What must be done?

The Trust is quite clear: we think that the arts provide some of the most effective ways to reach and engage young people, especially those most at-risk. It isn't too difficult to understand why. Young people from disadvantaged social and family backgrounds don't find it easy to relate to school and education. Nevertheless, they are part of society and are strongly influenced by peers and their culture. Without the academic tools school offers, they rely on other routes to understand the world they live in. This is where the arts - particularly the performing arts - can provide meaning that is instantly recognisable and puts up the fewest barriers.

This has been understood by the arts sector for many years, but there is a problem. Theatre in Education seemed to have lost its way in the 80s, and even political theatre like Red Ladder, Belt & Braces and many others couldn't survive into the 90s. Yet highly committed performers and writers have stuck in there to change young lives for the better, mostly by surviving on a shoestring.

But why don't they have enough funding when government strategies and policies all agree - the arts are good for you? The case has been made that cultural investment is vital if new communities are going to be worth living in, but resistance to spending money on the arts in regeneration is all too obvious. Why? Because they fall foul of the accountant mentality of Britain's civil servants - and this affects every aspect of our lives. 

Even though the DCMS can make a coherent case for the arts, other high-spending government departments won't invest without proof that the arts can deliver what they claim. And how do they expect this to be provided? By measuring impact. And how do you measure impact? By using tools economists (accountants) judge are appropriate!

This has become a circular debate, which results in indecision and no serious  cultural investment. In simple terms, the argument goes if the arts sector can't provide evidence of impact, then why should government invest at a time when money is in short supply? Even Arts Council England judges it's a success if it can retain its arts funding when others are being cut, but given the way it spends money on the arts this makes little difference to deprived communities around the country, or to young people faced with joining a gang or carrying a knife. This is where we think the Trust can do something, even if it means taking part in the economists' game.

Pilot impact evaluation

With the support of Thames Valley Police and Arc Theatre, we recently arranged to have two questionnaires completed by young people at performances of "Boy X" at schools and PRUs in three towns - Milton Keynes, High Wycombe and Reading. The questionnaires were provided before and after the show, and try to evaluate what the impact of the performance was on the young people. It is a pilot for two reasons: (1) because we need to know whether we are asking the right questions, and (2) whether the promise of follow-up questionnaires at 3 and 6 months can happen. The initial questions were based on a US study involving university students who attended one performance by a number of different companies, somewhat different to our audiences. 

With the results from the pilot, we expect to widen the research to other parts of the UK in 2010 with support from our partners, strengthen the methodology, and ultimately provide a robust evidence base that backs up our claim that the arts do have a positive impact on marginalised and vulnerable young people.