Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) is known for its “rich, cultural mosaic” to which artists, heritage practitioners and cultural entities all directly contribute (Gov NL, Cultural Plan 2019-2024). The arts and culture sector in this province consists of literary arts, visual arts and crafts, electronic, recording and digital arts (including film and video), performing arts (including theatre, opera, music, dance, mime, circus and variety entertainment), and multi-media arts” (Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly, 2019). Despite the diversity of this sector, arts organizations face common challenges and barriers to their prosperity and sustainability. 

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, in its 2019-2024 Cultural Plan, outlined the strong belief that “culture empowers our communities. Every resident of Newfoundland and Labrador should have access to cultural resources and activities. Participation in cultural activities enriches individual and community life and promotes social inclusion, while cultural networks lead to opportunities and successes” (Gov NL, Cultural Plan 2019-2024). With such high value placed by the government on the arts and culture in our communities, there is an imperative to develop financial independence and sustainability for all the organizations operating in the sector. 

A reported nearly 2400 individuals in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador work in the arts, culture and entertainment industry as of 2023, with the Canadian total number of workers in the sector averaging at 311,000 (Statistics Canada, 2023). Relatedly, in the Canadian Artists and Content Creators Economic report, published by the Government of Canada in 2022, 44% of respondents to the survey reported government grants as a source of financial support, with awards from foundations, additional family income and funding from educational or training institutions as other high ranking sources. Conversations with leaders and employees of arts organizations in Newfoundland and Labrador confirm that the sector is largely reliant on external funding to subsidize their activities. As a result, these organizations spend large amounts of time and energy stuck in the grant writing cycle: completing funding applications, operationalizing projects, activities and initiatives, and then reporting the results back to funders. The cycle repeats ad nauseam, depleting human and financial resources, taking away from the organization’s ability to prioritize programming and impact in favour of having to always chase down funds to ensure continued operations.

To fully optimize impact measurement, reporting and evaluation, arts organizations would collect information that strengthens their work and the engagement of staff, board, and public, and feeds meaningfully into marketing and program development, while also satisfying funders. This optimized feedback loop would ensure that all stakeholders understand the importance and varied human impacts of the arts community. Unfortunately, arts organizations are clear that time constraints, due to a lack of adequate human resources, and financial constraints reduce impact measurement efforts to the “bare minimum” of what is required to maintain a continuous stream of funding.

Given the strong link between impact reporting and the acquisition of funding, Business & Arts NL saw a need for improved impact measurement practices in Newfoundland and Labrador, and for a stronger communal practice of communicating and celebrating the sector’s societal and economic impacts. Business & Arts NL aims to strengthen the resilience and sustainability of the arts and culture industry by identifying tools with which arts organizations can start to measure some key common metrics, tell compelling stories using these metrics, and work together to build networks and connect with a wide variety of stakeholders, including audience members, volunteers, customers, donors, funders, policy makers, and others.

In order to develop a model for impact measurement in arts and culture organizations, it is imperative to first understand what impact is, and how the measurement of impact translates from its original contexts to the activities of arts organizations. To provide a background of impact and impact measurement, we looked to the field of social innovation, social enterprise and social entrepreneurship.

Innoweave, a subset of the Canadian charity MakeWay, is an organization that offers coaching and capacity-building services to the national non-profit and community sector. Innoweave defines impact as “the intended and unintended (positive or otherwise) changes (outputs and outcomes) that occur across the organization (within and/or across its programs) and with its stakeholders (e.g., users, clients and partners) over a period of time, short or long term, as a result of the organization’s activities” (Innoweave, 2024). Impact measurement, therefore, is a practice that not only proves that impact has occurred, but does so in a way that is both data-driven and evidence-based, which enables organizations to learn from the results and continuously improve and optimize their work (Innoweave, 2024). Within the context of social innovation, social enterprise and social entrepreneurship, impact is referred to more specifically as “social” impact, which encompasses social, cultural, environmental and economic impacts of an organization (Sopact, 2024). These impacts could take a local, community perspective, or contribute to broader efforts at tackling a global problem.

Social impact measurement has grown significantly in recent decades, stemming from its own niche area, to becoming a practice that is deeply embedded in the policies and practices of government, investors and the social and community sectors (Hazenberg, 2021). The development of corporate social responsibility (CSR), environmental and social governance (ESG) social finance and impact investing has also contributed to the growth and necessity of the social impact measurement field (Hazenberg, 2021; SoPact, 2024). 

When considering the impact of the arts and culture sector, it is immediately apparent that the range and variety of that impact is as unique and nuanced as the art the sector produces. 

In mapping out a route to understanding impact and developing a comprehensive impact measurement framework for the arts and culture sector, it was clear that a mixed methodology would be necessary. The research team thus designed the project to include community engaged, qualitative primary research, supplemented by archival, secondary research. This took shape through a literature review of the field of impact measurement (both within and beyond the arts), two focus groups with attendees representing distinct subsets of the arts and culture sector, and an online survey which was promoted on social media and distributed through Business & Arts Newfoundland and Labrador’s email newsletter. The research is also informed by the research team’s own experience as professional musicians working in the arts and culture sector. 

Please download the full report to explore the Literature Review, Summary of Local Research, and survey and focus group findings.

This framework was developed from an extensive literature review (including research and practical examples from the arts on both national and international levels, as well as the related fields of management, social enterprise and social innovation), a survey of arts organizations in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), and two focus groups bringing together representatives from the different sub sectors of the arts industry in the province.

The immediate or short term goal (over the course of the project, up to one year of its start) for the current phase of research and the framework is that it will serve to raise awareness around the purpose of impact measurement, as well as to build capacity among arts organizations to begin engaging in this activity. The framework will provide a concrete tool from which these organizations can begin the process of measuring their impact using a language and metrics that are unified across the entire provincial sector.

Phase I of the project was designed to ascertain best practices and clarify the implications of undertaking this type of work in an organization, in order to optimize the impact measurement process. As such, the medium term (one to three years out from the conclusion of phase I in May 2024) goals are to improve awareness of impact measurement, its uses and implications, and share the determined best practices. The research team aims to do this in Phase II of the project, through workshops and a pilot project that uses the framework to measure impact in a small and diverse group of arts organizations in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The long term goal for this work (three or more years beyond the first phase) is to facilitate a unified but flexible impact reporting structure for all arts organizations in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, regardless of how they generate revenue, the type or amount of funding they receive. Organizations will be able to use the information gathered within this framework to then pull together reports, as required by any funder, stakeholder or for any other purpose. Therefore, the aim is to iterate on the present framework to ensure it includes all indicators required by major funders or institutions to which arts organizations in the province report, as well as the indicators which are most meaningful to the organizations themselves.

It is important to note that the framework is not fixed, nor are the lists of indicators within each dimension exhaustive. The framework simply provides a starting point from which organizations can work towards optimizing and implementing their own impact measurement processes, and to develop a shared language and story of the sector’s impact as a whole. 

Structure of the Framework

The Impact Measurement Framework for arts organizations, as developed by the Business & Arts NL research team, allows for impact measurement across five unique dimensions. These dimensions are the result of extensive consideration and discussion around the ways that arts organizations interact with society, and the different values they ascribe to their creation or promotion of art or art experiences. The framework is intended to be discipline agnostic, and should be equally as effective for those who create or perform, as well as for those who promote or present. As previously noted, it is not expected that every organization or artist reports on across all five dimensions or all indicators within each dimension. The framework offers a unified baseline from which an organization can begin to strategically shape their work, and craft a compelling story about the change they create for others.

Before arriving at the current iteration of the framework, the research team outlined three key areas of impact that an arts organization could have. This determination was informed by the lived experience of the research team, who are either professional artists, or enthusiastic arts consumers and supporters, as well as a survey of the impact measurement and evaluation literature. These areas include cultural impact, economic impact and social impact. The first two categories are much easier to understand. Social impact, however, encapsulates a larger variety of impacts and includes but is not limited to: environmental impact; community health and well-being impact; and efforts around equity, diversity, inclusion, anti-racism (EDI-AR) and truth and reconciliation. When discussed in our focus group, the participants were asked to prioritize these categories and subcategories of impact, according to their organizational mission and vision. Artistic and cultural impact was unsurprisingly ranked as the top priority type of impact. It is interesting to note, however, that creating impact on community health and well-being was almost as important to the organizations as creating economic impact for a society. Truth and reconciliation ranked fourth and environmental impact was by far the lowest priority area of impact. 

Understanding these three broad areas of impact that any organization could have, helped the research team conceive of the five dimensions included in the framework presented here:

1. The Artist and Culture:
   This dimension reflects precisely on the impact of an organization on the artist it engages with, and the culture of the community(ies) in which it operates.

2. The Experience:
   This dimension reflects on the experience that is created for or perceived by any individual which comes into contact with the art. These include but are not limited to: audience members, participants in the art-making, subscribers, members and donors.

3. The Organization:
   This dimension reflects on the organization itself, including its operations and activities, and how it achieves its strategic priorities.

4. The Community:
   This dimension is the most diverse and broad-ranging as it is directly linked to and includes ways in which the organization affects the broader society in which it operates, including its contributions to social cohesion/belonging, health and well-being, environmental conservation, education, EDI-AR, truth and reconciliation, and advocacy. We anticipate this dimension to experience the most evolution as we explore the idea of what one focus group participant called, the impact of a “human ‘being’ not a human ‘doing’.”

5. The Economy:
   This dimension is one of the easiest for any stakeholder to comprehend as it is primarily quantitative in nature, and relates to concepts most people are familiar with, such as revenue generation, employment and other economic indicators.

Together, the team compiled a list of indicators (metrics) for each of the five dimensions. Through consultation with the participants in the second focus group, more than twenty additional indicators were added to the framework. The research team anticipates that the  number of indicators will continue to grow and become more nuanced as the framework is piloted in phase II of this project. 

While the lists are non-exhaustive, each contains at least ten indicators which an organization could choose to track in their impact measurement strategy. Additionally, several indicators appear in more than one dimension, as the lens from which they are viewed can change depending on the context in which they are measured, evaluated or reported. In a visual representation, the framework would likely appear more as a five-circle venn diagram, than as distinct, separate units. Further clarity around the concept of indicators is included below.

Impact indicators are the specific, measurable items that you intend to track throughout your activities, in order to ascertain your effectiveness in achieving your goals - or, creating your impact. In management, evaluation and other related fields, these are also referred to as metrics or key performance indicators (KPI’s). In order to define the indicators that are most important and relevant to your organization, it is useful to work through the exercises of a Theory of Change and a logic model, both with the staff of the organization but also with a broader group of stakeholders who may bring different, and valuable, perspectives.

There are two types of indicators included in this framework: quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative indicators are those metrics that are captured in numerical data- such as the number of tickets sold, or the dollar value of donations received. Qualitative indicators are the narrative type indicators, those which are descriptive and aid in telling your impact story from the human perspective. These include audience feedback, participant testimonials and other descriptive reporting methods.

Organizations will find that some indicators within the different dimensions are linked to one another, or that an indicator from one dimension would be more suited to live in another dimension. In some cases, one type of indicator (or group of indicators) appears in multiple dimensions. This flexibility should be embraced, to suit the nuance of the work that the organization undertakes - which may change over time, or from project to project.

While not all indicators may be relevant to a given organization, they should all be given  some consideration. An organization may find that there is value in reporting on an indicator listed in the framework that they had not previously tracked, or that there is a different perspective from which to view their work. Organizations have the freedom to add additional indicators to the various dimensions, as best suits the nuances of their own activities, or mission, vision and values.