Global Arts MBA 2027 Cohort | T1.M4.S3 Impact Evaluation | 2026-10-12

Main Ideas

The session focused on putting evaluation into practice in arts organizations. Its central message was that evaluation need not rely only on attendance counts and surveys: it can use creative, participant-centered methods and should be designed around what an organization and its community actually need to learn.

Creative and Arts-Based Ways to Collect Data

The instructor presented several ways to use artistic expression for data collection, especially when standard interviews or surveys may be less engaging or accessible.

• Draw a person to explore outcomes. Ask participants to draw themselves, then add:
  • Head: new or changed thoughts
  • Hands: skills or things they can now do
  • Heart: feelings or emotional changes
  • Feet: actions or next steps they may take

Participants can draw individually or contribute to a shared image using notes. This method can help reveal perceived program impact.

• Use collage to explore self-perception. Participants select and arrange images in response to a prompt, such as how they see themselves after a program. To help interpret the collage, ask participants to explain what it means verbally, in writing, or both. Sharing can be optional to help preserve privacy.

• Use photography and Photovoice. Participants take photographs in response to a prompt—such as “What makes community for you?”—and use the images to support discussion or narration. Visuals can help people prepare and communicate, including participants who benefit from concrete prompts. Depending on the design, Photovoice can be used with groups, individuals, or online.

• Use theater, dance, or performance. These can help participants tell their stories. The resulting accounts can serve as qualitative information about their experiences.

• Use a game to surface barriers and assets. The instructor described adapting Pathways to Change for a needs assessment:

  1. Set a goal for a character, such as starting college, and have participants create the character’s background.
  2. Let participants move the character through a game board.
  3. Use categories such as intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural to classify what affects the character.
  4. Mark experiences as facilitators or barriers.
  5. Ask participants to explain what happened and how it affected progress toward the goal.

The game helped surface issues such as relationships, food access, and transportation, as well as potential sources of support.

These approaches can be adapted for large or external audiences, but group activities may not suit every context. For larger groups, a visual response board with notes may be more practical. To protect anonymity, participants can complete activities privately, submit materials without public sharing, or provide recorded narration through a non-public channel.

Practical data-collection considerations: Ask permission before recording interviews or focus groups. If participants do not consent, use a note-taker instead. For informal activities, recording may inhibit participation; explain note-taking in advance and capture responses transparently.

Social RX: Evaluating Social Prescribing

Adrienne, a founding team member of Social RX (formerly Art Pharmacy), described the organization’s evaluation approach. Social prescribing connects people, through healthcare professionals or other trusted individuals, to community-based, nonclinical activities—primarily arts and cultural experiences, as well as nature-based activities and, increasingly, volunteerism.

She outlined several principles for a strategic evaluation plan:

• Define success with partners. Agree at the start of a contract or pilot on what outcomes matter to the organization and its partner.
• Clarify what is being measured, for whom, and why. Measures may relate to Social RX’s theory of change, a client’s priorities, participants’ own goals, or broader field-building.
• Select measures that fit the purpose. Potential measures include health outcomes, healthcare utilization or cost, participant satisfaction, retention, participation, and investment in community partners. Use measures relevant to the particular partner and avoid asking participants unnecessary questions.
• Keep data collection manageable. Prefer brief, validated measures where possible and consider whether repeated questions will burden participants.
• Use data creatively and strategically. Data-sharing agreements or electronic health record reviews may provide information—such as healthcare utilization—without repeatedly asking participants to report it.
• Match evaluation rigor to the decision. Social RX uses a range of approaches, from internal program evaluation to randomized controlled trials. An RCT is not automatically necessary; the method should fit the purpose.
• Tailor reporting to the audience. Healthcare leaders may prioritize clear quantitative results and financial or clinical implications; other audiences may respond more to participant stories. Combining quantitative results with participant narratives can provide a fuller account.
• Build in follow-up and incentives. Social RX collects a baseline survey and typically follows up within 24 hours of each scheduled experience. Completing the post-experience survey unlocks access to the next event. For additional interviews, it may offer a modest honorarium, typically $15–$25.
• Protect private information. Limit access by role, use secure storage, and be deliberate about whether partners receive individual-level or aggregated, anonymized data.
• Combine internal findings with external evidence. Social RX draws on research about arts and health and social prescribing while also developing and publishing its own evidence.

The timing of data collection should reflect the outcome being assessed. Immediate follow-up can capture a near-term response; later follow-ups can help assess longer-term effects. Social RX schedules some follow-up interviews six and twelve months after a prescription ends, while recognizing that the appropriate cadence depends on the measure and the burden on participants.

Carolina Performing Arts: Assessing Belonging and Discovery

Sydney Bazansen, Associate Director of Development at Carolina Performing Arts (CPA), described a pilot evaluation connected to clinics led by the Philadelphia Orchestra. The project tested ways to understand CPA’s mission—creating a culture of belonging and discovery through the arts—rather than relying only on counts of performances or attendees.

The pilot produced:

• New feedback surveys for faculty partners
• Internal forms for tracking workshops
• A dedicated Teams space for sharing impact information
• A draft Power BI dashboard to visualize participation and feedback

Faculty feedback supported the idea that the activities fostered belonging and inclusion. It also identified ways to improve, such as giving students more advance notice.

Courtland Gilliam, CPA’s Director of Engagement, described the next stage of the work. His priorities include strengthening assessment tools, using qualitative research to add context, and incorporating feedback from community partners. He emphasized that broad concepts such as belonging and discovery need to be made more specific: What qualities make up belonging? For whom is CPA trying to foster it, and how?

Gilliam also highlighted the importance of examining research questions, conceptual assumptions, participant groups, and equity considerations—not just collecting numbers. CPA is exploring ways to serve beyond its campus, including rural parts of North Carolina, while recognizing that this requires meeting communities where they are. Emerging initiatives include a dinner-and-a-show experience to reduce barriers for students and a survey of student dance needs, including limited rehearsal space.

Audience discussion raised questions about why arts organizations focus so much on belonging. Gilliam connected the issue partly to institutional power and unequal access to resources and platforms. Bazansen noted the arts’ role as a place for people to gather and connect, particularly after pandemic-era isolation. The presenters also stressed that belonging may mean different things to students, artists, and communities outside campus.

Evaluation-Plan Assignment

The instructor reviewed the assignment as a proposal-style plan for a case-study organization. Key requirements are:

• Keep the plan to no more than three single-spaced pages, using an 11–12-point standard font. The logic model does not count toward the page limit.
• Include a program overview: the organization’s activity, objective or mission, short-term outcomes, how it pursues the objective, and who participates or benefits.
• Include the existing logic model. Revision is optional, but it can be updated if appropriate. If submitted as a separate or linked file, ensure it is accessible.
• Develop one focused evaluation question, or a small set of closely connected questions. Avoid combining unrelated questions.
• Identify the question type—such as formative, summative, process, or outcome—and explain why it fits and why the answer matters to the organization.
• Specify data sources or respondents, explain why they are appropriate, and describe the methods and why they suit the question.
• Provide examples of survey or interview questions, with response options for survey questions. For administrative or secondary data, identify a few specific data points. A full data-collection instrument is not required.
• Provide a project timeline covering relevant stages such as instrument development, collection, analysis, and reporting. A relative timeline, such as “month one,” is acceptable.
• Assess feasibility: identify whether the organization could carry out the plan and what added capacity or resources might be needed.
• Identify two potential implementation challenges and ways to mitigate them.

On AI use, the instructor advised using it, at most, for copy editing or proofreading—not to generate the substantive ideas for the assignment. Students may share their plans with their case-study organizations, but doing so is optional.

Speakers and Sources Featured

Presenters

• Jessica — course instructor; last name not stated in the subtitles
• Adrienne — founding team member and Head of Community Strategy at Social RX, formerly Art Pharmacy
• Sydney Bazansen — Associate Director of Development, Carolina Performing Arts
• Courtland Gilliam — Director of Engagement, Carolina Performing Arts

Audience Members Who Spoke or Asked Questions

Mariana, Lily, Leslie, Kathleen, Christopher, Emily O’Neal, Julia, Georgina, Monica, and Demi.

Methods and Resources Mentioned

• Photovoice
• Pathways to Change (a game adapted for needs assessment)
• Methods Meet Art: Arts-Based Research Practice
• The PHQ-ADS measure
• A definition of belonging referenced from Duke’s Office of Undergraduate Research
• Research literature on arts and health and social prescribing; Social RX publications and resources were also mentioned.