‘Evidence gaps’ hold back policy development

A review of the Social Impacts of Culture and Sport, funded by the Culture and Sport Evidence (CASE) programme, has found reliable evidence of positive benefits of participation in the arts, but the lack of ‘final output’ measurements and cost evaluations, and inadequate research into differential impacts, community-wide impacts and negative impacts, are all undermining the evidence base and holding back policy development. According to the report, the dearth of evidence about any negative consequences of using arts practices and activities is preventing a robust assessment of what can be done to limit such outcomes, and there is insufficient evidence of the costs of different public sector interventions to assess their relative cost-effectiveness.

The study was produced to measure and value the current evidence base on the social impacts of sport and culture on health, crime, social capital and education, and to assess interventions by DCMS and arms-length bodies. It concludes that research into health, crime and education largely concerns “immediate outputs… rather than final outputs”. The literature is strong on theory – able to prove positive reactions to the arts activities engaged in – yet weak in following these sentiments through to concrete results. As a result, in education a strong case can be made for the arts as a mechanism to improve self-esteem and teacher-teacher relationships, but there is limited proof that this leads to improved attendance and academic attainment. In crime, the report states it is “likely [that a] positive relationship exists between arts and crime for prisoners/offenders,” but it continues that “this evidence largely concerns immediate outputs – the behavioural roots to crime – rather than final outputs such as reduced crime and anti-social behaviour”.

The report also finds that the evidence base for the arts suffers from a lack of focus upon the differential factors. Questions such as how long arts activities need to be engaged in to have the greatest social impact; whether particular arts activities are more suitable for particular people; and whether these activities need to be increased in ‘strength’, remain unanswered. Similarly, the majority of the research seems to be inapplicable to a wider audience. In regard to crime, the report authors say “there is a need for more research into the effects of the arts on the general population… there is also a need for evidence of the effects of arts on crime at a community level, rather than an individual level.”

Despite the ‘evidence gaps’, some readings of the report are positive. Damian Hebron, Director at London Arts in Health Forum, was keen to emphasise the research’s legitimising independence. He told AP: “While further research in the field is needed, the report shows that there is at least as strong an evidence base for arts-based social prescribing as there is for the more commonly seen sports-based prescriptions.” The report’s authors too remain convinced that many of the social impacts of the arts and culture and inter-related, making any action in the field a “potentially highly cost-effective intervention”.