DOI: 10.3886/icpsr35585.v1
title: Information on Artists [1989, 1997, 2004, 2007, 2008, 2011]
title: Version 1

description: The Information on Artists series, conducted by the Research Center for Arts and Culture at Columbia University, studied American artists' work-related human and social service needs in 1989, 1997, 2004, 2007, 2008, 2011. The initial study (1989) included artists from ten cities: Boston, Cape Cod, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, Minneapolis/St. Paul, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco and western Massachusetts. The 1997 wave was conducted in four of the original cities: Los Angeles, Minneapolis/St. Paul, New York, and San Francisco. The 2004 wave consisted only of artists in the San Francisco Bay area and included a longitudinal component. The 2007 wave provides the first needs assessment of aging artists in the New York Metro Area. The mailed surveys asked questions about artists' work-related, human and social service needs, including health coverage and insurance, life insurance, retirement plans, credit, live/work space, legal and financial service expertise/needs. Like its predecessor Information on Artists III, Information on Artists IV (2011 waves): Still Kicking tries to understand how artists are supported and integrated within their communities, and how their network structures change over time and to understand how performing artists mature into old age-artistically, emotionally, financially and chronologically. The number of respondents across the data files ranges from 56 to 2,101.
description: All samples for Information on Artists 1988/89: To minimize losses, in addition to the questionnaire itself, each artist received a postage-paid business reply envelope and a cover letter from the Director of the Research Center on Arts and Culture. This cover letter assured anonymity and privacy of respondents, described the study, the 10 locations where the survey was being administered, the fact that only approximately 1,000 artists were being surveyed in each location, and assured participants that after this packet and a reminder card were mailed, all name and address lists would be destroyed. Ten days after the original questionnaires were sent, a reminder post card was sent asking once again for a response.


There were 950 surveys mailed to artists in Boston. The questionnaire took approximately 30 minutes to complete. A total of 368 Boston area artists were surveyed by mail during March and April 1989. The Boston sample was randomly selected from lists of artists provided by the Artists Foundation, the Folk Arts Network, Middle Passage, and from a merged list of names provided by the Actors Equity Association, the Screen Actors Guild, and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. In terms of artistic disciplines, the sampling frame included a multidisciplinary list of artists (provided by the Artists Foundation), plus specific lists of actors, folk artists, street performers, and multicultural artists.


There were 539 surveys mailed to artists in Cape Cod. The questionnaire took approximately 30 minutes to complete. A total of 249 Cape Cod area artists were surveyed by mail during March and April 1989. The Cape Cod sample was randomly selected from a list of artists provided by the Artists Foundation, and from a merged list of names provided by the Actors Equity Association, the Screen Actors Guild, and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. In terms of artistic disciplines, the sampling frame included a multidisciplinary list of artists (provided by the Artists Foundation), plus a specific list of actors.


There were 901 surveys mailed to artists in Chicago. The questionnaire took approximately 30 minutes to complete. A total of 439 Chicago area artists were surveyed by mail during March and April 1989. The Chicago sample was randomly selected from lists of artists provided by the Chicago Arts Coalition, Chicago Dance Coalition, Urban Gateways, and the Illinois Arts Council, and from a merged list of names provided by the Actors Equity Association, the Screen Actors Guild, and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. In terms of artistic disciplines, the sampling frame included a multidisciplinary list of artists (provided by Urban Gateways), plus specific lists of visual artists, dancers, choreographers, actors, and multicultural artists.


There were 983 surveys mailed to artists in Dallas. The questionnaire took approximately 30 minutes to complete. A total of 359 Dallas area artists were surveyed by mail during March and April 1989. The Dallas sample was randomly selected from lists of artists provided by D-Art, S.T.A.G.E., and the Southwest Black Artists Guild, and from a merged list of names provided by the Actors Equity Association, the Screen Actors Guild, and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. In terms of artistic disciplines, the sampling frame included lists of visual artists, actors, and multicultural artists.


There were 843 surveys mailed to artists in Los Angeles. The questionnaire took approximately 30 minutes to complete. A total of 298 Los Angeles area artists were surveyed by mail during March and April 1989. The Los Angeles sample was randomly selected from lists of artists provided by the Museum of Contemporary Art, Beyond Baroque, the Fringe Festival, the California Community Foundation/Brody Arts Fund, and California Lawyers for the Arts, and from a merged list of names provided by the Actors Equity Association, the Screen Actors Guild, and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. In terms of artistic disciplines, the sampling frame included multidisciplinary lists of artists (provided by the Fringe Festival and California Lawyers for the Arts), plus specific lists of visual artists, performing artists, and actors.


There were 1007 surveys mailed to artists in Minneapolis/St. Paul. The questionnaire took approximately 30 minutes to complete. A total of 419 Minneapolis/ St. Paul area artists were surveyed by mail during March and April 1989. The Minneapolis/St. Paul sample was randomly selected from lists of artists provided by The Loft, the Minnesota Composers Forum, the Minnesota Crafts Council, and the Minnesota State Arts Board, and from a merged list of names provided by the Actors Equity Association, the Screen Actors Guild, and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. In terms of artistic disciplines, the sampling frame included a multidisciplinary list of artists (provided by the Minnesota State Arts Board), plus specific lists of writers, composers, craft artists, and actors.


There were 1064 surveys mailed to artists in New York City. The questionnaire took approximately 30 minutes to complete. A total of 506 New York City area artists were surveyed by mail during March and April 1989. The New York City sample was randomly selected from lists of artists provided by the New York Foundation for the Arts, the Queens Arts Council, and Kraus Sikes Inc., and from a merged list of names provided by the Actors Equity Association, the Screen Actors Guild, and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. In terms of artistic disciplines, the sampling frame included multidisciplinary lists of artists (provided by the New York Foundation for the Arts and the Queens Arts Council), plus specific lists of architects and actors.


There were 1070 surveys mailed to artists in Philadelphia. The questionnaire took approximately 30 minutes to complete. In Philadelphia, funders allowed us an additional opportunity. With the help of Philadelphia's sources and resources, we designed an extra 1-page questionnaire that went to an additional random sample of 499 Philadelphia artists asking Philadelphia-specific questions including inquiries about use of resources at name-specific Philadelphia organizations, mechanisms for greater awareness of artists in Philadelphia, Philadelphia-specific services, facilities and taxes. A total of 420 Philadelphia area artists were surveyed by mail during March and April 1989. The Philadelphia sample was randomly selected from lists of artists provided by the Fleischer Art Memorial, the Community Education Center, and the Pennsylvania Council on the Arts, and from a merged list of names provided by the Actors Equity Association, the Screen Actors Guild, and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. In terms of artistic disciplines, the sampling frame included a multidisciplinary list of artists (provided by the Pennsylvania Council on the Arts), plus specific lists of visual artists, video artists, craft artists, performing artists, and actors.


There were 1040 surveys mailed to artists in San Francisco. The questionnaire took approximately 30 minutes to complete. A total of 496 San Francisco area artists were surveyed by mail during March and April 1989. The San Francisco sample was randomly selected from lists of artists provided by the San Francisco Bay Area Dance Coalition, Pro Arts, New American Makers, and California Lawyers for the Arts, and from a merged list of names provided by the Actors Equity Association, the Screen Actors Guild, and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. In terms of artistic disciplines, the sampling frame included a multidisciplinary list of artists (provided by California Lawyers for the Arts), plus specific lists of dancers, choreographers, visual artists, video artists, and actors.


There were 974 surveys mailed to artists in Western Massachusetts. The questionnaire took approximately 30 minutes to complete. A total of 382 Western Massachusetts area artists were surveyed by mail during March and April 1989. The Western Massachusetts sample was randomly selected from lists of artists provided by the Artists Foundation and Arts Extension Service, and from a merged list of names provided by the Actors Equity Association, the Screen Actors Guild, and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. In terms of artistic disciplines, the sampling frame included multidisciplinary lists of artists, plus a specific list of actors.




Information on Artists II [1997]: A total of 7,700 artists in Los Angeles, Minneapolis/St. Paul, New York, and San Francisco were surveyed by mail during 1997; 30 percent responded. For Study One, each city's sample was randomly selected from lists of artists provided by the same artists' organizations that had assisted in the 1988 Information on Artists surveys, and was merged with lists provided by the Actors Equity Association of members chosen at random in each city. A total of 4,000 artists were contacted for the Study One sample. Study Two was a parallel survey which sought to obtain a more culturally diverse sample of artists. Researchers used a similar organization-driven sampling process, but relied heavily on organizations serving more diverse artists. At total of 3,700 artists were contacted for Study Two. In terms of artistic disciplines, the sampling frame included multidisciplinary lists of artists, plus specific lists of actors, folk artists, visual artists, dancers, musicians, and multicultural artists.


In addition to the questionnaires mailed, a cover letter assured respondents of the anonymity and privacy of their information, described the Research Center for Arts and Culture and the purpose of the study, and stated that all name and address lists would be destroyed after the survey was complete. As well, three separate places in the questionnaire, including the area devoted to income, assured respondents that information would be kept confidential. Reminder postcards asking for a response were sent 10 days after the initial mailing of the questionnaires.




Information on Artists III: Bay Area [2004]: The artists selected for participation were sent a cover letter and questionnaire. Reminder postcards were sent 10 days after the initial mailing of the questionnaires. A total of 246 Bay Area artists were surveyed by mail during January 2004. The sample was selected from lists of artists provided by 18 organizations in the Bay Area, including 5 organizations that had previously provided artist lists for RCAC's area studies. The highest percentage of respondents identified their areas of major artistic concentration as painting/drawing (22 percent), theatre (17 percent) and film (11 percent). Due to the small sample size, responses from individual county locations do not provide a reliable base from which to make inferences.




Information on Artists III: Aging Artists: Above the Ground: Special Focus New York City Aging Artists, 2007: In-person interviews at set locations and at the studios and homes of interviewees - interviews from 1-2.5 hrs each. To minimize losses, 15 "town meetings" held in all boroughs and arts organizations, borough arts councils, libraries to inform about the study and interest potential interviewees and to located 'seeds.' Altogether, 213 (146 of them professionals) artists born between 1910 (97 years old) and 1944 (62 years old) in 2006-2007 were interviewed.




Both samples for Information on Artists IV: Special Focus Aging Performing Artists 2010: In-person interviews at set locations and at the studios and homes of interviewees - interviews from 1-2.5 hrs each. To minimize losses, "town meetings" were held in NYC and LA to inform about the study and interest potential interviewees and to located 'seeds.' Altogether, 230 performing artists 62 years and older from NYC and 51 from LA (also 62+) were interviewed. Of the 230 artists interviewed, 219 of them were professionals in NYC; 52 artists were in in LA, 51 of them professionals.
description: Data for the Information on Artists III: Aging Artists: Above the Ground: Special Focus New York City Aging Artists, 2007 contain the following weights variables: AGE_WGT (RDS Analysis Tool weight for age variable), ARTINC_WGT (RDS Analysis Tool weight for art income variable), BOROUGH_WGT (RDS Analysis Tool weight for borough variable), COLGRAD_WGT (RDS Analysis Tool weight for college graduate variable), HOUSEINC_WGT (RDS Analysis Tool weight for household income variable), NETSIZE_WGT RDS (Analysis Tool weight for network size variable), RACE_WGT (RDS Analysis Tool weight for race variable), SELFINC_WGT (RDS Analysis Tool weight for individual income variable), SEX_WGT (RDS Analysis Tool weight for sex/gender variable), ARTTYPE_WGT (RDS Analysis Tool weight for type of artist variable), and DEGPROF_WGT (RDS Analysis Tool weight for network size by professional artist variable).
description: Response Rates: 
Available response rates are as follows:



Information on Artists 1988/89: Boston: 38 percent


Information on Artists 1988/89: Cape Cod: 45 percent


Information on Artists 1988/89: Chicago: 48 percent


Information on Artists 1988/89: Dallas: 36 percent


Information on Artists 1988/89: Los Angeles: 35 percent


Information on Artists 1988/89: Minneapolis/St. Paul: 41 percent


Information on Artists 1988/89: New York City: 47 percent


Information on Artists 1988/89: Philadelphia: 39 percent


Information on Artists 1988/89: San Francisco: 47 percent


Information on Artists 1988/89: Western Massachusetts: 39 percent


Information on Artists II [1997]: aggregate response rate: 30 percent


Information on Artists III: Bay Area [2004]: 25 percent
description: All samples for Information on Artists 1988/89: Simple random samples were used for the data collection. Please refer to the Study Design above for site-specific details.



Information on Artists II [1997]: National and local organizations provided lists of artists for inclusion in the study. National: Actors' Equity Association, Association of Independent Video and Filmmakers, and Atlatl. Los Angeles: A.S.K. Theater Projects, Beyond Baroque, California Arts Council, California Community Foundation/Brody Arts Fund, California Lawyers for the Arts, City of Los Angeles Cultural Affairs Department, Community Arts Resources, Los Angeles Contemporary Exhibitions, Los Angeles Municipal Art Gallery, Museum of Contemporary Art, Public Corporation for the Arts, and Watts Tower Arts Center. Minneapolis/St. Paul: American Composers Fund, Arts Midwest, Asian American Renaissance, Compas, CreArte, Intermedia Arts, The Loft, Minnesota Crafts Council, Minnesota State Arts Board, and Native Arts Circle. New York: 651 An Arts Center, Asian American Arts Alliance, Association of Hispanic Arts, City of New York Department of Cultural Affairs, Consulate General of Spain, Dance Theatre of Harlem, Japan Society, Kraus Sikes Inc., Network of Cultural Centers of Color, New York Foundation for the Arts, Pan Asian Repertory Theatre, Puerto Rican Traveling Theatre, and Queens Arts Council. San Francisco: American Indian Contemporary Arts, Asian Art Museum of San Francisco, California Arts Council, California Lawyers for the Arts, Dancers Group Studio, East Bay Center for the Performing Arts, Film Arts Foundation, Kearny Street Workshop, La Pena Cultural Center, National Asian American Telecommunications Association, Pro Arts, San Francisco Art Commission, and Theater Artaud.


Two random samples of artists were selected in each city: Study One and Study Two. The population of artists for Study One was gathered by returning to the organizations that provided lists of artists for the first Information on Artists study in 1988. After cleaning the lists, the researchers drew a random sample of 750 artists in each of four cities. These lists were merged with a random sample drawn by Actors' Equity Association of 250 of its members in each city. Study Two was intended to sample a more culturally diverse population. It was created through a similar procedure, but the researchers were vigilant in inviting artists from many cultures to their site visit meetings and in working with organizations serving diverse artists.



Information on Artists III: Bay Area [2004]: Lists of artists were gathered from 18 organizations in the Bay Area and included lists from 5 organizations that had previously provided artist lists for RCAC's area studies. After lists were merged and cleaned, a total of 1,000 names were chosen to be included in the survey.


Information on Artists III: Aging Artists: Above the Ground: Special Focus New York City Aging Artists, 2007: Feasibility study (see www.tc.edu/rcac) and study7 using Respondent-driven sampling (see www.respondentdrivensampling.org).


Both samples for Information on Artists IV: Special Focus Aging Performing Artists 2010: Feasibility study (see www.tc.edu/rcac) and study7 using Respondent-driven sampling (see www.respondentdrivensampling.org).
description: Datasets: 
DS0: Study-Level Files
DS1: Information on Artists 1988/89: Boston
DS2: Information on Artists 1988/89: Cape Cod
DS3: Information on Artists 1988/89: Chicago
DS4: Information on Artists 1988/89: Dallas
DS5: Information on Artists 1988/89: Los Angeles
DS6: Information on Artists 1988/89: Minneapolis/St. Paul
DS7: Information on Artists 1988/89: New York City
DS8: Information on Artists 1988/89: Philadelphia
DS9: Information on Artists 1988/89: San Francisco
DS10: Information on Artists 1988/89: Western Massachusetts
DS11: Information on Artists II [1997]
DS12: Information on Artists III: Bay Area [2004]
DS13: IOA III: Aging Artists: Special Focus New York City Aging Artists, 2007
DS14: IOA IV: Special Focus Aging Performing Artists (NYC) 2011
DS15: IOA IV: Special Focus Aging Performing Artists (LA) 2011
description: American artists.
description: face-to-face interview; mail questionnaire
This data collection had multiple contributors in addition to the Research Center for Arts and Culture. Contributors for each sample are as follows:



All samples for Information on Artists 1988/89: Jana Jevnikar, Project Coordinator and Robert Greenblatt, Computer Consulting


Information on Artists II [1997]: Carmen Garcia, Project Assistant; Barbara Wolkoff, Project Assistant; Heather Thomas, Project Assistant; Robert Greenblatt, Computer Consulting; and Zeida Garcia-Casillas, Research Assistant


Information on Artists III: Bay Area [2004]: Vanessa Silberman, Research Coordinator and Oscar Torres-Reyna Computer Consultant


Information on Artists III: Aging Artists: Above the Ground: Special Focus New York City Aging Artists, 2007: Jenifer Simon, Project Coordinator and Michael W. Spiller (Cornell), RDS Technical Consultant


Both samples for Information on Artists IV: Special Focus Aging Performing Artists 2010: William Penrose, Project Coordinator and Terry Fain (RAND), Technical Consultant


Funding was provided for each sample survey. Funders are as follows:



All samples for Information on Artists 1988/89: Research Center for Arts and Culture


Information on Artists II [1997]: AT&T Foundation California Arts Council, The Chase Manhattan Foundation, The Nathan Cummings Foundation, The Howard Gilman Foundation, Joyce Mertz-Gilmore Foundation, Heathcote Art Foundation, The Peter Norton Family Foundation, The San Francisco Foundation, Target Stores, the Department Store Division and Mervyn's by the Dayton Hudson Foundation, and The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts


Information on Artists III: Bay Area [2004]: Leveraging Investments in Creativity, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, and The San Francisco Foundation


Information on Artists III: Aging Artists: Above the Ground: Special Focus New York City Aging Artists, 2007: Pollock-Krasner Foundation and the Cornell Institute for Translational Research on Aging and Research Center for Arts and Culture


Both samples for Information on Artists IV: Special Focus Aging Performing Artists 2010: California Arts Council, the City of Los Angeles Department of Cultural Affairs, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, Los Angeles Department of Aging, MetLife Foundation, Nathan Cummings Foundation, University of California, Los Angeles, Research Center for Arts and Culture

Quick facts for this data collection, "How many jazz musicians are there?" and "The Arts and the Internet: How Has Technology and the Internet Impacted San Francisco Area Artists?" are available from the Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies (CACPS) at Princeton University.Users of the data are requested to notify the Research Center for Arts and Culture (Research Center for Arts and Culture, Teachers College, Columbia University, Box 78, 525 West 120th Street, New York, NY 10027) about their intended uses of the data. Reports or publications based on the data should acknowledge the work of Columbia University to create the data. RCAC would appreciate receiving copies of reports or publications based on the data.To protect the anonymity of respondents, all variables that could be used to identify individuals have been masked or recoded. For details regarding these changes, please refer to the Codebook Notes provided in the ICPSR Codebook in this data collection.Due to the limit in the number of allowable columns of 256 in Excel 97-2003 (file ending, xls), the Excel files being distributed with this collection are in the later version of Excel (file ending of xlsx).