bay Area, San Francisco; 

Dance Place, Washington, DC; 

Dance Theater Workshop, New York City; 

Dance/USA, Washingon, DC.; 

Minnesota Dance Alliance, Minneapolis; 

MoMing, Chicago; 

Original Ballets Foundation, New York City 

Pentacle, New York City; 

Performance Space 122, New York City; 

San Francisco Ballet; 

Tour Arts. 

The survey of choreographers was launched by Alyce Dissette and 

Dr. Richard J. Orend who served as Project Directors. They were 

followed by Dr. Dick Netzer and Dr. Ellen Parker, who analyzed the 

survey data further and prepared this report. 

Others who contributed their time and talents to this project 

include: 

Sherrill Berryman-Miller, 

Cora Cahan, 

Jean Crelli, 

Henry Erlich, 

Justin Erlich, 

Susie Farr, 

Joan Freese, 

Lillian Goldthwaite, 

Ross Kramberg, 

Lesa McLaughlin, 

Joyce A. Moffatt, 
Liesel Orend,
 

Diane Robinson,
 

Mark Russell,
 

Laura Schandelmeier,
 

Carol Tanenbaum,
 

Peter Tumbleston,
 

Lisa Tylke,
 

Ivan Sygoda,
 

Brenda Way.
 

Within the Endowment, the project was assisted by E’Vonne 

Coleman Rorie, then Assistant Director of the Expansion Arts 

Program. The book was edited and produced by Philip Kopper, 

Director of Publications. 

The Report in Brief 

This report summarizes the results of the National Endowment for 

the Arts study of the general working conditions, financial status, 

performance opportunities, funding, and work practices of choreographers in New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and Washington, 

D.C. The study provides benchmark statistics on a sample of the 

national choreographer population and documents the difficult 

circumstances in which these artists work. 

Completed mail questionnaires from more than 500 choreographers 

and telephone interviews with over 200 more provided the primary 

data. Study findings important to the dance field, to the philanthropic community and to policymakers are arranged under the 

following headings: demographics, professional experience, productivity and use of time, performance opportunities, professional 

issues, financial conditions, funding, choreographers’ companies. 

Education Vis-a-Vis Income 

Study findings revealed a disparity between choreographers’ high 

educational attainments and their low income levels. Choreographers 

have one of the highest college completion rates of all professions 

for which there is no formal certification or licensing requirement. 

Among choreographers in the study, 77 percent were college graduates and/or had advanced professional degrees, compared to 21 percent of the U.S. population over age 25. Over 55 percent of the 

choreographers majored in dance at college; of these, over 90 percent graduated. Another 13 percent of the choreographers attended 

college/professional performing arts schools but did not graduate. 

Only 8 percent of respondents did not have post-secondary education, compared to 62 percent of all Americans 25 years and over. 

Taken at face value, survey results suggest that a college education 

is not an economic asset for choreographers. The average income 

reported for respondents with college degrees was far lower than 

In New York, 

choreographer 

Merce Cunningham 

bestrides the floor 

like a Colossus. 
the average income for those without college and graduate degrees. 

While other professions reward educational attainment with high 

salaries, choreographers’ high educational levels yield low incomes. 

Low Income and High Expenses Reported 

Choreographers’ income is 34 percent below the median for women 

professionals in 1989. (Approximately 73 percent of survey responM 

dents were women.) 

There was a 34 percent income differential between the median 

total income of $18,500 for all choreographers and the median 

earnings of $27,900 for American women professionals in 1989. 

Average income from choreography for men ($9,300 annually 

including grants) was twice that for women ($4,800). The gender 

differential was approximately $4,500 or 48 percent. 

On average, the respondents earned $6,000 from choreography 

(including $1,600 in grants) but had professional expenses of nearly 

$13,000, incurring an average loss of $7,000. This represents a 

2-to-1 ratio of expenses to choreographic income. 

Some 66 percent had expenses that exceeded professional income by 

more than $1,000 annually; nearly one in seven had expenses that 

surpassed dance income by $10,000 a year. Over one-half of the 

respondents had less than $15,000 annually on which to live (after 

choreography expenses); 29 percent had less than $10,000. Only 

12 percent of the respondents had annual net incomes of $30,000 

or more. 

Low Economic Status 

The study’s financial comparisons actually understate the choreographers’ low economic status. The study sample comprised artists who 

lived and worked in metropolitan areas where the cost of living is 

high and where overall income and earning levels are well above 

national averages. Therefore, choreographers’ low incomes purchase 

even less than they might elsewhere and therefore sustain lower 

standards of living than national comparisons suggest. 
17 Most choreographers do not earn a living from choreography. 

Income from choreography was 10 percent of the working population’s average in Washington, D.C., 20 percent in both New York 

and San Francisco, and 24 percent in Chicago. For the average 

choreographer in 1989, all income connected with dance produced 

a little over $13,000 or 60 percent of her/his mean income. 

Income by City 

Choreographers’ income was significantly below average in all four 

cities. Choreographers’ incomes in New York and Washington, 

D.C. ($21,800 and $19,300 respectively) were nearly one-third 

below the average in their metropolitan regions. Chicago and San 

Francisco choreographer incomes ($20,900 and $23,800 respectively) were 21 percent and 17 percent below the average in their areas. 

Choreographers provided two-thirds of the total income of their 

households. 

Supplemental Jobs 

Notwithstanding their high levels of experience--on average almost 

ten years--the surveyed choreographers spent twice as much time in 

non-dance jobs as they did in choreographic ones to supplement 

income. About 80 percent of the respondents had jobs in addition 

to their work as choreographers and 30 percent had more than one. 

The number of hours per week devoted to additional jobs ranged 

between 24 and 50. Choreographers who had outside jobs created 

fewer works. More experienced choreographers were less likely to 

have outside jobs, but did not neceessarily have higher incomes as 

a result of their additional time to create more works. 

Age and Race 

Nearly 60 percent of survey respondents were in their thirties, a 

high concentration compared with the U.S. working age population 

(22-69) or 28 percent. Only 15 percent of the choreographers were 

45 years of age or older. 

Whites were approximately 84 percent of the study population 

(versus 78.5 percent for the U.S.). African Americans (6 percent), 
18 

and Hispanics (4 percent) were under-represented among survey 

respondents. Asian Americans, accounting for 5 percent of the sample, were over-represented. 

Formal Training 

Some 81 percent of the study respondents turned to choreography 

from careers as dancers. Most choreographers had formal dance 

training (98 percent); studied choreography or composition (78 percent); continued to take dance classes (75 percent) and choreography/composition classes or workshops (21 percent); and still performed (86 percent). Almost 60 percent of the sample population 

had a mentor. 

Variety of Styles 

Of the choreographers responding to the survey, 55 percent described their work as experimental/modern; 13 percent as culturally 

specific or ethnic; 10 percent as performance art, theater, improvisation, or site-specific. Ballet choreographers were 3 percent of the 

respondents. Choreographers who mixed ballet with other dance 

genres accounted for an additional 15 percent. 

Quantity of New Work 

Approximately 1800 works were made by 479 study respondents; 

28 percent of the works were solos performed primarily by the 

choreographers who created them. More choreographers made two 

or three works in the 1989 study year (45 percent) than four or 

more (38 percent) or one (17 percent). 

One-third of the respondents had five or more works performed 

in 1989; 93 percent had at least one work performed. Of the works 

made for ensembles, about one-half were made for two to five 

dancers. The others were created for groups of six or more. Most 

respondents choreographed for groups of various sizes. 

Performance Opportunities 

Over 40 percent of the respondents self-produced their work or performed it in spaces requiring no audition or invitation and for which 

they bore the entire financial risk and burden of production. More 
than 50 percent of the respondents’ works performed in 1989 

resulted from invitations from producers/presenters. Fifty percent 

were invited to bring their own companies or group of pick-up performers. Thirty percent were asked to produce or mount a work 

for a company not their own. Twenty-nine percent auditioned work 

for a specific space; 21 percent had works accepted and presented. 

Some 15 percent of the study’s sample population were resident 

choreographers in dance companies not their own. 

Rehearsal Space 

Of the 397 respondents who reported having problems with rehearsal space, 64 percent rented space (alone or with other artists). 

Twenty-nine percent had free use of space and 7 percent owned 

their own. Space problems were characterized as "major" or "important" as follows: cost (57 percent), availability (40 percent), and 

space conditions (39 percent). Of the choreographers who rent 

rehearsal space, 90 percent said its cost was a serious problem. 

Five Major Problems 

 ̄ Documentation of work: This was identified as a major 

problem by a higher percentage of respondents than other 

non-monetary issues. More than 70 percent of choreographers 

considered lack of resources to document and record their 

work as a "major" or "important" problem. Other common 

concerns were reported as follows. 

Dancers: Money to pay dancers for rehearsals was a problem 

for 81 percent of the respondents. Other concerns were keeping qualified dancers; having dancers available on whom to 

create works; the quality of available dancers; and training 

dancers. 

Management: Paying qualified management personnel was a 

major issue for 71 percent of the respondents; so was finding 

managers (for 50 percent), and keeping them (41 percent). 

Personal and career advancement issues: The most frequently 

cited problem, unpredictability of income, was noted by 80 
2O 

percent of the choreographers. Other problems perceived by 

large portions of the sample were: networking required to be 

presented (66 percent); inability to obtain health insurance (64 

percent); lack of recognition and support from funding 

agencies (64 percent); inability to support family (62 percent); 

coping with producers’ and presenters’ influence on funding 

(59 percent); networking required to be funded (58 percent). 

Media Coverage: Only about half the respondents reported 

getting reviews of their performances in the press at home or 

on tour. The quality of reviews that appeared was also 

perceived as a problem. 

Dance Funding 

This study coincided with an economic recession and occurred in 

the midst of a major decline in dance funding. Hardest hit was corporate funding to dance, which fell 60 percent from approximately 

$50 million to $20 million. Between 1988 and 1991 corporate support of dance dropped from 8 percent to 4 percent of all corporate 

funding for the arts; the total corporate arts budget fell from $634 

million to $518 million. 

During the same period, overall philanthropic giving by business 

increased by 24 percent and contributions to the arts--as a percentage of total philanthropic giving--decreased by 18 percent. 

The Arts Endowment Dance Program budgets for choreographer 

fellowships held steady at $814,000 and $816,000 in 1989 and 

1990, then increased to $841,000 in 1991 and $885,000 in 1992. 

This occurred despite the 11 percent decline in the total budget for 

the Dance Program since 1990. 

State arts agencies’ legislative appropriations fell 26 percent between 

1990 and 1992, reducing allotments to state arts council dance programs. Dance funding at three of the four arts councils whose constituents were studied declined as follows between 1989 and 1993: 

California Arts Council (29 percent); Illinois Arts Council (12 percent); New York State Council on the Arts (59 percent). Similarly, 
21 in local government funding, Chicago’s City Arts Dance 

Companies/Groups suffered a 52 percent decrease from $94,000 

to $45,000. There was one bright spot: municipal government support for dance in San Francisco, administered by Grants for the 

Arts, increased nearly 15 percent from $948,000 to $1,087,000. 

Authors’ Conclusions 

The authors believe that choreographers have responded to financial 

realities by creating and performing solo rather than group works; 

by down-sizing present dance companies; by contemplating relocation overseas or to another region of the U.S.; by taking sabbaticals 

or ceasing choreographic efforts altogether. 

Grantmakers may be guided by the core necessities identified in this 

study as they review and re-evaluate current artist support programs, and as they design policies and implement plans responsive 

to the needs and concerns of choreographers. These core needs 

include: 

Securing funds to pay qualified management personnel, 

rehearsal costs (including dancers’ salaries and studio space), 

and health care costs; 

Stabilizing income for self and family while ensuring adequate 

time to choreograph, to rehearse and to take daily dance classes; 

Acquiring grantsmanship information and skills such as how 

to research grants, write proposals and apply for 

funds; 

Securing monetary and "in-kind" contributions for documentation and preservation of their work; 

 ̄ Improving access to information and services; 

 ̄ Sharing resources such as space, staffing, performance venues 

and professional opportunities; 

Creating opportunities for presenting and touring for themselves and their companies. 

23 

Background 

This report presents the findings of a National Endowment for the 

Arts study of choreographers in four cities--New York, Chicago, 

San Francisco and Washington, D.C. 

The study was initiated at the end of 1989. Project Directors 

Richard Orend and Alyce Dissette, together with the Arts Endowment’s Dance Program, Expansion Arts Program and Research Division, assembled a 14-member national advisory committee to help 

guide and inform the work’s course.~ The committee, drawn from 

the study’s four metropolitan areas, included choreographers, dancers, artistic directors, dance administrators, producers, and a social 

science researcher. 

Five dance service organizations--Chicago Dance Coalition, Dance 

Bay Area, Dance Theatre Workshop, Dance/USA and Pentacle--also 

participated in the project from the beginning. Service organization 

staff and informed individuals helped the study team and the advisory committee develop the lists of choreographers to be surveyed. 

In addition, groups of funders, presenters, managers and critics in 

the study cities helped inform the design of the mail questionnaire. 

Choreographers, who provide the creative life force of dance, are a 

subset of the performing arts community about whom little is understood. There are several reasons for this lack of knowledge. One 

thing that is known: choreographers’ lives are complex. The dancemaker confronts many challenges simultaneously: finding opportunities to perform, locating appropriate rehearsal and performance 

spaces, getting works produced and documented, creating new works, 

setting works from repertoire, auditioning dancers (and, for many, 

performing themselves), running rehearsals, teaching classes, coachI The committee roster appears in 

the Acknowledgements, page 10. 

In Chicago, a pair 

waltzes through 

rehearsal at the 

Hubbard Street 

Company’s studio. 
ing roles, administering, fund-raising, writing proposals, and--as 

this study reveals--allocating much of their working time to jobs 

other than choreography in order to pursue choreographic ones. 

Standard sources of information on artists and their circumstances 

do not say much about choreographers. For example: 

The Federal government’s vocational handbook, which 

describes occupational fields, includes a two-page narrative 

entitled "Dancers and Choreographers" that devotes this 

one sentence to the latter: "Some new choreographers 

receive a minimum fee of $325 for a ballet and $20 per performance in royalties.’’2 

A companion volume to the Federal vocational directory, as 

well as academic journal articles, group dancers and choreographers into one economic basket.3 Yet the two groups 

differ in important respects. For example, there are many 

dancers under 30 but few choreographers; conversely, there 

are few dancers over 45 and a significant number of choreographers. The two groups deserve separate consideration 

and categories. 

The Federal government’s occupational classification system 

lumps dancers and choreographers together, and identifies 

the category only as dancers. This means that employment 

and unemployment data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

and the Bureau of the Census do not identify choreographers separately.4 

The National Endowment for the Arts has been concerned with 

choreographers from the beginning of its history. Choreographers 

were the first group of artists recommended for individual grants 

by the Endowment’s advisory council, the National Council on the 

Arts, when it was formed. At its November 1965 meeting, the Council recommended eight grants totalling $103,000, which were award2 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department 

of Labor, Bulletin 2350, Occupational 

Outlook Handbook, 1990-1991 edition, 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing 

office, 1990, 185. 

4 Standard Occupational Classification 

Manual, 1989, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Office of Federal Statistical 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department Policy and Standards, 1989. 

of Labor, Bulletin 2351, Occupational 

Projections and Training Data, 1990 edition, 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing 

Office, 1990, 21, 35, 56. Randall K. Filer, 

"Arts and Academe: The Effect of Education 

on Earnings of Artists," Journal of Cultural 

Economics, December 1990, 14:2, 17-20. 

Charles M. Gray, "Nonpecuniary Rewards 

in the Performing Arts Labor Market: A 

Case Study of Dancers and Choreographers," 

in William S. Hendon, Nancy K. Grant and 

Douglas V. Shaw, The Economics of 

Cultural Industries, Akron: Association for 

Cultural Economics, 1984, 231-244. 
2B 

ed to Alvin Ailey, Merce Cunningham, Martha Graham, Jos~ Limon, 

Alwin Nikolais, Anna Sokolow, Paul Taylor and Antony Tudor.5 

This was the first such broad based commissioning
 

program in the history of the country, and all of the
 

works which resulted...later received superb reviews,
 

enhancing the prestige of both American dance and
 

the Arts Endowment.6
 

However, the initial $103,000 in 1965 for eight choreographer 

grants grew to only $155,000 in 1980 for 53 choreographers’ fellowships. This represented a 42.5 percent reduction if inflation is 

taken into account.7 (See Table 1.1) 

In 1980, as part of the Endowment’s evaluation of agency effectiveness in funding the individual artist, the Dance Program undertook 

a study of its choreographer fellowships. It concluded, "...the direct 

grant is irreplaceable," and committed itself anew to "pursue ways 

to increase funding in the Fellowship category.’’8 The effort to expand funding was successful: in 1989--the year of the study reported in this document--the Dance Program gave choreographers 85 

Table 1.1 1965, 1980 and 1989 Arts Endowment Choreographer 

Fellowships, in Actual and Constant {1991) Dollars 

Average Amount
 

Total Grant Awards of Fellowship
 

In Actual In 1991 Number of Ii1 Actual In 1991 

Year Dollars Dollars Fellowships Dollars Dollars 

1965 $103,000 $445,000 8 $12,875 $55,600 

1980 155,000 256,000 53 2,925 4,800 

1989 814,000 894,000 85 9,577 10,500 

National Endowment for the Arts, The 

National Council on the Arts and the 

National Endowment for the Arts During 

the Administration of President Lyndon B. 

!ohnson, The History, Vol. I, Washington, 

D.C.: 1968, 31. 

- Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department 

of Labor, "Consumer Price Index (CPI-W) 

U.S. City Average," New York: Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 

1991. 

8 Bonnie Brooks, "A Study of Choreographer’s 

Fellowships: Category 1," an internal report 

prepared for the National Endowment for the 

Arts, 1980, 32. 

National Endowment for the Arts, National
 

Endowment for the Arts and National
 

Council on the Arts: Annual Report/or the
 

Fiscal Year Ended June ~0, 1966, Washington D.C.: National Endowment for the
 

Arts, 1967, 42.
 
grants totalling $814,000, a 250 percent increase over 1980, taking 

inflation into account. 

In recognition of the importance of support to choreographers, the 

Dance Program took a further step in 1991 by refocusing its Fellowship category to award mostly multi-year grants. For the first time, 

the majority of its grantees were funded for two years at $10,000 

per year. Table 1.1 shows that the average value of an Arts Endowment choreographer fellowship decreased by nearly 80 percent in 

actual dollars between 1965 ($12,875) and 1980 ($2,925)--and by 

more than 90 percent if adjusted for inflation. But in real dollars it 

more than tripled between the 1980 low point and 1989 ($9,577). 

Even so, in 1989 the average value of a choreographer fellowship 

adjusted for inflation was less than 20 percent of the value of one 

fellowship awarded in 1965. 

Aware of the paucity of information about choreographers, the 

confusion surrounding data about them, the need for knowledge 

and difficulties inherent in obtaining information about such a diverse group, the Arts Endowment renewed its commitment to choreographers. In 1989 the agency’s Dance Program, Expansion Arts 

Program and Research Division joined forces to originate the first 

data-based study of the economic and working conditions of choreographers. Focusing on four metropolitan U.S. areas, the researchers 

set out to provide as broad a view of the working lives of choreographers as available time and budget would permit. The objective was 

twofold: first, by improving the knowledge base, to enable the Endowment and other funding agencies to design policies and programs responsive to choreographers’ current needs and concerns, 

that is to guide grant-making priorities; second, to encourage new 

initiatives and services in support of choreographers. 
27 

The major research questions that guided the survey design were: 

Who are the choreographers? That is, what are their demographic characteristics such as age, gender, racial or ethnic
 

identity, education and household composition? What formal
 

training has shaped their development? How long have they
 

been in this field? How active are they professionally in the
 

study year?
 

What are the economic conditions of choreographers? How
 

many support themselves with their work? How much of
 

their income derives from performances, commissions, and
 

other dance-related work like teaching? Does income from
 

choreography cover the expenses they incur to make and
 

perform their work?
 

What role do grants play in the creation and presentation of
 

choreographers’ work? How many of them apply for grants?
 

To which funders do they apply? How successful are they in
 

their grant applications?
 

 ̄ Are there consistent differences among choreographers from
 

city to city?
 

 ̄ What do choreographers identify as the most important professional issues facing them? What factors present the greatest
 

obstacles in achieving their professional goals?
 

How the Study Was Done 

Development of the Survey Sample 

Choreographers are not identified as such in the decennial census 

(or other standard data source). No one knows how many choreographers there are in the United States or where they live and work. 

It would be difficult to identify the choreographer population in all 

parts of the country. Instead, the study plan was to survey separate 

choreographer populations in New York, Chicago, San Francisco, 

and Washington, D.C., geographically diverse metropolitan areas 

believed to have a significant number of individuals who met the 

study’s definition of choreographer. In deciding on these four cities, 

the study designers considered several factors. Among the most 

important were geographic and demographic differences, density 

and diversity of dance activity, and cities with dance service organizations as opposed to those without. 

For this study a choreographer was defined as an individual "who 

has presented a dance work of his/her own creation before a solicited audience of 50 or more people during the previous three years." 

A two-step process was employed to identify choreographers in each 

metropolitan area. First, with the assistance of the five dance service 

organizations and informed individuals, lists for each area were 

compiled of local, largely not-for-profit performance venues including proscenium theaters; performing arts centers; school, community 

and church spaces; dance company studios; museums and libraries. 

(Requirements were that the space present dance on a regular basis 

and have a minimum audience capacity of 50.) Second, managers of 

each performance space were contacted and asked to provide names 

and addresses of choreographers whose works had been performed 

there between the fall of 1987 and the spring of 1990, i.e. over three 

full seasons.~ Special efforts were made in all four areas to identify 

choreographers from traditionally under-represented racial and ethnic groups, as well as those who did not perform in conventional 

theatrical venues. The study designers were not content to use 

Names of cooperating dance organizations and
 

performance spaces appear in Appendix 1.
 

Brenda Way, artistic 

director of ODC/ 

San Francisco, sets 

her kinetic cartoon 

Krazy Kat. 
established lists of likely participants but determined to compile lists 

of active choreographers. 

More choreographers fitting the definition were found in each of 

the four metropolitan areas than knowledgeable dance professionals 

(locally and nationally) had expected. The study identified at least 

twice as many choreographers in Chicago and Washington as had 

been estimated, and 60 percent more in New York City and San 

Francisco. 

The researchers identified a total of 1,586 choreographers and sent 

them questionnaires. Subsequently, 89 questionnaires were returned 

as undeliverable, two individuals were reported deceased and 51 

returned the questionnaires saying that they were not choreographers. 

This left a nominal total of 1,444 choreographers contacted.2 

Questionnaire Content 

The project directors conducted focus group interviews of choreographers and dance professionals (including managers, funders and 

presenters) in each study city between mid-January and the end of 

February 1990. The interviews elicited information useful to the 

design of the survey and provided perspectives of other dance professionals on the major topics of the study. The advisory committee 

also helped in the development of the questionnaire. In July 1990, 

the questionnaire was mailed to all identified choreographers) 

The original questionnaire had 71 questions organized in seven sections. The questions addressed: 

the dance styles and disciplines within which the choreographers work; 

 ̄ the choreographers’ professional training and work history; 

 ̄ dance-making activities, use of time, and performance
 

opportunities;
 

 ̄ issues and problems that confront choreographers; 

 ̄ the financial conditions of choreographers--their incomes and 

2 Nominal in the sense that some undeliverable 

questionnaires may have been discarded 

rather than returned, and some recipients 

who *vere not choreographers also may have 

discarded the questionnaire. 

The text of the questionnaire appears 

in Appendix 2 
professional expenses and their experience in applying for and 

receiving grants; 

 ̄ their demographic characteristics, including age, race, gender 

and educational backgrounds; 

 ̄ data about dance companies (for choreographers who 

have them). 

Survey Response Rate 

After the original questionnaire was mailed in July 1990, a reminder 

postcard and a second copy of the questionnaire were sent, following standard mail survey procedures. Low response to the original 

mailings necessitated a follow-up telephone survey, using a sample 

of non-respondents. These interviews suggested that the length 

of the questionnaire and the time required to complete it were impediments. As a result, the questionnaire was shortened by about 

25 percent and mailed to non-respondents in the December 

1990-January 1991 period, using the procedure employed originally 

(two mailings separated by a reminder postcard). 

In February 1991, there was another, briefer telephone survey, using 

10 questions from the revised mail questionnaire. This was done to 

enable a comparison of the characteristics of choreographers who 

had responded to the mail survey with those who had not responded. 

In all, 515 choreographers responded to the mail surveys and 202 

responded to the telephone follow-ups. Thus, the mail survey 

response rate was 35.7 percent overall. Broken down by metropolitan area, it was: 

Chicago 38.1% 

New York 38.2% 

San Francisco 29.0% 

Washington, D.C. 41.2% 

More than 80 percent of the choreographers contacted in the telephone survey responded. 
Is a 35.7 percent response rate for the mail survey "reasonable"? 

Does it signify that the findings can be assumed to describe all 

choreographers in the four metropolitan areas, not just those 

responding? No simple statistical rule answers this question.4 

Three large and well-regarded surveys of artists completed in recent 

years had response rates of more than 40 percent. The first is the 

Arts Endowment study of visual artists in Houston, Minneapolis, 

Washington and San Francisco, published in 1984.5 The overall 

response rate was 47 percent as 1,983 questionnaires were delivered 

and 940 were returned, with response rates for the four cities ranging from 45 to 49 percent. The second is a Columbia University survey of American authors (conducted in 1979 and published in 1986) 

that focused on income and had a response rate of 46 percent with 

an overall sample size of 4,856 and 2,241 replies.6 (Two previous 

studies of authors’ incomes had decidedly low response rates of 18 

and 20 percent respectively.)7 Joan Jeffri’s 1989 survey of 9,870 

artists in ten locations had an overall response rate of 42 percent, 

with 4,146 replies. Only 151 individuals, or 4 percent of Jeffri’s 

sample, chose "dance/movement" to describe their artistic discipline,8 and the survey did not reveal whether any of these were 

choreographers. Generally then, the response rate achieved in the 

current survey was slightly lower than that in comparable studies 

of artist populations.9 

Another consideration in interpreting the reliability of the findings: 

some questions were not answered by 100 or more of the 515 choreographers who responded to the mail questionnaire. For example, 

the question about professional expenses was answered by only 

352 respondents and the main question about income by 404 respondents. We cannot explain absolutely the reasons for low rate 

4 There are rules for determining the representativeness of a sample when the size and


some key characteristics of the entire population being sampled are known. However,
 

the latter are not known in the case of the
 

choreographer study. 

National Endowment for the Arts, Visual
 

Artists in Houston, Minneapolis, Washington, and San Francisco: Earnings and
 

Exhibition Opportunities. Research Division
 s Joan Jeffri, "Executive Summary" in Report #18, October 1984. Data on the "Information on Artists--A Study of Artists’ response rate are shown on page 12 of the Work-Related Human and Social Service 

report. Needs in Ten U.S. Locations," New York: 

Research Center for Arts and Culture, 6 Paul William Kingston and Jonathan R. Columbia University, 1989, 1, 3. 

Cole, The Wages of Writing: Per Word, Per 

Piece, or Perhaps, New York: Columbia 

University Press, 1986, 31. 

7 Ibid, Kingston and Cole, pp. 11-12. 
of response to individual questions, though we understand that the 

financial questions were the most difficult to answer and are perceived by many as intrusive. We also believe that Americans are 

generally reluctant to answer personal finance questions asked by 

government agencies. 

Telephone Survey Respondents 

A standard procedure for analyzing the impact of nonresponse to 

mail surveys is to conduct a follow-up telephone survey of nonrespondents. Accordingly, this study used a follow-up phone survey 

to determine and compare selected characteristics of the choreographers who did not respond to the mail questionnaire with those 

who did. Table 2.1 covers all the questions asked in the telephone 

survey and sho,vs that the differences between mail and phone 

respondents were small except in two respects. 

The telephone respondents were significantly more experienced as 

choreographers (12 years vs 9 years). Second, the telephone respondents were much less likely to have applied for an Arts Endowment 

grant in 1989 (39 percent vs 60 percent). 

This last comparison suggests that one factor in participation was 

the choreographer’s familiarity with the Endowment; a choreographer who had not applied to Arts Endowment grant programs was 

less likely to participate in an Endowment survey.1° (See page 62ff. 

for a discussion of the processes of applying for grants on the part 

of the mail survey respondents.) 

Conclusions on the response rate 

Strictly speaking, findings from a sample survey tell us about the circumstances and views of those who responded, and no one else. 

However, it would be unwarranted to conclude that all or even most 

Ibid., "Frequencies: Ten Site Artist Survey, 

All Ten Sites,~ 1-2. 

10 Anecdotal evidence suggests that many 

recipients of questionnaires were averse to 

answering questionnaires; some disliked 

doing it, others simply put it off indefinitely 

or were too busy. Many were apologetic 

when reached by phone. In addition, 1990 

was an unfortunate time for such a survey. 

Several other studies and the U.S. Census 

were putting claims on potential participants’ time, and the Arts Endowment itself 

had become a subject of public controversy. 
Table 2.1 Comparison of Respondents to Mail Survey and 

Phone Follow-Up 

Sample size 

Location 

New York 

San Francisco
 

Chicago
 

Washington, DC
 

Gender 

Women 

Men 

Race 

African American 

Asian American
 

Hispanic
 

White
 

(missing) 

Median years experience as a choreographer (a) 

Median number of works 

choreographed in 1989 (al 

Median number of works 

performed in 1989 (’~) 

Arts Endowment grantee in 1989? 

Applied and funded 

Applied, but not funded 

Did not apply 

(missing) 

Mail Telephone
 

Survey Follow-up
 

515 (100%) 202 (100%)
 

314 (61%) 84 (42%)
 

123 (24%) 67 (33%)
 

43 (8%) 29 (14%)
 

35 (7%) 22 (11%)
 

73% 68% 

27% 32% 

5% 9% 

5% 5% 

3% 5% 

71% 68 % 

(16%) (9%) 

8.7 11.6 

3.0 3.1 

3.4 4.0 

9% 8% 

26% 22% 

39% 60% 

(26%) (9%) 

(a) Median of those answering the question; many respondents to the mail survey did not answer 

all of the questions, 
of the 64 percent of those contacted but not responding are wholly 

different from those who did respond. Comparisons to the nonrespondent sample profile indicate two such differences: 1) The mail 

survey may under-represent more experienced choreographers; 2) it 

may over-represent choreographers with past Endowment grant 

application experience. 

While a low response merits a word of caution to the reader 

about interpreting survey results, nonetheless this survey provides the 

most substantial data set available to date on the needs and working 

conditions of choreographers. Further, as the concluding chapter of 

this report explains, information from other independent sources provides additional support for the findings from this survey. 

37 

General FindingsI 

Demographic Characteristics 

Choreographers, like any other clearly defined group of artists, have 

distinctive characteristics; the typical choreographer is not a typical 

American. The population at large provides a useful standard of 

comparison for the survey respondents.2 

Age. Nearly 60 percent of the survey respondents were in their 

thirties, a very high concentration compared to 28 percent for the 

U.S. working age population (aged 22 to 69). Few choreographers 

in the survey group are younger than 30. Only 15 percent of the 

survey respondents are 45 or older, compared to 37 percent of the 

U.S. working age population. The age profiles are shown graphically 

in Figure 3.1. 

Gender. Just under 72 percent of the survey respondents were women. 

This means that choreography ranks with teaching, nursing and 

social work as one of the most predominantly female occupations. 

Race. Racial and ethnic groups other than whites and Asian Americans were slightly under-represented among the survey respondents, 

compared to the U.S. population of working age (Figure 3.2). African Americans constitute 11 percent of the U.S. labor force and 

only 6 percent of the choreographer sample. Hispanics make up 8 

percent of the labor force and 4 percent of the sample.3 It should be 

noted that 1990 national statistics on 11 artist occupations from the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics also showed an under-representation of 

African Americans and Hispanics--at 3.8 percent and 4.3 percent, 

respectively. Asian Americans represented 5 percent of the choreoglu this chapter, the numher of respondents 

(out ot the 515 total) answering a given 

question usually is indicated when 100 or 

more failed to answer that question. Also, no 

data are presented in situations where the 

absolute number of respondents in a class is 

small and few of them auswered that particular question. 

2 All the data for the U.S. population arc 

takeu from standard Federal statistical series, 

wherever possible front the Statistical 

Abstract of the Umted States, 199 I, puhlished by the Census Bureau. 

The small proportions of African Americans 

and Hispanics among the respondents was 

particularly disappointing since special e/forts 

In Washington, Ajax 

Joe Drayton ahnost 

were undertaken to reach them as part of the 

original study design (see Chapter 2). Clearly, 

more or different strategies need to be used iu 

stands pat for an future studies to increase response. 

instant in his modern 

jaz~ dance. 
 

38 Figure 3.1 Survey Respondents vs. U.S. Population--Age Distribution 

35% 35% 

30% 30% 

25% 25% 

20% 20% 

15% 15% 

10% 10% 

5% 5% 

O% O%
 

22-29 30-34 35 -39 40-44 45-49 50-69
 

Percent of Population 22-69
 

Survey respondents U.S. population 

Figure 3.2 Survey Respondents vs. U.S. Population--Distribution by Race 

90% 90% 

80% 80% 

70% 70% 

60% 60% 

50% 50% 

40% 40% 

30% 30% 

20% 20% 

10% 10% 

0% 

White A{rican-American Hispanic Other (Native and Asian) 

Percent o{ Population 20-64 

Survey respondents U.S. population 
rapher sample, which is higher than either their representation in 

the U.S. labor force (2.5 percent) or in the eleven artist occupations 

measured by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (3.8 percent). 

Marital status. The proportion of respondents married and living 

with spouses--42 percent--is considerably below the 66 percent 

level found in the general population between the ages of 25 

and 64. 

Formal education. Survey respondents are utterly unlike the U.S. 

population in terms of educational attainment. These choreographers are more highly educated than American professionals in general and more highly educated than many types of artists, as reported in other studies.4 As Figure 3.3 shows, 77 percent are college 

graduates and/or have advanced or professional degrees, compared 

with 21 percent of the U.S. population over 25. Only 8 percent 

of the respondents do not have some post-secondary education, 

while 62 percent of all Americans have had no education beyond 

high school. 

Income. High educational levels usually are associated with relatively high incomes, but this is not the case for the survey respondents. 

Holding down multiple jobs and working long hours also usually 

yields relatively high incomes. Again, this is not the case among survey respondents, 80 percent of whom had regular jobs in addition 

to their work as choreographers (and 30 percent had more than 

one job). Despite that, their incomes compare unfavorably to the 

population in general. 

The usual way to make income comparisons between population 

groups is to use the median, that is the income of the household 

(or person) who is at the midpoint of the income range, with half 

having higher incomes and half having lower incomes,s The median 

total income of the choreographers themselves (not total household 

income) compares poorly with the segment of the American population that is most like the survey respondents--employed women 

professionals. This comparison group is used because most of the 

4 1980 Census of Population, Volume 2: 

Subject Reports, Occupation by Industry, 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of Census 

PC80-2-7C, 1984, Table 1, 157. 

The alternative measure is the mean or conventional "average," that is the sum of all
 

income reported by the population group
 

divided by the number of persons. The mean
 

income is almost always considerably higher
 

than the median, because the mean is affected by the small number of households or
 

persons with very high incomes. Whether
 

the top income in a group is $100,000 or
 

$10 million will not affect the median. For
 

some types of income data, like the data on
 

average earnings by metropolitan areas in


Table 111-2, below, only means are available,
 

however. The mean income for the respondents was $22,000, compared to the median
 

of $18,500.
 
 

40 

Figure 3.3 Survey Respondents vs. U.S. Population--Educational Level 

80% 80% 

70% 70% 

60% 60% 

50% 50%0 

40% 40% 

30% 30% 

20% 2O% 

10% 10% 

0% .... O%
 

Not high school grad High school grad Some post HS College grad or more
 

Percent of Population 25 and Over
 

Survey respondents U.S. population 

Table 3.1 Household Income Comparisons for 1989 

Survey U.S. 

Income Level Respondents Population (a) 

Less than $10,000 10.8% 15.6% 

$10,000-14,999 14.6% 9.7% 

$15,000-24,999 (h! 22.0% 17.9% 

$25,000-34,999 (h) 17.9% 15.9% 

$35,000~19,999 16.0% 17.3% 

$50,000-74,999 10.4% 14.5% 

$75,000 and over 8.0% 9.0% 

All classes 100.0% 100.0% 

Median $26,300 $28,900 

Percent difference from U.S. population -9.0% 

(a) Based on data in the Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1991. 

(l,/The survey did not use this income class. For comparability with national data, interpolation 

was used to derive the figure shown here. 
respondents are women and because women professionals in general 

are highly educated; the comparison should take into account both 

the effects of education on income and earnings differentials related 

to gender. This is the comparison: 

Median income of choreographer 

respondents: (total from all sources) $18,500 

Median earnings of American 

women professionals employed 

year-round, 1989 $27,9006 

Percent difference -33.7% 

If one does not live alone, one’s standard of living is determined 

by the total income of the household. More than half of the respondents live with spouses or resident partners (58 percent), with whom 

they presumably share income and expenses. On average, the respondent choreographers provided about two-thirds of the total income 

of their households. 

The median household income of the respondents was approximately$26,300 in 1989. This was 9 percent below the U.S. median 

household income of $28,900.7 As Table 3.1 shows, a substantially 

higher percentage of the respondents had incomes in the $10,000­

$35,000 range than was true for the population at large (55 vs. 44 

percent). A substantially lower percentage of choreographers had 

incomes of $35,000 or more (34 vs. 41 percent). 

In an important way, these comparisons understate the relatively 

poor economic position of the respondents. This choreographer 

sample consists of people living and working in four large metropolitan areas where the cost of living is relatively high; this means their 

low incomes would support even lower standards of living than the 

national comparisons suggest. Moreover, in these urban areas, income and earnings levels for the general population are well above 

the national averages, so the national comparisons overstate the 

relative income status of the respondents. 

Table 3.2 presents data on average earnings levels (not medians) for 

individuals in metropolitan areas with which the respondents can be 

compared. Respondents in the New York and Washington areas 

have incomes nearly one-third below the average pay in their areas. 

The differences were smaller but still substantial in the other two 

areas. While the respondent income figures are not for households, 

From Statistical Abstract, 1991, Table 680. 

There was a similar disparity for mean 

income (approximately $31,000 for the 

respondents). 
they do include all sources of the choreographer’s income, not just 

that from choreography. As the table shows, income from choreog~ 

raphy (including grants) is only 10 percent of average pay levels in 

the Washington area, 20 percent in New York and San Francisco 

and 24 percent in Chicago. 

The low level of income from choreography in the Washington area 

is striking. (For more discussion of the sources of choreographers’ 

incomes, see page 55ff.] 

Professional Experience 

Types of Dance 

The first question in the survey asked choreographers to state the 

terms they use to characterize their work. 

Twelve choices were offered, along with an "other (specify)," and 

the respondents were asked to check all that applied. The result was 

192 combinations of the original categories and additional descrip~ 

tive phrases. Any shortened list of categories will distort the ways 

choreographers themselves view their choice of discipline. 

In tabulating the responses, the many combinations were reduced to 

the seven shown in Table 3.3, in order to make stylistic distinctions 

comprehensible. More than half of the respondents (55 percent) described their work as "experimental/modern." The next largest 

group--13 percent--identified their work as culturally specific or 

ethnic. Ten percent reported their work involves performance art, 

theater, improvisation, or was site-specific. Ballet choreographers 

were 3 percent of the respondents; those who mixed ballet with 

other dance genres accounted for 15 percent. 

Education and Training 

As noted earlier, choreographers were highly educated in comparison to other professionals and still more so in comparison to the 

general population. For most choreographers, this formal education 

had a substantial dance content. As Table 3.4 shows, 55 percent of 

the respondents attended a college or university and majored in 
Table 3.2 Income Averages for Choreographers and the 

General Population (a) 

Average 

Annual Pay 

Metropolitan From From of Working Percent 

Area Choreograph~0’/ All Sources Population Difference 

New York $6,380 $21,765 $31,621 -31.2% 

San Francisco 5,781 23,821 28,644 -16.8% 

Chicago 6,391 20,908 26,342 -20.6% 

Washington 2,814 19,290 28,041 -31.2 % 

I,,I Includes all workers covered by unemployment insurance. Data from U.S. Department of 

Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. "Average Annual Pay Levels in Metropolitan Areas, 1989." 

0,1 Income from choreography includes grant income. 

Table 3.3 How Respondents Describe Their Work 

Number Percent 

Ballet 16 3.2 

Culturally specific or ethnic 67 13.4 

Experimental/modern 272 54.5 

Jazz, social, tap with commercial, modern, 

experimental, ballet and/or film/video 38 7.6 

Ballet, modern, experimental 39 7.8 

Performance art, theater, improvisation, 

site specific with experimental/modern 49 9.8 

Other 18 3.7 

Total responding to this question 499 100.0 
dance. More than 90 percent of those who attended graduated. This 

is one of the highest college completion rates among all professions 

for which there is no formal certification or licensing requirement. 

More than one-fourth attended a professional performing arts 

school. 

Whether or not a choreographer attended college or a professional 

performing arts school, she or he had formal dance training (99 percent); continued to take dance classes (75 percent); and continued to 

dance (86 percent). Most had one or more mentors (58 percent). 

The great majority studied choreography or composition and some 

continued to take choreography classes and workshops. 

Length of Experience 

On the whole, the choreographers have had a good deal of experience, an average of almost ten years. As Figure 3.5 shows, some 

63 percent of them have seven or more years of experience and 

15 percent sixteen years or more. In later sections, the relationship 

between years of experience and financial situation is examined. 

Productivity and Use of Time 

Productivity 

Choreographers typically make new dances, creations meant to be 

performed; dances cannot be said to exist in the absence of perforTable 3.4 Training and Background in Dance and Choreography 

Percent 

Formal education: 

Professional performing arts school 

Attended 26.1 

Graduated 17.4 

College or university and majored in dance 

Attended 55.4 

Graduated 92.2 

Did not graduate 7.8 

Dance background: 

Had formal dance training 98.5 

Continue to take classes 75.3 

Dancer turned choreographer 80.7 

Still dancing 86.5 

Choreography training: 

Studied choreography or composition 77.6 

Still taking choreography or composition classes/workshops 20.9 

Had choreography mentor(s) 58.3 

Total number answering this question 482 

Note: Obviously, these are not mutually exclusive categories, and most respondents checked

more than one. 
mance. Dancemaking and performance opportunities are intimately 

interdependent. A dance is performance-ready when it has been created and rehearsed. Not to perform it at that time means in effect to 

put dancers, studio time and other work on the shelf, then to begin 

again to rehearse it as opportunity arises. The imperative of making 

new work comes in part from the limitations of retrievable repertoire in dance (compared, for example, with opera or symphonic 

music). This problem is compounded by the fact that the impulse 

toward invention and creation has been one hallmark of dance in 

the United States in our time. 

The average numbers of works created in 1989 and earlier years are 

in Table 3.5. The averages appear to be stable during the five-year 

period covered by the questions; 1989 was not an atypical year. 

Choreographers made an average of nearly four new works and 

had 4.6 of her or his works performed. Their work toured an average of 2.3 weeks and involved 11.3 performances. 

Among the 479 respondents who reported making one or more 

works in 1989, 45 percent made two or three, 38 percent made four 

or more and 17 percent made only one (Figure 3.6). Of roughly 

1,800 works made, 28 percent were solo works and most of these 

Figure 3.5 Distribution of Choreographers 

by Years of Experience 

4-6 years
 

22%
 

0-3 years 7-10 years 14% Figure 3.6 Distribution of Choreographers 26% by Number of Works Made 

21+ years 

6% 2works 

24% 

16-20 years
 

11-15 years 9%
 

23%
 

22% 1 ~vork 

17% 

7 or more works 4works 10% 16% 

5works 

13% 

Distribution of those making at least one ~vork m 1989 
Table 3.5a Works Done in 1989 and Earlier Years 

Average Number of 

Number Number of Works Respondents 

Works choreographed 3.7 479 

Works performed 4.6 468 

Weeks work toured 2.3 515 

Performances on tour 11.3 319 ia) 

The response rate of 62 percent is especially low. Interpret with care. 

Table 3.5b Work History in Earlier Years: 

Average Average Number Number of 

Number of Of Spaces Choreographers Who 

Season Works Made Performed In Produced Works 

1988 3.0 5.5 406 

1987 4.0 5.2 379 

1986 3.9 5.4 360 

1985 3.1 4.9 330 

Table 3.6 Number of Dancers in Works Made in 1989 

Percentage of 

Number of Choreographers 

Dancers Required Percentage of Who Made Dances for 

in Work Total Dances Made Group(s) of This Size 

Solo 28% 47% 

2-5 37 60 

6-10 20 35 

11-15 8 14 

16+ 7 12 
were performed by the choreographers themselves (Table 3.6). The 

making of solo rather than ensemble work is first and foremost an 

artistic decision, but one influenced by financial and other problems; 

making solo works to be danced by the choreographer circumvents 

some of those problems. Of the works made for ensembles, about 

half were made for small groups of 2 to 5 dancers and half for 

groups of six or more. A majority of the respondents made work for 

groups of various sizes. 

Of those who responded to the survey question on the number of 

works performed in 1989, 93 percent had at least a single work performed (see Table 3.7). One-third of them had five or more of their 

works performed that year. 

Use of Time 

The average choreographer spent about equal amounts of time on 

choreographic work--making it, rehearsing it, doing administrative 

and fund-raising tasks, and performing and producing the work-­

and on other jobs, both dance-related and outside of dance. About 

80 percent had jobs other than choreography per se, and there was 

considerable variation among them in time devoted to such jobs. 

About half of those who reported doing non-choreography work 

said they had two or more such jobs. On average, 23.6 hours per 

week were devoted to the first job. Even so, that did not yield high 

incomes. 

As expected, an outside job has a negative influence on the number 

of works made. Those without outside jobs averaged about 4.5 new 

works in 1989, while those with jobs, regardless of hours worked, 

averaged just under 3.5 new works. The difference in output reflects 

the fact that not having a job makes more time available. It also 

reflects that more experienced choreographers (a) are more likely 

to be well-established professionals less likely to work in other jobs, 

and (b) are more likely to make more new dances. As pointed out 

in the next chapter, the fact that experienced choreographers make 
in the next chapter, the fact that experienced choreographers make 

more work and are less likely to have outside jobs does not mean 

that they are better off financially. Making more work is strongly 

associated with higher costs incurred, costs that on average greatly 

exceed income from choreography. 

Performance Opportunities 

In some disciplines, creative artists make their work whether or 

not they have opportunities to present it. This in the main is true 

of visual artists, writers, composers and playwrights. In contrast, 

choreographers usually make work only when a performance or 

exhibition opportunity has been arranged. Performance is not only 

the culmination of the time and effort devoted to creation and rehearsal, it also is often the prerequisite to the creative work being 

undertaken. However, some of the greatest difficulties that choreographers face arise in connection with arranging performance opportunities, according to survey respondents. 

For some choreographers, the responsibility for arranging performances lies in the hands of others: they are resident choreographers 

for dance companies run by others, or they are invited to produce 

work for other companies (Table 3.8). About one-sixth (15 percent) 

of the respondents were in the first category, about one-third 

(30 percent) in the second and some in both categories. Some choreographers who had their own companies also were invited to produce or mount work for other companies. 

Fully 50 percent of the dance events reported in this survey involved 

performances by a respondent’s own company or a group of pickup dancers. Invitations by producers or presenters were the most frequent context: more than half of the roughly 2,000 works by 

respondents that were performed in 1989 were the result of such an 

invitation. Forty-one percent of the performances were self-produced in rented spaces requiring no audition--with the entire financial risk and burden borne by the choreographer. Nearly one-third 

of the respondents (29 percent) auditioned work for a specific space, 

and 21 percent actually had works accepted and presented as the 

outcome of an audition. 

Professional Issues 

The issues discussed below were described by substantial numbers 
0 

16.3 

Table 3.7 Choreographers by Number of Works Performed in 1989 

Number of Works Number of Percentage of Performed Choreographers Choreographers 

30 6.6%
 

1 or 2
 133 29.3
 

3 or 4
 137 30.2
 

5 or 6 74
 

7 to 10
 56 12.3
 

11 to 15
 15 3.3
 

16+
 9 2.0 

Total 454 100.0 

Table 3.8 Contexts and Venues for Performance of Work in 1989 

Average Choreographers Number of Performing in 

Works This Contextla) 

Number Percent 

Resident choreographer for a dance 

company not your own 2.2 77 15.0

Invited to produce or mount work 

for a company not your own 2.0 154 29.9 

Invited by a producer/presenter to bring your company or group of 

pick-up performers 4.3 257 49.9 

Auditioned work for a 

specific performance space 

Number of works 1.9 147 28.5 

Works accepted and presented 1.5 106 20.6 

Rented or self-produced in spaces 

requiring no audition or invitation 2.2 209 40.6 

i~11 The percentages are of all 515 respondents. Many choreographers had work performed in two 

or more of the contexts listed in this table. 
the field" or "an important problem, requiring much time and 

effort." 

Performance Spaces and Opportunities 

The following performance space problems were cited by the 

respondents as "major" or "important." (These percentages reflect 

combined responses.) 

Lack of appropriate 

performance venue 58.4% 

Quality of available facility 49.7% 

Lack of sufficient audience base 

for performance spaces 45.4% 

Lack of professional technical 

and support staff 31.8% 

Can’t identify those who make 

performance decisions 29.5% 

Access to those who make 

programming decisions 

at performance spaces 46.1% 

The first four of these issues reflect choreographers’ concerns about 

the nature of performance spaces: there is no appropriate space, or 

its quality is poor, or it is too large and costly for the audience base, 

or there is not enough adequate staff at the space. The last two issues listed were more interpersonal in nature, and were part of a 

common theme in the survey results: a substantial number of choreographers felt themselves to be "outsiders" excluded from the main 

channels of the field. Or they resented what they saw as an inordinate need for "networking." 

Despite these problems, only a minority recorded themselves as 

"generally dissatisfied" with performance opportunities: about 23 

percent in the Washington area, 30 percent in San Francisco and 

Chicago, and 40 percent in New York. (The high figure for New 
York presumably reflects the large number of resident choreographers, locally-based companies and touring companies competing 

for the limited number of available performance opportunities in 

New York.) 

Rehearsal Spaces 

Both making work and performing require rehearsal space. During 

the 1980s, there were widespread reports in major American cities 

(including the four in this survey) that rehearsal spaces for dance 

and theater were disappearing because of the office building boom. 

As of 1989, nearly 80 percent of the respondents reported they had 

rehearsal space, but many reported serious problems with it. Of the 

397 who described the arrangements for rehearsal space they use 

most often, only 7 percent owned their own, 29 percent had free use 

of space and 64 percent rented the space, alone or with other artists. 

The following percentages characterized these as "major" or 

"important" problems. 

Cost 57.3% 

Availability 40.1% 

Specific conditions of 

available space 39.1% 

Given that 29 percent have free use of space, the first figure is a 

striking one, implying that nearly all those who rent have difficulty 

with the cost. Moreover, given that 80 percent do have space, the 

fact that 40 percent identify "availability" as a problem suggests 

that many choreographers used space they considered unsatisfactory. 

Additional Issues 

Serious concern was registered about a number of other issues 

related to creating work, documentation, dancers, management and 

media attention. 

Documentation 

The lack of resources to document and record work was considered 

"major" or "important" by 71 percent of the respondents. Only 10 
52 

percent said it was not a problem. Documentation was seen as a 

problem by more respondents than any other non-economic issue. 

Dancers 

The choreographers reported numerous problems with respect to 

dancers. The following were reported as "major" or "important" by 

40 percent or more of respondents: 

Money to pay for rehearsals 81.2% 

Keeping qualified dancers 49.1% 

Availability of dancers 45.1% 

Quality of available dancers 44.8% 

Training dancers repeatedly 40.4% 

Management 

Some of the same issues apply to management staff. The following 

were reported as "major" or "important" problems with management by many of the respondents: 

Paying qualified personnel 71.0% 

Finding qualified personnel 49.5% 

Keeping qualified personnel 41.4% 

Most of these serious problems involving both dancers and management staff are really questions of money, that is, of having enough 

money to find, pay and retain good people. In light of the typical 

financial profile (next chapter), it is not surprising that serious problems stem from lack of funds. Perhaps more surprising is the level 

of dissatisfaction with the quality of available dancers. (Responses 

to this question were not tabulated city by city, so quantitative differences cannot be determined.) 

Media coverage 

Most respondents have "major" or "important" problems getting 

reviews in the press, and 43 percent see critics’ influence on funding 

in the same light. There is a factual as well as a subjective basis for 

these attitudes. Only about half of the respondents reported getting 

any press criticism of their performances, either in their home cities 

or on tour. 
Personal and career advancement issues 

Large numbers of respondents viewed personal and career problems 

as "major" or "important," including: 

Unpredictability of income 80% 

Inability to support family 62% 

Inability to get health 

insurance through dance work 64% 

Networking required to be 

presented 66% 

Networking required to be funded 58% 

The influence of producers and 

presenters on funding 59% 

The lack of recognition and 

support from funding agencies 64% 

Respondents expressed greatest concern about financial and economic realities. Income is unpredictable. It is impossible for many choreographers to support their families; in fact, many choreographers 

are themselves supported by spouses or partners. Low and uncertain 

income makes access to health insurance very difficult for most. 

There is a mixture of more or less objective conditions and subjective perceptions in these answers. In group meetings and questionnaire responses, this study found artists--particularly those who 

consider themselves only marginally successful--questioning the 

legitimacy of networking practices, funders’ power and undue influences of "insiders" such as producers, presenters and critics. Respondents in the Arts Endowment’s 1984 study of visual artists expressed similar sentiments in connection with gaining access to exhibition space.8 Networking and fund-raising are viewed by many 

artists as an unwelcome distraction, a diversion of valuable time and 

energy from what they consider most important, their art. 

8 National Endowment for the Arts, Visual 

Artists in Houston, Minneapolis, 

Washington, and San Francisco: Earnings 

and Exhibition Opportunities. Research 

Report #18, October 1984. pp. 14-16. 

Financial Findings 

The matter of household incomes aside, here are the survey’s findings regarding the income and professional expenses of individual 

choreographers. 

Income from Choreography 

As we have seen, choreographers’ total income is substantially lower 

than that of the general population, especially when levels of education are taken into account. The average income of the respondents 

in this survey was only about $22,000 in 1989, and the median was 

roughly $18,500. The level and distribution of the incomes of choreographers in 1989 was rather similar to that of 4,000 visual and 

performing artists surveyed a year earlier.1 In both cases, about 60 

percent of those surveyed reported incomes in the $10,000-$30,000 

range, with the remainder about equally divided between the higher 

and lower income levels. 

By and large, professional choreographers do not earn their living 

from choreography. In fact, for the average choreographer, all types 

of income connected with dance amounted to only a little over 

$13,000. Table 4.1 shows that choreography provided an average 

of only $4,400 of non-grant income and an average of less than 

$1,600 in grants for choreography. Together, this was 27 percent 

of the average respondent’s total income in 1989 ($22,037). Most 

of the average choreographer’s income came from non-choreography 

jobs (which occupied an average of 32 hours per week). Most of 

that income was from dance-related jobs, but many respondents 

(55 percent) worked at jobs that had no relation to dance at all. 

Some choreographers earned no money at all from their choreographic work. Table 4.1 shows the small numbers of respondents 

who received income from each of the four types of choreographic 

Joan Jeffri, "Information on Artists--A 

Study of Artists’ Work-related Human and 

Social Service Needs in Ten U.S. Locations," 

Research Center for Arts and Culture, 

Columbia University, 1989. 

Pathfinding choreographer Donald 

McKayle works on 

Gumbo Ya-Ya for 

the San Francisco 

Ballet. 
sources: fees for the choreography itself, performance fees, commissions and royalties. Only one-fourth of the 405 respondents received 

grants. The average amounts earned by those who did receive income from the choreographic sources were higher but far from substantial. (Table 4.1 includes in its averages "no income" from specific sources as reported by some choreographers.) The 211 respondents who received fees and salaries for choreography averaged 

about $4,300 from this source. While not shown in Table 4.1, the 

few choreographers who earned all four types of choreographic 

income and also received grants had total professional income of 

about $17,900, a very modest total. 

Factors Related to Income Levels 

What explains income differences among choreographers, especially 

differences in income derived directly from choreography? Three sets 

of factors might explain such differences. One set consists of personal attributes that should not make any difference, but often do-­

notably, race and gender.2 A second consists of personal attributes 

that could be related legitimately to income, like geographic location, education, experience and age (to the extent that it is a measure of experience). A third set consists of the amount and quality 

of professional effort--and the extent to which one’s work is recognized by those who may influence professional success or failure. 

(A fourth may be related to the style or genre of work. This is difficult to explore because the respondents provided a total of 192 different descriptions of their work.) 

What the survey reveals about the influence of some of these factors 

on choreographers’ incomes is presented in the following pargraphs. 

Experience 

In most professions and occupations, it is expected that experienced 

people will earn more than novices. In some cases, there is a fairly 

steady progression up the scale as experience increases, while in others a plateau is reached relatively quickly. The latter is the case for 

choreographers, as Figures 4.1 and 4.2 show. Very few choreogra2 Although data on race and income also was 

contained in the survey, the number of 

minority respondents who reported income 

was so small (23 African-American, 23 

Asian-American and 15 Hispanic) that the 

averages are not statistically reliable. 
57 

Table 4.1 Sources of Choreographers’ Income in 1989 (a) 

Number with
 

income
 

from this
 

Mean source 

Total income Ib) $22,037~c/ 

Choreography (non-grant) subtotal: $4,412 

Fees and salaries for choreography $ 2,245 211 

Performance and box office fees 1,604 186 

Commissions 487 77 

Royalties 76 24 

Grants $1,572 102 

Other dance income like 

teaching and dancing $7,322 316 

Income from other work $6,228 223 

Income from all other sources, 

including family support $2,502I~t) 

~.~1 Only 405 of the 515 respondents answered the question about sources of income
 

(Question 50}.
 

0~1 Question 50 contains an element of overlap with Question 47, about total household income,
 

tot it includes as much as $1,800 (for the average respondent) of support from other members of
 

the same household.
 

{~1 The median was approximately $18,500.
 

i,li 151 respondents reported receiving direct support from other individuals, including family
 

members.
 

The division of expenses between the two main activities of choreographers---creating dances and

performing--is not an exact one, and the averages are affected by the fact that many choreographers did not report having some types of expenses, had work performed in two or more of the

contexts listed in this table. 
58 

phers with less than four years of experience (10 percent) received 

grants. Their average income from choreography from other sources 

was less than $1,300. Choreographers with four to six years of 

experience did only slightly better. However, choreographers with 

seven or more years of experience did much better on average. They 

had more income from grants and also more non-grant choreography income; their total income from choreography averaged $7,500 

or more. 

The peak in choreography income was for the group with seven to 

ten years of experience, with a dip in the eleven to fifteen years group. 

However, the eleven to fifteen years group did best with regard to 

grants, with an average of nearly $3,000 a year. In contrast, the most 

experienced choreographers, those with more than fifteen years of 

experience, received an average of only $1,500 in grants. 

As Figure 4.2 shows, even the experienced group with the highest 

income from choreography earned on average less than 40 percent 

of total income from the profession. Once again, these data suggest 

how unusual it is for choreographers to fully support themselves 

with their professional work. 

Location 

There were relatively small differences in the average choreography 

income in three of the four survey locations. However, the average 

for choreographers in the Washington area was less than half that 

in the other areas. Study data do not explain this discrepancy. 

Formal education 

Surprisingly, the survey results suggest that a college education is 

not an economic asset for choreographers. The average income 

reported for those without college degrees is far above that for 

respondents with college and graduate degrees. 

Figure 4.1 Years of Experience and Income from Choreography, 

Grants and Other 

$10,000 $10,000 

$8,000 

$6,000 $6,000 

$4,000 $4,000 

$2,000 $2,000 

$0 $0 

0-3 4-6 7-10 11-15 16+ 

Years of Experience 

Excluding grants Grants 
Gender 

Survey data show that the average income from choreography 

for men is about twice that for women, whether or not grants are 

included. (Grants to men average about 50 percent more than 

grants to women.) 

Men Women 

Choreography income 

including grants $9,328 $4,784 

Choreography income 

excluding grants $7,233 $3,339 

There is no obvious explanation for this; the female respondents 

were more highly educated than the males and about as experienced. Statistical analysis3 shows that, when all differences in the 

characteristics of the surveyed men and women were considered, 

being a woman resulted in $3,804 less income from choreography. 

(The average for all respondents was just under $6,000). 

Marital status 

For this factor, the choreography income differences are small. 

Income and work 

There is, as one would expect, a strong negative relationship between the amount of time a choreographer devotes to a non-choreography job and the amount of income from choreography. The 

relatively small number of respondents (about 15 percent) who re- The analysis, done by the original investigaported no jobs outside of choreography had average choreography tors, used a technique known as multiple 

regression analysis. Endowment records income of $17,569. Those with such jobs occupying them for show a different picture. In 1989, Dance 

Program fellowships for 36 men averaged 20 hours or less each week (29 percent) had average choreography $8,180 and for 50 women averaged $10,250. income of $6,331. The 56 percent working more than 20 hours in 

such jobs had choreography incomes of less than $3,000. This finding is logical: Choreographers work in such jobs for long hours 

Figure 4.2 Years of Experience and Percent of Income from Choreography 

40% 40% 

30",, 

20% 20% 

10",, 

0% 

4 6 16+ 

Years of Expcricncc 
because their income from choreography is low; that outside commitment in turn must keep some of them from earning more from 

their choreography. 

Professional Expenses 

Rare as it is for choreographers to earn a living from choreography, 

respondents commonly spend considerable sums on professional 

expenses. Table 4.2 shows the average amounts reported by the 352 

people who answered the question on expenses. 

The division of expenses between the two main activities of 

choreographers--creating dances and performing--is not an exact 

one, and the averages are affected by the fact that many choreographers did not report having some types of expenses. 

For example, only 67 reported having expenses for dancers’ rehearsal pay, while 232 reported expenses for rehearsal space.4 The lack 

of rehearsal pay reflects the fact that many of the works made and 

performed were solo works. It also demonstrates the lack of money 

to pay dancers for rehearsals. 

Choreography income compared to expenses. 

In 1989, the average choreographer in the survey earned only about 

$6,000 from her/his work as a choreographer, but had professional 

expenses of nearly $13,000. Excluding grants, the ratio of expenses 

to choreography income was three to one. This ratio of expenses to 

income is substantially different than that for artists of all types: the 

average artist in the 1988 Jeffri survey cited earlier had $9,045 annual income from art work and about $4,000 in art-related expenses, for an average profit of about $5,000. In contrast, this survey 

documents an average loss among choreographers of nearly $7,000. 

There is considerable variation among the respondents in the relation of expenses and income from choreography (Table 4.3). About 

15 percent of them had professional income that exceeded expenses 

by more than $1,000, while 4 percent had profits of more than 

$10,000. About 19 percent roughly broke even. But nearly 66 percent had expenses that exceeded professional income by more than 

$1,000. For one in seven (13 percent), the cost of being a choreographer exceeded income from the profession by more than $10,000. 

This cost did not seem to decline with experience. In fact, the more 

experienced choreographers with higher professional incomes had 

4 Dancers’ rehearsal pay was the largest single 

expense item on average for those who did 

report incurring this expense ($5,645). 
Table 4.2 Choreographers’ Professional Expenses in 1989 

Mean for 

Those with Number with 

Mean for Expenses Expenses 

All of this of this 

Respondents Type Type 

Total expenses $12,721 

Expenses directly related to 

making work: 

Dancers’ rehearsal pay 1,075 $5,645 67 

Dancers’ fringe benefits 137 3,016 16 

Rehearsal space 973 1,477 232 

Health insurance 573 1,639 123 

Other insurance 185 1,083 60 

Subtotal 2,943 It,) (b) 

Expenses directly related to 

performing work: 

Dancers’ performance pay 1,774 3,589 174 

Performance production costs 1,888 2,417 275 

Touring travel 1,502 4,197 126 

Subtotal 5,164 Ibl Ibl 

Expenses that may apply to either 

making or performing work: 

Collaborating artists fees 859 1,483 204 

Administration 2,021 [al 3,420 208 

Outside agent fees 353 3,182 39 

Dance classes & other training 708 959 260 

Equipment purchases 480 959 176 

Other 193 1,639 123 

Includes marketing, fund-raising, general operating expenses, etc. 

Subtotal not calculated, because not meaningful in this context. 
62 

5 In answering the question on sources of 

income, only 102 reported that they had 

received income from "grants or awards" 

(see Table 4.1, above). However, the question about grants is highly specific about 

sources, and the answers to that question 

are used in this section of the report. 

substantially higher net losses when their income and expenses are 

compared. (Figure 4.3 has data for the 303 respondents who answered the questions on experience as well as income and expenses.) 

The more experienced choreographers made and performed more 

work and had higher gross professional incomes, but their higher 

expenses resulted in heavy deficits. Only 12 percent of the respondents had a net income of $30,000 or more, a modest figure especially in the four cities surveyed. Fewer than 3 percent had expenses 

that exceeded total income, including income from sources other 

than choreography. 

There is a "support system" (involving other jobs and contributions 

from family members and friends) for these choreographers that 

makes it possible for them to continue working despite the fact that 

few earn enough from choreography to cover their expenses. But 

this support system provides most of them with very little to live on: 

51 percent of the respondents had less than $15,000 after expenses; 

29 percent of them had less than $10,000. 

Funding Processes 

Less than one-third of the 386 respondents who answered the questions about grant funding in 1989 actually received grants.5 Data 

on rates of application to various types of funding agencies and the 

rate of success in getting grants appears in Table 4.4 and Figure 4.4. 

It should be noted that the choreographers were asked about grants 

in general; the wording of the question did not restrict their answers 

to grants programs explicitly designed to assist choreographers. 

The rates at which choreographers apply for and receive grants are 

not entirely comparable among the types of funding sources. At one 

extreme, the Arts Endowment’s well-established and widely-known 

grant programs encourage all eligible artists to apply, but only a relTable 4.3 Differences Between Income from Choreography and Expenses: 

Percent Distribution of Respondents 

Percent of 

Respondents (a) 

Income from choreography exceeded professional expenses by 

More than $10,000 4.1 

$3,001 to 10,000 5.8 

$1,001 to 3,000 5.0 

Subtotal 14.9 

Income from choreography within $1,000 (plus or minus) 

of professional expenses 19.2 

Professional expenses exceeded income from choreography by 

$1,001 to 2,999 19.3 

$3,000 to 4,999 16.9 

$5,000 to 9,999 16.3 

$10,000 or more 13.4 

Subtotal 65.9 

(a) There were 342 respondents who answered both Questions 50 and 51. 
 

Figure 4.3 Years of Experience and Difference in Professional Income 

and Expenses 

Years of Experience 

0-3 4-6 7-10 11-15 16+ 

(6) 

/9) 

(12) 

(15) 

Table 4.4 Grant Funding Experience in 1989, Percentages of 

387 Respondents la) 

Funding Source 

NEA 

State government agencies 

Local government agencies 

Foundations 

Corporations 

Individuals 

All sources
 

Absolute number
 

Success 

Applied, Applied, Rate 

Never Grant Was Not Among 

Applied Awarded Funded Applicants 

52.2 12.4 35.1 26% 

53.5 23.3 23.0 50% 

71.8 15.5 12.4 56% 

57.4 23.5 18.4 56% 

76.5 14.7 8.5 63% 

62.5 33.9 3.6 90% 

24.0 53.7 22.2 71% 

93 207 86 

For some sources, there were only 386 responses. 
 

64 

atively small percentage of applicants expect to be successful. At the 

other extreme, most individual donors do not have anything like 

"grant programs:" artists "apply" by invitation and expect to be 

funded. The few failures that do occur generally involve donors 

changing their minds about making the grant or the applicant aborting the grant process. Some corporations and foundations resemble 

individual donors in these respects, while others have organized programs relevant to choreographers. Few state art agencies have grant 

programs explicitly designed for choreographers. Many local government agencies have no programs at all relevant to the needs of 

choreographers. As Table 4.4 shows, fewer than half of the respondents applied to each of the listed sources of grant funding-­

NEA, state government, local government, foundations, corporations and individuals. But the success rates for those who did apply 

were relatively high: one in four Endowment applicants were successful as was one in two of those applying to state or local government agencies or foundations. 

Success rates for corporate grant applicants were still higher (63 

percent) and applications to individual benefactors the highest (90 

percent). The reported NEA success rate looks suspiciously high, for 

the Arts Endowment Dance Program funded only 13 percent of the 

632 choreographer applicants in 1989. The difference may be that 

some of the respondents received funding from the Endowment 

under various categories of support other than choreography fellowships, for example, through dance company grants. (The survey 

question asked simply says "NEA," not "NEA Dance Program fellowships for individual choreographers.") As mentioned earlier, 

choreographers with experience in applying for grants were overrepresented among the study’s respondents. 

Grant-seeking by the respondents 

The survey results provide a picture of the strategies used by individual choreographers to seek funding. About 23 percent received 

grants from both public and private sources. About the same numFigure 4.4 Grants, Experience, 1989, Respondent Choreographers 

100% 100% 

90% 90% 

80%  ̄ 8o% 

60% ’ 6O% 

50% 50% 

40% 40% 

30% 30% 

20% 20% 

10% 10% 

0% 0% 

NEA State govt Local govt. Foundations Corporations Individuals 

Source of Grants 

Never funded Applied, not funded Funded 
ber did not apply to either private or public funders. For the remaining respondents who answered these questions about grant funding, 

there was a mixed record of success with respect to the different 

funders (Figure 4.5). Roughly 20 percent of these received grants 

from private sources, but either did not apply or failed to receive a 

grant from public sources. Roughly 11 percent had success with 

public sources but not private ones. About 15 percent applied to 

only one of the two types of sources but did not receive awards. 

Finally, 7 percent applied to both types of sources, but were unsuccessful in all their efforts. 

Funding frequency and amount 

The 208 respondents who secured grants answered a follow-up 

question about the size and number of the grants they had received. 

Strikingly, nearly 60 percent received more than one grant, and 35 

percent received three or more grants: 

Number of Grants Number of 

Reported Respondents 

1 85 

2 51 

3 29 

4 or more 43 

However, the average size of the grants was small: 

Number of 

Average Size Respondents 

First grant $7,073 149 

Second grant 5,661 80 

Third grant 5,219 50 

Fourth grant 14,241 27 

Figure 4.5 Funding Success by Source Percent of 387 Respondents 

Won public 

and private 

23% 

No application 

24% 

Won public only 

II% 

Lost both 

7% 

Won private only 

20% Lost one, 

only appl. 

15% 

"One" means all applications to public sources 

combined, or all applications to private sources, 

b) each individual. 
Table 4.5 Geographic Differences in Grants Experience, 1989, 

By Type of Funding Agency (Percent of respondents (a)) 

Success 

Applied, Applied, Rate 

Funding Agency and Never Grant Was Not Among 

Metropolitan Area Applied Awarded Funded Applicants 

NEA 

New York 44 12 44 21% 

San Francisco 66 10 24 29% 

Chicago 69 8 23 26% 

Washington 60 16 24 40 % 

All areas 52 12 35 26% 

State government agencies 

New York 52 22 26 46% 

San Francisco 62 24 14 63% 

Chicago 34 38 28 58% 

Washington 68 12 20 38 % 

All areas 53 23 23 50% 

Local government agencies 

New York 74 12 14 46% 

San Francisco 62 29 9 76% 

Chicago 66 20 14 59% 

Washington 60 24 16 60% 

All areas 71 15 12 56% 

Foundations 

New York 53 21 26 45% 

San Francisco 54 29 17 63% 

Chicago 76 14 10 58% 

Washington 88 4 8 33 % 

All areas 57 23 18 56% 

{a) The number of respondents answering this question was 238 in New York, 88 in San 

Francisco, 35 in Chicago and 25 in Washington. 
Some respondents were quite successful in their fundraising efforts. 

More than half received some grant or award, but often the grant 

was a modest one. A few received multiple grants. Those 

choreographers had substantial income if each of those grants was of 

average size. 

Location and funding 

The varied experiences of the choreographers with grant funding 

might be explained in part by differences in funding opportunities 

among the four metropolitan areas surveyed. Geographic location 

should make a difference in the grants experience, because state and 

local arts agencies differ in their programs and resources, and 

because of geographic patterns in the location of foundations, corporations and individual funding sources. 

Table 4.5 reveals differences among the study areas by type of 

grantor for the three types of public-sector funders and for foundations. Because very few choreographers in Chicago and Washington 

answered this question, the data should be interpreted with caution, 

though some interesting differences appear. One expected finding is 

the relatively low application and funding rate associated with state 

agencies among Washington area choreographers. The very low 

application and success rates for Washington area choreographers 

with respect to foundation funding may reflect the fact that few 

foundations support dance in Washington compared with the other 

cities: 88 percent of them did not apply to foundations at all and 

only one in three was funded. 

Also noteworthy is the very high application and funding rate with 

regard to state government grants among Chicago choreographers. 

Nearly two-thirds of them applied for a state grant, and nearly three 

out of five applicants received grants. This combination of high 

application and funding rates was unique among the four survey 

areas. 

New York area choreographers were relatively frequent applicants, 

but they were relatively unsuccessful in their efforts. This is especially noteworthy with regard to the Arts Endowment: the New Yorkers’ 

success rate was only 21 percent at the Endowment and higher than 

45 percent at other funding sources. More than half of the New York 
choreographers in the study applied for NEA grants, while only 

about one-third of those from San Francisco, Chicago or Washington applied to the Federal agency. Nearly 80 percent of all this 

study’s choreographers who had applied to the Endowment were 

New Yorkers. Yet New Yorkers in this study received only 62 percent of the NEA grants reported in the study. 

Other factors 

An examination of funding success rates by race, gender and marital 

status showed no significant differences for any of the groups. 

Professional experience and some measure of professional success 

did affect the funding pattern. The influence of years of experience 

was somewhat irregular (Table 4.6), but generally those with less 

than four years of experience were much less likely to have received 

grants than those with more experience. About 70 percent of those 

with four or more years of experience applied for and received 

awards, while only 63 percent of those with less than four years did. 

There was no relationship between amount of work made and 

grants applied for and received. That is, additional funding was not 

related to the amount of work made by these respondents. 

Choreographers’ views on the funding processes 

Relatively few respondents reported feeling excluded from funding 

on grounds of race, age or gender. (The percentages who so reported were 18 for race, 10 for age and 13 for gender.) Also, men and 

women did not differ much in their perceptions of gender discrimination in the funding process, despite the study findings of substantial differences ih grant amounts and incomes. 

Much larger percentages felt unfairly treated for other reasons. 

Between 40 and 50 percent felt discriminated against (at least 

"occasionally") because of their style of work, some because they 

thought it was perceived as too radical, others because it was 

perceived as too traditional. Most respondents--70 percent--were 

disturbed by what they considered the undue influence of producers, 

presenters and critics on funding outcomes and by the perceived 

need to network socially to be funded. 

Table 4.6 Grant Funding and Years of Experience, 

Percentages of Respondents la) 

Success 

Funding Agency and 

Metropolitan Area 

Never 

Applied 

Applied, 

Grant 

Awarded 

Applied, 

Was Not 

Funded 

Rate 

Among 

Applicants 

0-3 48.9 32.0 19.1 62.6 

4-6 30.3 51.3 18.4 73.6 

7-10 13.5 58.3 28.2 67.4 

11-15 14.8 60.6 24.6 71.1 

16+ 22.0 56.0 22.0 71.8 

All 23.0 53.4 23.0 68.3 

Absolute number 81 183 79 

la) 343 respondents answered both the question about grants and the questions about experience. 
An interesting result of the questions in the survey about funding 

was the similarity in views on the roles of critics, producers/ 

presenters and social networking. This similarity was also apparent 

in the group discussions that were held in the four cities. Critics, 

producers and presenters were seen as overly influential gate-keepers, 

and social networking was seen by the choreographers to devalue 

their art. Respondents who found one type of influence to be a problem found the others to be as well. 

To some extent, dissatisfaction with funding seems related to the 

extent of satisfaction with performance opportunities. If choreographers felt they had adequate performance opportunities, they tended 

not to see major problems in most other areas. If they did not, they 

saw funding as a problem and the process as unfair. However, funding problems seemed unrelated to how the respondents perceived the 

quality of their own work. Few regarded negative judgments by funders as a reason for personal dissatisfaction with their own work. 

Choreographers’ Own Dance Companies 

For some choreographers, key issues about economics and finances 

concerned the dance companies that they themselves had created 

and/or were now responsible for. Nearly 30 percent--151 of the 

515--of the respondents reported having their own 501(c)3 dance 

companies, and provided data on them. Table 4.7 shows some key 

characteristics of the companies. The average age of the companies 

was 8.4 years in 1989. In that year, the average company: 

 ̄ performed 3.3 new works, 

 ̄ performed 4.6 works made in prior years, 

 ̄ gave 16.9 performances, 

 ̄ employed 7.1 dancers, and 

had a total annual budget of about $90,000. (Excluding 

the highest and lowest budgets reported-~extremes 

that skew the numbers--the average budget was 

about $71,000.) 
7O Table 4.7 Characteristics of Dance Companies Operated by 

Responding Choreographers 

Average, 

Number Excluding 

Answering Lowest Highest Highest and 

Characteristic Question Average (youngest) (oldest) Lowest 

Age of company 145 8.4 yrs 0 yrs 39 yrs 9.4 yrs 

New works performed 140 3.3 0 40 3.0 

Works made in 

earlier years 

performed in 1989 126 4.6 0 44 4.3 

Performances 130 16.9 0 120 16.0 

Dancers 140 7.1 0 50 6.8 

Total Budget 112 $89,776 $350 $2.1 $71,447 

million 

Table 4.8 Sources of Income of 112 Dance Companies Operated by 

Responding Choreographers la) 

Average Percent of 

Amount Total 

Box office $ 5,524 6.2 

Performance fees 31,868 35.5 

Teaching 4,032 4.5 

Subtotal, earned income 41,424 46.1 

Government grants 12,950 14.4 

Foundation & corporate grants 13,066 14.6 

Grants awarded to respondent as an 

individual used for company work 1,488 1.7 

Individual donors 12,923 14.4 

Subtotal, contributed income 40,427 45.0 

Other 7,915 8.8 

Total $89,776 100.0 

(al Although 151 respondents reported having their own dance companies, only 112 provided 

income and expense information for those companies. 
71 Table 4.8 shows the average income data for these companies, by 

source. Earned income and contributed income were roughly equal 

($41,424 and $40,427 respectively). Performance fees (averaging 

$ 31,868) dominated earned income. Government grants, foundation 

and corporation grants, and gifts from individual donors were 

equally important sources of contributed income ($13,000). 

Average expenses were reported to have been about $81,000, so on 

average the companies did not have out-of-pocket losses. However, 

reported expenses include little or no compensation for the time and 

efforts of the respondent choreographer. Survey data portray a choreographer who devotes a vast amount of time to keeping a dance 

company afloat (with the aid of a part-time manager) while making 

new works for the company and dancing with it. She or he manages 

to cover expenses, but is left with very little income on which to live. 

This confirms anecdotal information that many choreographers and 

artistic directors do not take a salary, but instead put whatever earnings and grants they receive back into their companies and work. 

ChOreography: A Profession at Risk 

Summary and Conclusion, Implications for Grantmakers and 

Recommendations for Further Research 

The Decline in Dance Funding 

The launch of this survey in July 1990 coincided with an economic 

recession and occurred in the midst of major declines in dance 

funding. Historically, the arts are one of the first sectors affected in 

a recession because they involve expenditures that businesses and 

individuals regard as discretionary. Declines in recession-sensitive 

sectors such as the arts typically precede the economic event. Caught 

in a pre-recession decline in 1989, choreographer respondents 

suffered increasingly as the recession took hold. Making the financial scenario bleaker was the fact that dance incurred especially 

deep cutbacks in corporate sector support. 

Corporate funding for dance declined about 60 percent between 

1988 and 1991, from approximately 8 percent to around 4 percent 

of the total corporate dollar amount contributed to the arts. Total 

corporate arts funding fell from $634 million in 1988 to $518 million in 1991.1 In fact, as Table 5.1 shows, corporate giving to dance 

dropped 60 percent in three years from around $50 million in 1988 

to approximately $20 million in 1991. During this same period, 

while total philanthropic giving by business increased by 24 percent, 

arts contributions as a percentage of total philanthropic giving 

decreased by 18 percent. 

As for Federal funding, the Arts Endowment’s Choreographers’ 

Fellowship category virtually held steady at $814,000 and $816,000 

in 1989 and 1990, then increased in 1991 and 1992 to $841,000 

1 Research and Forecasts, Inc., The BCA 

Report: 1991 National Survey of Business 

Support to the Arts, New York: Business 

Committee for the Arts, Inc., 1992, 10. 

Ballet mistress 

Christine Redpath 

rehearses Elizabeth 

Loscavio and 

Ashley Wheater in 

Jerome Robbins" 

In G Major. 
4 City arts agency data: MaryE Young, 

Chicago Department of Cultural Affairs; 

Kary Schulman, Grants for the Arts, San 

Francisco. The New York City Department 

of Cultural Affairs did not have comparable 

information available. 

and $885,000. In fiscal 1993, the Endowment once again recognized the importance of choreographers, for support of choreographers held steady even as the total budget for the Dance Program 

declined. 

State arts agencies’ legislative appropriations fell (for example, by 

26 percent between 1990 and 1992), in turn reducing allotments 

to state arts dance programs.2 Specifically, as Table 5.2 reveals, 

between 1989 and 1993, dance funding at the California Arts 

Council, the Illinois Arts Council and the New York State Council 

on the Arts declined 29 percent, 12 percent and 59 percent, respectively. (These are three of the four regional arts councils whose constituents participated in the study.)3 Similarly, in local government 

giving, Chicago’s CityArts Dance Companies/Groups suffered a 52 

percent decrease between 1989 and 1993, from $94,144 to $45,010. 

However, there was one bright spot: city government support of 

dance in San Francisco increased by nearly 15 percent between 1989 

and 1993, from $948,200 to $1,086,700.4 

In sum, the declines in giving to dance over the last few years have 

seriously eroded the funding base of the field. There is no reason to 

anticipate a reversal and higher funding levels anytime soon. 

Choreographers need not have known any dance funding statistics 

to have a sense of the rapidly occurring changes in their world in 

1989-90. Indeed, their responses to open-ended essay questions reveal that many were acutely aware of the loss of opportunities and 

income in the field. Additionally, in discussing their daily struggles 

for survival in their essays, they raised a new issue: some choreographers wrote that they were planning to leave the field, were contemplating it or were relocating to what they perceived as a healthier, 

more nurturing cultural climate in another country or in another 

region of the U.S. They said the struggle to survive as a choreographer in the U.S., or in New York, Chicago, San Francisco or 

State arts agency data: Patricia Milich,

California Arts Council; Walter Buford, 

Illinois Arts Council; and Beverly D’Anne, 

New York State Council on the Arts. The 

District of Columbia Commission on the 

Arts and Humanities did not have comparable information available. 

2 The National Assembly of State Arts 

Agencies, "The State of the State Arts 

Agencies," Washington, D.C.: The Assembly, 

1992, 24. 
Washington, D.C., had simply become too much for them. They 

felt backed into a corner by what they saw as shrinking financial 

support, declining professional opportunities, fewer performance 

venues, non-existent health insurance benefits and continuing public 

apathy and inertia about dance and dance-related matters. In short, 

they reported themselves exhausted and dispirited by the lack of 

financial and moral support from a society they found largely 

apathetic to their art. 

Authors’ Conclusions 

The main findings were these: 

1. The physical and financial strains of pursuing a choreographic 

career are severe and impede the creative process. For example, 

incomes of choreographers are so low that many spend twice as 

much time working at non-dance jobs as they do in their choreographic work. On average, they have a 2-to-1 ratio of expenses 

to choreographic income. One in seven have expenses that exceed 

dance income by $10,000 annually. After professional expenses, 

many are left in poverty. 

Choreographer respondents have reacted to financial realities by: 

 ̄ creating and performing solo rather than group works; 

 ̄ down-sizing present dance companies; 

 ̄ contemplating relocation overseas, where the arts are 

thought to be part of the fabric of life, not a loose 

thread, or to another region of the U.S.; 

 ̄ terminating choreographic efforts in favor of (seemingly) more secure positions such as teaching dance in 

academe or working in a field outside the arts; 

 ̄ taking a sabbatical or leaving the field altogether. 

Table 5.1 Change in Business Giving to Dance, 1988-91 (a) 

(Dollar amounts in millions) 

Change, 1988-91 

1988 1991 Amount Percent 

Total business 

philanthropic support $3,700 $4,600 +$900 +24% 

Business support of the arts 634 518 -116 -18% 

Arts as percent of total 

philanthropic support 17% 11% 

Business support of dance(l’) $50 $20 -$30 -60% 

Dance as percent of total 

business arts support 8% 4% 

~.~1 Research and Forecasts, Inc., The BCA Report: 1991 National Survey of Business Support to
 

the Arts. New York: Business Committee for the Arts, Inc., 1992.
 

{I,) Derived from data in The BCA Report.
 
 

5 Craig Smith, "A Time for Linkage," 

Corporate Philanthropy, December/January 

1993, 8:4, 1. 

2. Choreographers’ core needs are assistance in: 

 ̄ locating funds to pay qualified management personnel, 

rehearsal costs (including dancers’ salaries and studio space), 

and health care costs; 

 ̄ stabilizing income for themselves and their families and 

ensuring adequate time to choreograph, to rehearse and 

to take daily dance classes; 

 ̄ acquiring grantsmanship information and skills including, 

but not limited to, how to apply for funds, secure research 

grants and write proposals; 

 ̄ securing monetary and "in-kind" contributions for documentation and preservation of their work; 

 ̄ improving access to information and services: shared 

resources; space; staffing; performance venues and professional opportunities; 

 ̄ communicating and networking with colleagues; 

 ̄ fostering meaningful relationships with educators, legislators and others in the communities in which they work 

and live; 

creating opportunities for presenting and touring themselves 

and their companies; and developing ’linkage,’ which is "the 

art of generating ideas and coalitions that link [dance and 

the arts] to plans to revive the economy."5 

3. A significant percentage of the respondent choreographers 

feel excluded from the networks of artists, critics, producers, 

presenters, funders, and grant review panels who have an 

important influence on dance in America. These networks exist 

and are influential in all artistic and intellectual fields. 

Table 5.2 Change in Dance Funding by State Arts Councils in California, Illinois and New York from Fiscal 1989 to Fiscal 1993 la) 

Agency 1989 1993 %change 

California Arts Council $1,291,087 $ 920,645 -29% 

Illinois Arts Council 209,565 184,200 -12% 

New York State Council on the Arts 3,890,000 1,600,060 -59% 

(a) State arts agency data provided by: Patricia Milich, California Arts Council; Walter 

Buford, Illinois Arts Council; and Beverly D’Anne, New York State Council on the Arts. 

Comparable information was not available from the District of Columbia Commission on 

the Arts and Humanities. 
77 4. There appear to be many choreographers who do not apply for 

grants. Study data do not provide the information necessary to 

explain this. 

Implications for Grantmakers 

The definition of a choreographer has evolved over the past forty 

years. Lincoln Kirstein’s simple and eloquent characterization 

is now an anachronism. No longer can this creative artist be 

described as "a composing symphonist with personal concepts of 

movement. He conceives in terms of formal physical activity, as a 

musician in sound or a painter in line and color.’’6 

Today’s choreographer, the synergistic sum of her/his myriad roles, 

is best described, as one survey respondent explained, as: "a dance 

maker, director, dancer, teacher, business manager, press agent, 

grant writer, fund raiser, psychiatrist, secretary, and a...quick study 

in anything else that has to get done!" 

Thus, choreographers must undertake a staggering array of responsibilities, only some of which may be delegated to others, even if 

the choreographer is highly successful in her or his career. The 

juggling of multiple tasks is part of every choreographer’s lifetime 

job description. 

Hard-pressed not only for money to support themselves, their families, and their work (and the dancers and others who depend 

upon them), they have little time to develop skills which might help 

alleviate some of their burdens. 

There is no doubt that choreographers would welcome infusions of 

cash offered through any program devised by g, rantmakers. But 

grantmakers confront the reality of reduced budgets, which make 

it unlikely that large increases in total grant funding for choreographers are in the offing. However, some re-targeting is conceivable. 

Choreographers’ most pressing needs--those summarized above, 

from the study findings--should be prioritized by grantmakers as 

6 Lincoln Kirstein, "The Classic Ballet: 

Historical Development," New York: The 

School of American Ballet, 1952, 31. 
78 

they review current artist support programs, so that they may imlSlement policies and programs responsive to the needs and the concerns of this artist population. As one observer writes: 

In the uncertainty that lies ahead about the levels of 

funding for individuals, [there is a] need to encourage 

the development of programs that capitalize on our 

diversity, that not only demonstrate the importance of 

supporting artists, but which also advance the notion 

that art and artists have a significant role to play in 

rebuilding our society.7 

Authors’ Recommendations for Further Research 

Survey findings may be compared with data from other sources in 

a number of ways, both to test the reliability of the findings and to 

better understand the policy implications of survey results: 

Choreographers in the Recession 

Although there are statistics on the dance funding lost during the 

past few years, there are no data on the number of choreographers 

and dancers who have left the field or relocated as a result of economic hardship. This information is critically important to policymaking and funding decisions. Therefore, it would be useful to send 

a one-page follow-up questionnaire to Arts Endowment choreographer study participants to learn (1) if they are still in the field and 

(2) what their income and activities were between 1989 and 1991. 

An Expanded National Study of the Economic and Working 

Conditions of Choreographers. 

Since the sample for this study was designed to represent choreographers in each of the four cities, it is not known to what extent the 

findings can be generalized to the larger choreographer population. 

It would be useful to replicate the research design on a broader 

national scale, developing a streamlined questionnaire to expeditiously sample the choreographer populations in an additional eight 

geographically diverse U.S. metropolitan areas. For example, data 

from eight populations could then be compared and contrasted with 

data from the original four cities. 

7 Donald Russell, "Current Trends:
 

Fellowships and Beyond," FYI, New
 

York: New York Foundation for the
 

Arts, Spring 1993, 9:1, 1.
 
Restoring Corporate Support for Dance 

In order to restore corporate funding for dance lost during the last 

recession (approximately 60 percent between 1988 and 1991), it is 

essential to understand why the field suffered reductions larger than 

any other art form. An investigation of the reasons for the unprecedented cutbacks could enable dance to reestablish its case for funding. 

Comparative Studies of Dance Company Data 

In order to monitor both the fiscal and artistic health of dance 

companies, it would be instructive to compare Arts Endowment 

choreographer respondents’ dance company information with data, 

for example, from Dance/USA’s annual survey or from the Arts 

Endowment or state arts agencies’ dance company grantees. 

Presenters and Choreographers: A Working Partnership 

Many choreographers wrote that presenters have a "make or break" 

role in their professional development. No research has been done 

to either dispel or to confirm the presenter’s pivotal role. Funding 

agency data on presenters could provide an illuminating counterpart 

to survey findings with respect to choreographers’ experiences with 

and attitudes towards presenters. ~ 

Cooperating Organizations 

As stated, this study was based on 

questionnaires sent to choreographers in four cities: Chicago, New 

York, San Francisco, and Washington. The research team compiled the 

names of potential study participants from extensive lists provided 

by dance organizations and performance spaces in each metropolitan 

area. Those that provided lists are 

as follows: 

Chicago 

Academy of Movement 

and Music 

Art Institute of Chicago 

Auditorium Theater 

Barat College Department 

of Theatre 

Beverly Arts Center 

Blackstone Public Library 

Chicago Branch 

Centre East, Inc. 

Chicago Dance Coalition 

Chicago Filmmakers 

Chicago Office of Fine Arts 

Civic Center for Performing Arts 

Cultural Center-Chicago 

Public Library 

Richard J. Daley College 

Dance Center of 

Columbia College 

The Dancespace Performance 

Center 

Fermilab Arts Series 

First Chicago Center 

Freedom Hall-Park Forest 

Goodfellow Hall 

Goodman Theater 

Illinois Arts Council 

Illinois Room-University of 

Illinois at Chicago 

Ivanhoe Theater 

Link’s Hall Studio 

MoMing Dance & Arts Center 

Mundelein College 

New Trier High School 

Northeastern Illinois 

University Auditorium 

Northwestern University 

Dance Center 

Organic Theater 

Orchestra Hall 

The O’Rourke CenterTruman College 

The Ruth Page Foundation 

Paramount Arts Centre 

Puszh Studio 

Randolph Street Gallery 

Regal Theater 

Rialto Square Theater 

Schaumburg Prairie-Center 

for the Arts 

Weinstein Center for the 

Performing Arts 

Winnetka Community HouseMatz Hall 

Woodson Regional LibraryChicago Public Library 

Wright College Auditorium 

New York 

ABC No Rio 

Alvin Ailey 

American Dance Theatre 

Paul Taylor 

demonstrates an 

arabesque for a 

young dancer at 

Jacob’s Pillow. 
82 

Alliance Francaise 

American Ballet Theater 

Arts Connection 

Arts at Saint Anne’s 

BACA Downtown 

Ballet Hispanico of New York 

Brooklyn Academy of Music 

The Carribean Cultural Center 

City Center 55th Street Theater 

Creative Time 

CoDanceCo 

CSC Repertory 

The Cunningham Dance 

Foundation 

Dance Connection 

Dancing in the Streets 

Danspace at Saint 

Mark’s Church 

Dance Theater Workshop 

Dixon Place 

Eden’s Expressway 

Ethnic Folk Arts Center 

Extrapolating Studio 

The Field 

The Gowanus Arts Exchange 

HOME for Contemporary Art 

and Theater 

The Joffrey Ballet 

The Joyce Theater 

Judson Church 

The Kitchen 

Kiva 

The Knitting Factory 

La Mama 

Laziza Performance Loft 

Marymount Manhattan College 

Mulberry Street Theater 

New York City Ballet 

New York Foundation 

for the Arts 

New York State Council 

on the Arts 

The Nikolais/Louis Choreospace 

92nd Street YMHA 

The Ohio Theater 

Pentacle 

The Performing Garage 

The Performance Loft 

Performance Space 122 

Roulette 

Saint Clement’s Church 

Saint Mark’s Church (rentals) 

Serious Fun/Lincoln Center 

Stage 61 

Symphony Space 

The Triplex 

San Francisco 

Asian American Dance 

Collective 

The California Arts Council 

Center Space Studio 

Climate Gallery 

Cowell Bayfront Theater 

Dance Action 

Dance Bay Area 

Footwork Studio 

Grants for the Arts (San 

Francisco Hotel Tax) 

Green Room 

The Herbst Theatre 

Intersection for the Arts 

The Lab 

Laney Theatre 

La Pena Cultural Center 

Mandaleo Institute 

Marin Ballet Center for Dance 

Marin Community College 

Mills College 

Julia Morgan Theater 

The New Performance Gallery 

Palace of Fine Arts Theater 

San Francisco Ethnic 

Dance Festival 
San Francisco Foundation 

San Francisco Opera House 

San Francisco Performances 

San Francisco State University 

Stanford University 

Stern Grove Festival 

Studio Eremos 

Theater Artaud 

U.C.S.F. Arts and Lectures 

U.C. Berkeley 

The Victoria Theatre 

The War Memorial Performing 

Arts Center 

The Zephyr Theater 

Washington D.C., 

Maryland, and Virginia 

The Columbia Festival 

Dance Place 

District of Columbia Arts 

Center, Inc. 

District Curators 

D.C. Jewish Community Center 

Gala Hispanic Theatre 

Galludet College 

Glen Echo Dance Theatre 

Howard University 

The Jewish Community Center 

of Greater Washington 

Kennedy Center 

Kennedy Center "Open House" 

X-Mas Club 

James Madison University 

Maryland-National Capital Park 

and Planning Commission 

George Mason University 

Mount Vernon college 

National Theatre 

Open Studio for the Performer 

Public Playhouse 

Reston Community Center 

Smithsonian Institution 

Towson State University 

University of the District 

of Columbia 

University of Maryland-George 

Washington University 

Washington Performing 

Arts Society 

Wolftrap Foundation 
The Questionnaire 

Here is the substance of the questionnaire, A Study of Choreographers in 

Four Metropolitan Areas, which was conducted for the Arts Endowment 

by Art Producers International, Inc. The original document, the size of 

a tabloid newspaper and printed on newsprint, is too large to reproduce 

legibly. As a consequence, we present its content in summary form, with 

explanatory notes set in brackets [like this]. For example, in instances 

where questions were posed in tabular or multiple choice form on the 

questionnaire, here we will simply summarize the choices that were offered. 

The document began with an open letter as follows: 

July 1990 

Dear Choreographer, 

This study is being conducted on behalf of the National Endowment for the 

Arts. Its purpose is to take an analytical look at choreographers today, their 

working conditions and the general environment in which they make work. 

It is the first study of this nature and magnitude focusing on choreographers 

and the results will potentially have a profound impact on future Arts 

Endowment program and funding policies. 

The enclosed questionnaire is the primary tool for this study. It will be 

circulated to approximately 2000 choreographers in the four metropolitan 

areas being studied. We have identified these artists from numerous sources 

ranging from performance spaces, producers, funding agencies and service 

organizations. For the purposes of the study we have defined a choreographer as "someone who has had his or her own work performed in front of 

a solicited audience of 50 or more people in the last three years." 

We need to inform you of the following procedures guiding the study 

process before you fill out the questionnaire: 

1. The Choreographers’ responses are completely confidential. The completed questionnaires will be coded. After the coding is completed there will be 

no way to identify individual responses. We will then analyze the results in 

total and submit a written report to the NEA. 

2. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. If you do not 

want to participate, please put the questionnaire in the stamped envelope 

and drop it in the mailbox. 

3. We are very aware that some of the questions, particularly in the area of 

finance, may be time consuming and difficult. Please be as accurate as you 

can, understanding that we are looking for a field overview. 
4. If you have any questions regarding the questionnaire, please call the 

following contact person in your area: 

Chicago, Jean Creli..., New York, Alyce Dissette..., San Francisco, Carol 

Tanenbaum..., Washington, DC, Dick Orend. 

This report is scheduled to be published by the Arts Endowment in early 

1991. The Arts Endowment staff has told us they will be sending you a 

copy in exchange for your participation. This report will also be distributed 

throughout the field which will include funding agencies, the press, presenters, producers, and all related dance support organizations. 

Many, many thanks for taking the time to fill this out. We hope that the 

generous investment of your valuable time will benefit you and your fellow 

artists in the years to come. 

Sincerely, 

Alyce Dissette & Dr. Richard J. Orend 

Project Directors 

Art Producers International, Inc, 

New York, NY 

Please read the letter on the front before you begin filling out this questionnaire. Thanks! 

1. Choreographers use a wide range of terms to characterize their work. 

Which of the following terms would you use to describe your work? Please 

check all that apply. [The following choices were offered in a column, with 

a blank to be filled in beside each term]: Ballet; commercial (industrials, 

theater, clubs); culturally specific (specify); ethnic; experimental; film/video; 

folk; jazz; modern/contemporary; social dancing; tap; traditional; other 

(specify). 

2. In describing your work, how would you expand upon the above terms, 

focusing on your last 3 years of work in particular? [As in the case for subsequent "essay" questions, this one was followed by ample lined space for 

an answer of one or two sentences.l 

1989 Performance History:
 

Please answer the following questions in the context of your 1989 work.
 

3. For the works you choreographed in 1989: [A fill-in-the-blanks chart 

invited the respondent to tabulate the number of works and the total length 

in minutes.] 

4. Please indicate the number of dancers in your works mentioned in question 3. [A chart enabled the respondent to assign a number to the following:] solo works; works for 2-5 dancers; works for 6-10 dancers; works for 

more than 15 dancers.] 
5. How much time were you able to allot to making your most recent 

work, and what was its length?, [Answer}: The work was __minutes in 

length, and it took days to make. 

6. How many of your choreographic works made during or before 1989 

were performed in 19897 

7. Please name the performance spaces in which your work appeared in 

your home base city in 19897 

8. How many of the performances in question 7 were: [The possibilities listed were] self-produced, co-produced with performance space; co-produced 

with other artists; produced by performance space or outside organization; 

presented by a performance space or outside organization. 

9. Were any home city performances of your work reviewed by the press? 

[Choices were]: Yes, No, Don’t know. 

Touring: 

10. How many weeks did your work tour during 1989? 

11. How many performances of your work were done on tour in 1989? 

12. Were any on tour performances of your work reviewed? [Possible 

answers]: Yes, No, Don’t Know. 

Performance History Prior to 1989: 

Please answer the following questions in the context of your work prior to 

1989. 

13. Season. [A chart allowed respondents to list for each of the four previous years[: Number of works made; Number of spaces where works were 

performed both at home and on tour; Name of "the most important" 

performance space where the works were performed in both at home and 

on tour. 

14. As of what year did you begin choreographing professionally? 

Performance Opportunities 

We would like to find out how you identify the performance spaces and 

opportunities where you mount your work i.e., how do you get booked, 

accepted, produced, presented, commissioned, etc. For 1989, at home 

and on tour, please indicate the number of your works performed in the 

following contexts: 

15. Resident choreographer for a dance company other than your own. 

Please list company(ies) and number of works. 

16. Invited to produce, mount or remount work for a company other than 

your own. Please list all companies and number of works. 

17. Invited by a producer/presenter/space to bring your company or group 

of pick up performers. Please list the specific space/city and number of 

works. 
87 

18. Did you audition your work for a specific performance space? 

[Answer: Yes or No. For a "Yes" answer, space was provided to list 

performance spaces, and answer the question "were you accepted?"] 

19. Rented or self-produced in a space which required no audition or 

invitation? ]Answer: Yes or No. For a "Yes" answer, space was provided 

to list performance spaces.] 

20. For works listed in questions 16-18, how many were selected on the 

basis of other than live performances? If none, enter 0. If any, how were 

they selected? [Answers]: From video, Word of mouth, Publicity package, 

Other (specify), Don’t know. 

21. For the performances listed in your answer to questions 17 & 18, 

where applicable describe the process by which you received an invitation 

to perform in the two performance spaces you consider the most important 

to your career (either at home or on tour). 

22. What are your criteria for picking performance spaces for your work? 

Use the lettered list below and/or add your own criteria not included on the 

list. Put letter of most important criterion in space next to "most important," etc. [Lettered spaces were]: A. Geographic location; B. Position of 

prestige in the community; C. Affordable; D. Good stage area for your 

work; E. Technical equipment availability; F. Staff competence and attitude; 

G. Adequate or above average fees; H. Developed audience base; I. Box 

Office facilities; J. Other Criteria; K. L. and M. (ditto). 

23. How often do you use each of the following approaches to help you 

identify opportunities and performance spaces for your work? [Multiple 

choice answer blocks were]: Always, Often, Sometimes, Never. ]Lettered 

items were]: A. Go to dance performances; B. Go to a specific dance 

performance to look at space; C. Talk to dance colleagues; D. Read newspapers or dance publications; E. Contact the producer/presenter directly; 

F. Attend booking conferences; G. Contact appropriate performance spaces 

to ask how to obtain an invitation; H. Other (specify). 

Use of Time 

24. During 1989, approximately how many weeks did you spend: A. In 

rehearsal for your works; B. In performance/production of your works; 

C. In rehearsal/production/performance of work other than your own; 

D. Other work; E. Vacationing/time off. [Blanks stipulated answers in a 

number of weeks.] Total 52 weeks. 

25. On an overall general percentage basis, during 1989, how would you 

break down the following categories in terms of how you spend your time? 

[Blanks stipulated a percentage for each item:] A. Time spent on making 

and rehearsing your work? B. Time spent working on administrative/ 

fundraising work related to your choreography? C. Time spent in performance/production? D. Time spent engaged in other dance activity (including dance related job[s])? E. Time spent on a non-dance related job which 

you need to support yourself and your choreography? F. Time spent on personal life (including eating and sleeping)? Total 100 percent. 
 

88 Finance 

(the most difficult series of questions!) 

Income and Expenditures 

26. What was your approximate total household income (from yourself and 

other household members) during 1989? (Household members include your 

spouse or others with whom you share income. Roommates with whom you 

only share the cost of an apartment should not be included.) [Income brackets were listed as follows:] $0-2,999, $3,000-4,999, $5,000-6,999, $7,000­

9,999, $10,000-12,999, $13,000-15,999, $16,000-19,999, $20,000-24,999, 

$25,000-29,999, $30,000-34,999, $35,000-39,999, $40,000-49,999, 

$50,000-74,999, $75,000 and up. 

27. What proportion of the total household income did you earn? 

[Answer: %.1 

28. During 1988 was your personal income different from 1989? 

[Choices:] Yes, much higher; No, it was about the same; Yes, much lower. 

Understanding that this may be difficult and/or time consuming, we do 

need to know some detailed information about your finances for the 1989 

calendar year. Choreographers who work with a formally incorporated 

company (501)(c)(3) should fill out the specific company section on the last 

two pages of the questionnaire. For those of you who pay for your work 

out of your personal finances, the second column "Your Choreography" is 

optional. Also, please keep in mind that we are looking for very close, yet 

approximate, figures, rather than the exact numbers grant applications usually request. 

29. Income: [These items on this chart were followed by two blanks, one 

marked "Personal," the other "Your Choreography (optional)." The 

lettered items were:] A. Salaries and wages for choreography; B. Salaries 

and wages for dancing; C. Salaries and wages for dance related jobs (U.S. 

and Foreign); D. Salaries and wages for non-art related job(s); E. Direct 

support from spouse; F. Gifts or other support from parents, relatives, or 

other individuals (not spouse); G. Grants and awards for choreography; 

H. Performance fees or box office of your work (other than A or B) 

(U.S. and Foreign); I. Project commissions; J. Unemployment compensation; 

K. Royalties (U.S. and Foreign) L. Others (specify). Total: 

P.S. If you find this section too tiresome move on to the next questions and 

return later. 

30. Expenses: [Again, items on the chart were followed by two blanks, one 

marked "Personal" and the other "Your Choreography (optional)." The 

lettered items were:] A. Dancers rehearsal pay; B. Dancers performance pay; 

C. Workman’s compensation insurance; D. Unemployment insurance; 

E. Disability insurance; F. Health insurance; G. Administration; 

H. Rehearsal space; I. Touring travel; J. Dance Classes/other training; 

K. Collaborating artist fees: 1. Lighting designers, 2. Composers, 3. Visual 

artists, 4. Costume designers, 5. Musicians, 6. Other (specify); L. Royalties; 

M. Technical staff; N. Production costs; O. Video documentation; 

P. Video for marketing; Q. Marketing; R. Fundraising; S. Outside agent 

fees; T. Insurance (liability & property); U. General Operating Expenses; 

V. Equipment purchases or rental; 1. Video, 2. Audio, 3. Computer or 
office related; 4. Studio equipment; W. Other (specify) Total $ __ 

 ̄ If you have a 501(c)3 company, please fill out the last two pages of this 

questionnaire rather than this column. 

31. Funding: [Here the four choices for each lettered item were "Applied," 

"Never applied," "Funded" and "Not funded." The items were sources of 

funding:] A. NEA; B. State government; C. Local government; D.Foundations; 

E. Corporations; F. Individuals. 

32. Are you familiar with the process by which funding decisions are made 

by the following: (please answer for each level.) [Choices for answers were 

"Yes," "Somewhat," "Vaguely" and "No." Lettered items were:] A. NEA; 

B. State government; C. Local government; D. Foundations; E. Corporations; 

F. Individuals. 

33. If funded in 1989, please answer the following for each grant: ]The 

chart contained spaces for as many as four grants, and asked for the following data regarding each:] Amount, Type of Funding, e.g. fellowship, project 

support, etc.); Name of Funding Agency (Do not name individuals). 

Multiple Choice! 

The following questions concern general satisfaction with various elements 

of your development as a choreographer. In answering these items, please 

focus on your own situation, not on the general conditions facing choreographers, lFor questions 34 through 47, respondents were offered the following choices:] Majority of the time; Sometimes, Occasionally, Never, 

Don’t know. 

34. I am satisfied with the quality of the work I am currently making. 

35. I am satisfied that there are sufficient opportunities for me to present 

dance: A. In my community; B. On tour; 

36. I am performing at the places and with the frequency that are satisfactory given my experience and background. 

37. The quality of my work is diminished by things beyond my control, like 

quality of dancers, rehearsal space, time, staging problems, etc. 

38. The quality of my work is diminished by economic pressures from performing arts presenters’ needs. 

39. I feel that being a choreographer is valued in my community. 

40. I feel that my work has been excluded from funding because of my: 

A. Race; B. Age; C. Sex; D. Geographic location. 

41. I feel that my work has not been presented at established major 

performance spaces because of my: A. Race; B. Age; C. Sex; D. Geographic 

location. 

42. I feel that my work has not been appropriately reviewed in daily newspapers, magazines and/or dance publications due to my work’s racial/ 

cultural orientation. 

43. I feel that my work has been overlooked at the national level due to my 

geographic location. 
44. I feel that my work has been excluded from funding because my work 

is: A. Too different/radical; B. Too traditional. 

45. I feel that I have been excluded from performance spaces important to 

me because my work is: A. Too different/radical; B. Too traditional. 

46. My ability to work would be enhanced if I was living or working in 

another place. 

47. If "majority of the time" is your response to question 46, where do you 

think working circumstances are better? Place:__ 

Your Background and Circumstances 

The following questions request information about your background and 

personal characteristics. 

48. Your age?__ 

49. Your sex? male female 

50. Your racial or ethnic heritage? (Note: racial and ethnic heritage terminology required by the Office of Management and Budget). [Choices:] 

American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; Black, not 

of Hispanic origin; Hispanic; White, not of Hispanic origin; Other. 

51. How many years have you lived in this metropolitan area? 

52. What is your background or training in dance and choreography? [This 

chart, with columns to be checked "Yes" or "No," had the following items:] 

A. Formal dance training; B. Do you continue to take classes; C. Dancer 

turned choreographer; D. Are you still dancing? E. Did you study choreography or composition? F. Are you still taking any choreography or composition 

classes/workshops? G. Had a choreographer mentor(s)? (If yes, please name 

your mentor(s); H. Attended a professional performing arts school? I. If yes, 

did you graduate? J. Attended a college or university and majored in dance? 

K. If yes, did you graduate? 

53. What is your highest level of formal education? [Choices were:] 1.8th 

grade or less; 2. Some high school; 3. Completed high school; 4. Trade 

school training; 5. Conservatory training; 6. Some college or associate 

degree for 2-year school; 7. College or university graduate; 8. Professional 

degree (e.g., law, medicine, dentistry); 9. MA or PhD. 

54. Do you have health insurance? [Choices:] Yes, in my role as a professional choreographer; Yes, as a dance professional; Yes, my own; Yes, 

through my spouse’s job. No. 

55. "My health insurance is paid:" (check all that apply): Fully by me; 

Partially by me; Fully by my job; Partially by my job; Fully by my spouse; 

Partially by my spouse. 

56. Do you have life insurance? [Choices:] Yes, my own. Yes, through a 

group. No. 

57. Do you have studio space? [Choices:] Yes, No. If yes, which of the 

following statements applies to the studio space you most often use? 

[Choices:] I own it; I rent it; I rent it with other artists; I have free use of it. 
58. How many different rehearsal spaces did you use in 1989? 

59. Do you own or rent your place of residence? [Choices:] 1. Own; 

2. Rent; 3. Other (specify). 

60. What is your marital status? [Choices:] 1. Married, living with spouse; 

2. Married, separated from spouse; 3. Divorced; 4. Live-in partner; 

5. Never married; 6. Other. 

61. A. How many dependents do you have who live with you or who you 

support? B. How many children do you have? 

62. Do you have a regular job(s) other than your work as a choreographer? 

[Choices:] Yes or No. If yes, list type of work (be as specific as possible). 

[There were spaces to list specifics for three positions and note the numbers 

of hours per week for each.] 

More Multiple Choice! 

There are a number of issues that choreographers have identified as problematic in the development and production of their work. Not all issues are 

equally difficult for all choreographers. We would like to know the relative 

impact each of the following issues had on your ability to make work in 

1989. Place an X in one place for each item. [Five available choices were:] 

"Major problem, could drive me from field; Important problem, requiring 

much time & effort; Minor problem; Not a problem; Don’t know." 

63. Rehearsal space: A. Availability; B. Cost of space; C. Specific conditions 

of available space; 1. Floor; 2. Size; 3. Proportion; 4. Heat; 5. Dressing & 

bathroom; 6. Ventilation; 7. Mirrors & barres; 8. Other. D. Location of 

affordable spaces. 

64. Performance Spaces and Conditions: A. Lack of appropriate venue; 

B. Quality of available facility; C. Inability to identify people who make 

performance decisions; D. Access to people who make programming 

decisions at performance spaces; E. Lack of sufficient audience base for 

performance spaces; F. Lack of professional technical and support staff; 

G. Other (specify:). 

65. Resources to document/record my work: A. Time with dancers; 

B. Access to equipment; C. Funding; D. Scheduling conflicts; 

E. Other (Specify:). 

66. Dancers: A. Availability of dancers; B. Quality of available dancers; 

C. Reliability of dancers, getting dancers to rehearsal; D. Non-dance
 

problems with dancers. E. Money to pay for rehearsals; F. Commitment
 

of dancers to company (if your company); G. Keeping qualified dancers;
 

H. Training dancers repeatedly; I. Illness/injury of dancers; J. Effect of
 

touring on dancers; K. Other (Specify:).
 

67. Management: A. Finding qualified personnel; B. Paying qualified
 

personnel; C. Keeping qualified personnel; D. Training personnel repeatedly; E. Other (Specify:),
 

68. Critics: A. Getting any review; B. Getting a review in the right publication; C. Getting quality criticism; D. Critics’ influence on the tour booking; 

E. Critics’ influence on funding; F. Critics’ influence on the field. 
92 

69. Personal: Making an adequate income and obtaining necessary benefits. 

A. Unable to support family; B. Unable to get health insurance through 

dance work; C. Must rely on spouse for support; D. Have no retirement 

plan; E. Unpredictability of income; F. Other {Specify:). 

70. Career Advancement: A. Small network of people controlling performance opportunities locally, nationally, internationally. B. Producer/presenter influence on funding. C. Having to network socially in order to be 

presented. D. Having to network socially in order to be funded. E. Lack of 

visibility due to geographic location. F. Lack of openness in the selection 

process at performance spaces. G. Lack of creative time due to pressure 

of tour. H. Lack of recognition and support from funding agencies. I. Lack 

of recognition by critics. J. Other (specify). 

Essay 1 

71. Would you please pick one of the preceding questions (#63-70) in 

which you have identified a major problem and elaborate on it? 

[A large space followed.] 

Essay 2 

72. Is there an area or issue that we have not adequately addressed in 

this questionnaire? If so, what is it and what would you like to say? 

Please answer on this page. Continue on separate page, if necessary. 

For Choreographers With a Dance Company 

We would like the choreographers who have their own formally incorporated dance company (501(c)3) functioning on either an ongoing basis or 

project-to-project basis to complete the following: 

1. My company was founded in 

2. My company was formally incorporated in 

3. My company was founded by me__, somebody else__, with someone. 

General description of your company: A. Number of new ~vorks performed 

during 1989? B. Number of repertory works made prior to 1989 which 

were performed in 1989? C. Number of company dancers in 1989? 

D. Number of company performances during 1989? E. When in rehearsal, 

how many hours a week does your company regularly rehearse? (Up to 10 

hrs.; 10-15 hrs.; 15-20 hrs.; 20-30 hrs.) F. Do you pay your dancers for 

rehearsal? (Yes. Sometimes. No.) G. Rehearsal space: answer all that apply 

(Yes, Sometimes, No): a. Rent; b. Rent or donate space in my personal studio/loft; c. Donated or loaned free of charge; d. Provided by performance 

spaces; e. Other 

4. General Company Economics for fiscal year ending (month)__, 1989. 

lncome: [Space allowed dollar figures for:] A. Box office; B. Performing 

fees; C. Teaching; D. Government grants; E. Foundation & corporate 

grants; F. Grants awarded to you as an individual used for company work; 

G. Individual donors; H. Other (specify). Total: $__ 
Expenses: [Respondents were asked to assign cost figures for the following:l 

A. Dancers’ rehearsal pay; B. Dancers performance pay; C. Workman’s 

Comp and health insurance; D. Rehearsal space; E. Touring expenses; 

F. Production costs; G. Technical staff; H. Marketing; I. Fundraising; 

J. General operating; K. Outside agents fees; L. Other (specify). Total $__ 

5. Do you have a manager for your company other than yourself? 

[Possible answers:] Yes, No, Fulltime, and Parttime. 

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to 

average 60 minutes per response. Send comments regarding this burden 

estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including 

suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Administrative Services, Room 

203, National Endowment for the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20506; and to the Office of Management and Budget, 

Paperwork Reduction Project (3136-0088), Washington, DC 20503. 
About the Authors and Project Directors 

Alyce Dissette, co-director, and a professional dance administrator 

for more than ten years, was the Producer of David Gordon’s Pick 

Up Co. in New York and Executive Director of Brenda Way’s company, ODC/San Francisco. During the late 1970s she was on 

the management staff of the Metropolitan Opera Presentations 

Department which produced companies such as American Ballet 

Theatre, the Stuttgart Ballet, the Martha Graham Dance Company 

and Ballet Nacional de Cuba. Ms. Dissette was Executive Producer 

of the PBS multi-disciplinary art series ALIVE TV/ALIVE FROM 

OFF CENTER for the 1991-1993 seasons. 

Dick Netzer, PhD., co-author, is Professor of Economics and Public 

Administration at the Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public 

Service, New York University, and Senior Fellow at NYU’s Urban 

Research Center. He has been at NYU since 1961 and has served as 

department head, dean and research center director. For nearly 20 

years he has been doing research on the economics of the arts and 

public policy for the arts and is the author of numerous works in the 

field, including the classic text, The Subsidized Muse: Public Support 

for the Arts in the United States. 

Richard J. Orend, PhD., co-director, has conducted several major 

studies on artists and arts-related audience participation, including 

Visual Artists in Houston, Minneapolis, Washington and San 

Francisco: Earnings and Exhibition Opportunities, which was published by the Arts Endowment as Research Division Report #18 

(October 1984). Other works include pioneering analyses of artsrelated leisure behavior and the effects of childhood experiences on 

adult arts-related leisure activities. 

Ellen Parker, PhD., co-author, a researcher/writer specializing in the 

performing arts, authored the Arts Endowment’s The Role 

of the University Dance Department in Training the Professional 

Modern Dancer. Previously a dancer with the Pennsylvania Ballet 

and an Endowment Dance Program Fellow, she holds both an 

M.P.A. and a doctorate from New York University for her 1988 

dissertation on decisionmaking practices in corporate and private 

foundation arts philanthropy. She is also an advisor to students in 

dance and in performing arts research at NYU’s Gallatin Division. 
The text and headlines of this book are set in Sabon throughout. 

Folios are set in Univers 55, and running heads in Univers 75. 

Design by Tom Suzuki Inc., 

Falls Church, Virginia 

Tom Suzuki, Art Director 

Jennifer Long, Designer 

Cover art by Jennifer Long from a photograph by Marty Sohl 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328 

ISBN 0-16-042946-3
 
ISBN 0-16-042946-3
 
NATIONAl." " 

ENDOWMENT 

FOR THE 

ARTS