Why Dance Funding Is Failing Artists — and What One Foundation Is Doing About It

Julia Wagner · 2026-05-26

If you've spent any time around the dance world, you already know the struggle. Grants are scarce. Touring budgets are tighter than ever. And the artists who keep this art form alive often feel like they're running on fumes and pure passion. It's a story we've heard a thousand times, but rarely do we get to hear it from someone who sits on the other side of the table — the person deciding where the money actually goes. Ashley Ferro-Murray, a program director at the Doris Duke Foundation, has a front-row seat to the dance funding landscape. And what she sees missing might surprise you. It's not just about more dollars (though that would help). It's about how those dollars are distributed, who gets them, and what the system expects in return. ### The Real Gap in Dance Funding Ferro-Murray points to something that often gets overlooked in grant conversations: the middle space. There's plenty of support for emerging artists just starting out, and there's attention on the big-name companies with established reputations. But what about the choreographers and companies in between? The ones who have been working for a decade, have a loyal audience, but haven't broken through to the major institutional level? That's where the funding landscape gets thin. And it's a problem because that's exactly where most working artists live. They're not newbies and they're not superstars. They're just trying to sustain a practice, pay their dancers, and keep making work without constantly starting from zero. ### What Artists Actually Need It's easy to assume that what artists need is simply more money. And sure, that's part of it. But Ferro-Murray's perspective goes deeper. She's talking about a fundamental shift in how foundations think about their role. Instead of just writing checks and waiting for reports, funders could be actively partnering with artists to build something sustainable. Here's what that might look like in practice: - Multi-year support instead of one-off project grants - Funding that covers overhead and administrative costs, not just production - Flexibility to adapt when a project changes direction mid-stream - Support for artist wellness and mental health, not just the final product That last point is huge. The dance world is brutal on bodies and minds. A grant that pays for rehearsals but not for physical therapy or rest days is only telling half the story. Ferro-Murray sees a system that's finally starting to recognize the whole artist, not just the work they produce. ### The Question of Access The other big missing piece? Access. Who gets to apply for funding in the first place? If you don't have a development director, a grant writer on retainer, or the time to navigate a 30-page application, you're already behind. The foundation world talks a lot about equity, but the application process itself can be a barrier. Ferro-Murray's perspective suggests that funders need to meet artists where they are. That might mean shorter applications, simpler reporting requirements, or even trusting artists enough to let them define what success looks like. It's a radical idea in a sector that loves metrics and measurable outcomes. ### Why This Matters Right Now We're at a moment where the dance field is still recovering from the pandemic, dealing with rising costs, and watching audiences change their habits. The old funding models were built for a different era. If foundations don't adapt, they risk funding only the safest, most conventional work — and that's a loss for everyone. Ferro-Murray's voice is one of many calling for a reimagining of how we support the arts. But hearing it from someone inside a major foundation is encouraging. It means the conversation isn't just happening on the ground. It's happening in the boardrooms too. ### The Takeaway for Dance Professionals If you're a choreographer, studio owner, or dance educator, this conversation matters to you. It affects where you can apply for funding, what kind of support you can expect, and how the field might look in five or ten years. The more we talk about these gaps, the harder it is to ignore them. And if you're in a position to influence funding decisions — even in a small way — Ferro-Murray's insights are a reminder that the system can change. It just takes people willing to ask what's missing. The dance world is full of incredible work that deserves better support. Maybe the next step is rethinking not just how much we give, but how we give it.