Artists, arts managers and administrators operate in complex environments. Apart from the purist willing and able to exist outside the market and without subsidy, the creation of art for most is but one rationale for their work. Now, the arts are expected to contribute to rural and urban regeneration, community building, education, economic development, social inclusion, cultural planning, tourism, and even the restaurant and taxi trade. A new programme, in the US, has the arts helping to animate democracy. Arts organisations and artists are expected to respond also to a bewildering array of new initiatives, participate in local cultural strategy development and learn about and use the Internet and knowledge revolutions. Finally, they can seek funding from a range of old and new sources – from the council’s arts team and the regional arts board, economic development, community regeneration and partnerships managing European structural funds and national lottery to corporate sponsors and charitable trusts. Each, though, needs justification. In turn, arts funders relying mainly on the public purse need to be accountable.

The view that the arts have an impact is shared widely – the fact that the arts are seen to be relevant to helping solve social, political and economic problems is testament to that. The nature and scope of the impact is hard to define, however. Performance measurement has been used extensively in this country for two decades and in the US for 30 years. The use of evaluation methodology in the not-for-profit sector is still in its infancy, however, and measurement of arts impact – as with any creative pursuit and service – is, in any case, difficult. Should we be measuring in terms of economic impact, social change, the creation of new, and quality, cultural work? How is quality measured? Should we even be measuring at all? Is the old adage true – that if you can’t measure it has no value? Kanter and Summers express the problem clearly:

...the ‘test’ in nonprofits is different: these organizations have defined themselves not around their financial returns but around their mission, or the services they offer. And services, of course, are notoriously difficult to measure. The clients receiving them and the professionals delivering them may make very different judgments about their quality, and donors may hold still another standard. And ‘doing good’ is a matter of societal values about which there may be little or no consensus. It is this factor - the centrality of social values over financial values - that complicates measurement for nonprofit organizations. (1)

We have to measure, however. Measurement is important for the funding system. There is a role for measurement that goes beyond the needs of funders as well. The arts operate in areas where issues of customer service and service delivery are key, if not yet that high on the agenda. The external political environment also poses problems: public support for the arts is likely to diminish, and be spread ever wider to reflect changing spending priorities and new art work. As troubled arts institutions continue to hit the headlines, concern about poor management will increase. And the need to measure is not just the concern of traditional funding agencies: sponsors now require returns that can be measured. As competition for scare funds intensifies, accurate measurement of impact provides one source of competitive advantage.

Never has there been a time when the need to justify the arts has been so strong, and the means to make the case so prevalent. The arts do benefit from the external stimulus of funders and patrons. But, apart from work by Comedia, and some economic impact analysis, little evaluation seems to be taking place. Because of this there is a danger that measurements will be imposed. The beginnings of this are clear in Best Value, even though it will not cover the arts for some time. But measurement has to be meaningful, to artists, arts organisations and funders, and fit for purpose. Both sides – and all involved – need to understand and be comfortable with the strengths and weaknesses of measurements used.

There is also a role for no measurement – for seeing value in the immeasurable. Art that is difficult and new will have no market and will always need support. The burgeoning area of digital art is a case in point presently.

Finally, measurement should not be seen simply as a burden inflicted by external agencies to promote accountability and to justify value even if it may feel like that. Measurement – in whatever form – is of value internally to an organisation as a means of assessing mission and clarifying objectives and promoting better management and management information in the future. Existing methodologies are of use. However, more sophisticated measures of impact are needed particularly where organisations are flexible, people-focussed, less hierarchical and with an emphasis on marketing as the arts are beginning to experience.

(1) Kanter, R. M. and Summers, D.V., Doing well while doing good: dilemmas of performance measurement in nonprofit organizations and the need for a multiple-constituency approach, Powel, W.W. (ed.), The Nonprofit Sector: a research handbook, (New Haven : Yale University Press, 1987), p.154.

From:
Impact and Values – Assessing the Arts and Creative Industries in the South West by Andrew Kelly and Melanie Kelly, (Bristol : Bristol Cultural Development Partnership, 2000).


Andrew Kelly is Head of Cultural Development of The Bristol Cultural Development Partnership - BCDP
St Nicolas Church
St Nicolas Street
Bristol BS1 1UE
Tel. +44 117 946 2228
Email: kelly.bcdp@genie.co.uk

BCDP is made up of Bristol City Council, South West Arts and the Bristol Chamber of Commerce and Initiative. It aims to develop, promote and implement a medium-to-long term programme of cultural development of Bristol.

Melanie Kelly works in the Internationa Centre for High Education Management based in the School of Mangement at the University of Bath. This paper is part of a longer term study on museum management.