Details on article
|Title||The social impact of arts programs. How the arts measure up: Australian research into social impact.|
Williams, D. (1997). The social impact of arts programs. How the arts measure up: Australian research into social impact. Working Paper 8. Stroud, UK: Comedia.
|Keywords||Social impact; Community arts programmes; Community development; Social capital; Social change
|Link to article|| https://arestlessart.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/1997-deidre-williams-how-the-arts-measure-up.pdf
|Abstract||The aim of the project is to develop a methodology to evaluate the social impact of community arts programmes and assess impact in key areas. It argues public funded community based arts projects were powerful catalysts for community development.
|Metodology||A methodology was developed for evaluating the social impact of 89 arts programmes in key areas. It was conducted a survey to 109 community participants from arts projects, plus 123 community members who had observed the projects. It asked people to rate the long-term value of the project for their community. Indicators for each outcome are suggested: • Building and developing communities • Increasing social capital • Activating social change • Developing human capital • Improving economic performance The author outlines diverse areas that community groups had been interviewed about and reports their responses.
|Findings||Over all, respondents recorded positive impact for each outcome area as follows: 96% recognised positive educational outcomes 94% recognised positive artistic outcomes 90% recognised positive social outcomes 72% recognised positive economic outcomes Overall the case studies reported the following results to the social capital indicators: 92% Improved skills in communicating ideas and information 92% Increased appreciation of community arts 87% Improved skills in planning and organising activities 80% Improved understanding of different cultures or lifestyles 64% Improved consultation between government and community The case studies report the results for community development indicators: Decreased social isolation 74% Improved recreational options 74% Developed local enterprise 47% Improved public facilities 47% Developed community identity 86% Regarding activating social change, the results were: Inspired action on a social issue 62% Improved understanding of different cultures or lifestyles 80% Generated employment 49% Increased public safety 44% Raised public awareness of an issue 88%