Details on article
Id | 157 | |
Author | Williams, D., | |
Title | The social impact of arts programs. How the arts measure up: Australian research into social impact. | |
Reference | 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% |
|
Open Access | YES | |
DOI | ||
Search Database | Snowball |
|
Technique | Questionnaire | |