MAP has gathered data from the full pool of applications received in the 2018 grant cycle. The information shared below is a snapshot of the 2018 applicant pool. In the coming months, MAP staff will analyze this information more deeply, make recommendations for the 2019 grant cycle process, and continue to share our findings with our constituents.
We hope you’ll have a look and respond with your thoughts! We encourage you to send any additional feedback to email@example.com.
This year, MAP received 839 applications, 801 of which were deemed eligible according to MAP’s guidelines. For the first time, MAP’s 2018 application materials included an eligibility quiz for applicants to determine their project’s eligibility prior to creating an application, which impacted the total number of proposals MAP received. Last year, MAP received 911 applications, 833 of which were eligible. (You can view the 2017 data report here.)
The 801 eligible submissions were reviewed by 53 artists and arts professionals from across the country, who were selected through an online nomination process.
Based on three rounds of reviews, 82 projects — about 10% of the initial pool — were invited to submit additional materials, and were then evaluated by a live panel of six individuals deliberating over the course of four days.
Ultimately, the panel recommended 40 projects for MAP funding — about 5% of the initial pool and 49% of those that moved to panel.
Review MAP’s grantmaking process for a more thorough explanation of our review criteria and evaluation process.
The data that follows looks at the demographics of the eligible pool of applications from a number of perspectives.
In order to help reviewers and panelists understand more about the origins of the project (i.e. whose idea was it to create this new work?), we asked applicants to identify whether their project was initiated by:
- The artistic team;
- One or more institutions, or;
- One or more curators.
Projects initiated by the artistic team represented the majority of the pool by a large degree. However, in the panel round and among the 40 projects funded, the percentage of projects that were institutionally or curator-initiated rose slightly.
|The project was initiated by:||Round One||Round Two/Panel||Funded|
|The artistic team||682 (85.1%)||65 (79.3%)||30 (75.0%)|
|One or more institutions||102 (12.7%)||13 (15.9%)||7 (17.5%)|
|One or more curators||17 (2.1%)||4 (4.9%)||3 (7.5%)|
Applicants were asked to identify who might best understand their project: dance/performance specialists, music/performance specialists, and/or theater/performance specialists. Applicants could select any combination of these options — these answers helped MAP staff pair applications with appropriate reviewers.
A large majority of applicants selected one discipline only, and over half of the projects in each round selected Theater or Dance.
|Discipline Identification||Round One||Round Two/Panel||Funded|
|Dance||217 (27.1%)||23 (28.0%)||11 (27.5%)|
|Music||107 (13.4%)||13 (15.9%)||4 (10.0%)|
|Theater||273 (34.1%)||27 (32.9%)||14 (35.0%)|
|Dance and Music||36 (4.5%)||1 (1.2%)||1 (2.5%)|
|Dance and Theater||74 (9.2%)||8 (9.8%)||3 (7.5%)|
|Music and Theater||59 (7.4%)||7 (8.5%)||4 (10.0%)|
|Dance, Music, and Theater||35 (4.4%)||3 (3.7%)||3 (7.5%)|
Note: MAP identifies project geography based on the location of the primary contact on each application. Many of the proposed projects will be created in and/or tour to multiple locations across the country and internationally. Regions identified below are according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
In Round One, MAP received 801 eligible applications from primary contacts based in Washington D.C., 39 U.S. states, and four international countries. In Round Two/Panel, 82 applications from primary contacts based in Washington D.C. and 23 U.S. states were invited to submit additional materials. The 40 funded projects were submitted by primary contacts based in Washington D.C. and 17 U.S. states.
A majority of the Round One applications came from the Northeast region of the US. In Round Two, the proportion of Northeast applications decreased by 8%, with an increase in applications from the West, the Midwest, and the South. The funded projects had a more balanced geographic distribution than the initial Round One pool, with 32.5% from the Northeast, 30% from the West, 15% from the Midwest, and 22.5% from the South.
Much of the data stayed relatively consistent from round to round (i.e. varied by <5%). Geography was an exception — over half of the Round One projects were submitted by primary contacts based in the Northeast, while by the Funded stage, all four regions were more evenly represented.
|Geographic Region||Round One||Round Two/Panel||Funded|
|Northeast||416 (51.9%)||36 (43.9%)||13 (32.5%)|
|Midwest||100 (12.5%)||12 (14.6%)||6 (15.0%)|
|South||93 (11.6%)||12 (14.6%)||9 (22.5%)|
|West||188 (23.5%)||22 (26.8%)||12 (30.0%)|
|International||4 (0.5%)||0 (0%)||0 (0%)|
ARTIST STATEMENT FORMAT
This year, artists had the option to submit their artist statements in either video or written format. The majority of applications included written artist statements.
|Artist Statement Format||Round One||Round Two/Panel||Funded|
|Written||705 (88.0%)||71 (86.6%)||34 (85.0%)|
|Video||96 (12.0%)||11 (13.4%)||6 (15.0%)|
More detailed analysis about the implications of this data and how it may inform MAP’s work moving forward will be shared throughout the year.
We look forward to receiving your questions and insights at firstname.lastname@example.org.