48762571621 1f17b9ae59 k 800 xxx q85
Photo by Wylie Poon/Courtesy The Bentway

Across our sector, organisations are increasingly being asked to demonstrate how their work enhances the lives of the people and places they serve. AEA’s primer describes this as a move towards a broader understanding of social impact that goes beyond economics, and includes measures such as internal organisational culture, equity, and relationships with communities.

Today, arts and cultural organisations are embracing complex evaluation frameworks that capture both the tangible and intangible ways in which they serve their communities. But with so many measurement approaches, how do organisations choose the right tools and metrics for their unique contexts and missions?

 

Social Impact Measurement Frameworks

Many impact assessment approaches start with the theory of change and associated logic model, clarifying social purpose, activities, outcomes, and longer-term impact before selecting indicators. AEA’s impact evaluation methodology uses this structure as the basis for research design, data collection, and interpretation. The social impact study AEA developed for Little Island in New York is one example: we defined outcome areas (such as employment and education, quality of public space, health and wellness, sense of welcoming and inclusion, and artistic opportunity), then developed and mapped specific metrics — from self-reported safety to workforce progression — to each impact domain.

Beyond the theory of change, several social impact evaluation frameworks are being used internationally:

  • Macro indicator frameworks, including the UNESCO Culture|2030 Indicators and the European Union’s Measuring the Social Dimension of Culture (MESOC) project, align cultural data with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and policy agendas around health, social cohesion, and urban regeneration. These frameworks are useful for policy alignment but require significant adaptation to be meaningful for individual organisations.
  • Economic and social value frameworks, notably Social Return on Investment (SROI) and wellbeing valuation, translate outcomes into monetary values. National and large cultural institutions (particularly museums in France and the UK) have used SROI to calculate social value ratios (e.g., $1 invested generates $4 of social value). This approach requires a high degree of analytical rigor by applying filtering steps and is resource-intensive, making it more suitable for larger organisations.
  • Participatory and rights-based models, prominent in Latin America, frame impact around cultural rights, community capacity, and social transformation. Examples include cultural impact assessments with Indigenous communities and long-running community arts networks in contexts such as Colombia and Brazil, where impact is assessed through measures such as social cohesion, leadership, and cultural citizenship rather than financial returns.
  • Local community-focused models, e.g. frameworks such as Singapore’s Neighbourhood Arts and Culture Impact Assessment (NACIA) link arts participation to neighbourhood attachment and social networks, combining spatial indicators with health and wellbeing measures.

 

Evaluation Tools and Techniques: A Mixed-Method Approach

Across these frameworks, a mixed-methods approach is now common, comprising quantitative and qualitative tools and analyses.

  • Quantitative tools typically include audience and participant surveys, validated health and wellbeing scales, social capital measures, and composite indices that track neighbourhood vitality, diversity of participation, or organisational reach. For instance, combined visitor data, staff demographics, programme data, and large-scale surveys are used to quantify perceptions of safety, welcome, accessibility, and emotional state.
  • Qualitative and participatory methods such as interviews, focus groups, case studies, observation, and creative techniques (e.g. visual brainstorming, storytelling) are used to capture changes in confidence, identity, and agency. These approaches are particularly important for smaller non-profit organisations, which may lack the resources to implement SROI or large-scale experimental designs. AEA’s impact evaluation work similarly emphasises stakeholder engagement through workshops, community-led discussions, and advisory groups as both data sources and part of the impact creation.
  • Organisational and administrative data such as engagement of staff in training, career progression, artist employment and collaboration, and governance practices – are increasingly treated as part of social impact, rather than solely operational reporting.

We observe several common threads across various evaluation approaches:

  • An emphasis on outcomes rather than outputs, and on impact at individual, organisational, and community levels.
  • A reliance on mixed methods, combining quantitative indicators with qualitative evidence.
  • Increasing recognition of equity and inclusion – who participates and who benefits – as core dimensions of social impact.

 

AEA’s Approach

AEA’s social impact evaluation framework draws these elements together through several guiding principles: intentional definition of social impact, early integration into planning, multidimensional and longitudinal measurement, consistent stakeholder input, and transparent reporting.

The key implication is that there is no single “best” social impact framework. The selection of frameworks, indicators, and tools follow, rather than precede, clarity about the organisation’s mission, values, operating context, and core activities. In developing a social impact measurement framework, AEA tends to work iteratively, from understanding the organisation’s intended impact (the mission), to outcome areas and core beneficiary groups (e.g. audiences, partners, artists, staff), to developing a set of measurable qualitative and quantitative metrics across key impact areas agreed and tested with an organisation.

A small community arts centre may reasonably prioritise participatory methods that reflect local understandings of cultural rights and citizenship, while a large national institution may need to align with the national appraisal standards. More often than not, a cultural organisation may choose a hybrid model, grounded in a theory of change and mixed-method evidence, to understand where impact is strongest and to adjust strategy accordingly.

Effective social impact evaluation requires methodological pluralism, combining quantitative rigor with rich, participatory depth to provide a robust, evidence-based account of culture's role.

What dimensions of social impact are the most meaningful for your organisation and community? Do you have a process in place for defining and measuring the social impact of your organisation or project? What untold stories might a social impact study reveal for your organisation?

Have comments or questions? Get in touch with Natalia at nvartapetova@aeaconsulting.com

 

Resources

 

 

 

By using AEA Consulting’s website you agree to our use of cookies to deliver a better experience.

AcceptPrivacy Policy