By Matina Magkou, Researcher, Université Côte d’Azur, France
As pressures on the arts and culture sector to demonstrate their value continue to intensify, an important question arises: are future generations of professionals adequately equipped to reflect on and carry out meaningful evaluations? Can evaluation truly be taught, and do existing frameworks reflect the realities of the field — including growing expectations around diversity, inclusion, and sustainability?
The ENCATC Best Teaching Method Award does not come in a vacuum. The FACE Framework, developed by Cleopatra Charles, from the School of Public Affairs and Administration at Rutgers University, and Margaret Sloan, from the School of Strategic Leadership Studies at James Madison University, directly responds to this gap. It places qualitative evidence, reflective practice, and cultural equity at the center of evaluation, seeking to make the intrinsic and social value of the arts visible and credible — without reducing them to economic metrics or numerical data that fail to capture the full story.
As ENCATC prepares to launch a working group in 2027 on the evaluation of cultural projects and international cultural cooperation, this recognition feels especially timely — and offers an excellent opportunity to reflect on how we prepare future professionals to engage with such a complex and sensitive dimension of cultural management.
Question: Is evaluation a topic taught in Universities in the US in arts and cultural management degrees? How it is approached?
Yes, evaluation (sometimes also called assessment, impact measurement, program evaluation, or performance measurement) is indeed taught (or at least incorporated) in many U.S. university programs in arts management, cultural management, museum studies, and related fields. However, its presence, depth, and method of treatment vary depending on several factors, including the institution, the level (undergraduate vs. master’s), and the focus of the degree/program (administration, management, museum practice, policy, etc.). Evaluation is not always a standalone required course in all arts and cultural management programs but is frequently introduced (explicitly or implicitly) in modules, capstone projects, or supporting coursework in research methods and program analysis courses. Graduate programs are more likely to offer or require an evaluation/assessment course (or at least offer a more in-depth module) compared to undergraduate arts management minors or concentrations. Because evaluation training has its roots in public administration, education, and nonprofit management, many arts management curricula borrow evaluation teaching from those disciplines (or require students to take evaluation courses in those departments). Increasingly, in recent years the topic of evaluation and assessment in arts and cultural management programs is being approached through a critical, equity-focused framework that encourages students to question how evaluation practices can reinforce or challenge existing power structures, to examine and be mindful of whose knowledge is valued in the evaluation process, whose experiences are represented in the evaluation process, and more importantly how to design evaluation processes that promote inclusion and social justice. In short, providing graduates with the tools to enter the field and transform assessment and evaluation from a top-down exercise into a shared process of reflection, one that uplifts marginalized voices, recognizes artistic labor, and helps organizations align their impact with the values of equity and community empowerment.
Question: What inspired you to develop or use the FACE framework for evaluation in arts and cultural management? Was there a particular gap that you aimed to address?
My co-author and I both come from a nonprofit management background, and over time, both through teaching and working closely with arts leaders and artists, we realized that conventional evaluation frameworks drawn from general nonprofit management scholarship and practice didn’t fit the realities of the arts and cultural sector. These other models and frameworks often emphasize quantifiable outputs and economic metrics, but arts organizations operate in a very different space. In periods of fiscal stress, for instance, the arts are often seen as less essential than social services, which affects how their impact is valued. At the same time, the most meaningful outcomes of artistic work, things like joy, meaning, belonging, imagination, and community transformation, are deeply human and inherently difficult to measure. This realization emerged through research, classroom discussions, and countless conversations with practitioners who expressed frustration that their successes were being defined in ways that didn’t capture the true value of their work. We recognized a clear gap: a need for evaluative approaches that honor the expressive, cultural, and relational dimensions of art, rather than forcing them into narrow quantitative categories. The FACE framework we developed responds to that gap by centering qualitative evidence, reflective practice, and cultural equity. It seeks to make the intrinsic and social value of the arts visible and credible in evaluation processes without reducing them to economics and numbers that fail to tell the full story. To be clear, we are not saying that financial and economic metrics don’t matter because they absolutely do. Art may come from the heart, but it still needs a budget. FACE just takes it a step further and incorporates these other metrics, Artistic, Community, and Engagement metrics, in a more holistic way to help arts and cultural organizations demonstrate their value to multiple stakeholders and at the same time create opportunities for continuous learning within the organization about what works and what doesn’t.
Question: Could you briefly explain what the FACE metrics are and how they help in evaluating the intangible or non-economic value of the arts?
We recognize that the key indicators of success can look different across the arts and cultural landscape, and that some metrics hold true no matter what kind of organization you lead. Like a strong artistic vision, a good metric should be both clear and meaningful. It’s not about counting for the sake of counting, but it is about paying attention to what truly matters for your organization. To help administrators, managers, and artists make sense of the vast universe of possible measures, we think of them in four interrelated dimensions: Finance, Artistic Value, Community, and Engagement—or FACE. Like your own face, these indicators help you look outward and inward at the same time. They allow you to see where you’re going, sense what’s around you, recognize when you’re off course, and communicate your vision clearly to the world. Ultimately, the impacts of arts programming extend well beyond the number of people in the audience, the number of performances in a season, or dollars received from grants or donors. The ability to assess these important but often difficult to capture measurements within arts missions such as improving quality of life, changing ideas, or influencing health and well-being allows us to demonstrate the value of our work and its ultimate impact in meaningful, mission-oriented ways. In short, FACE moves evaluation out of narrow financial terms and reminds us that artistic and community value are measurable too.
Finance: Financial metrics are the ones with which most people are most familiar, and they include a variety of ratios that provide a sense of both the short-term and long-term fiscal performance of the organization. Some commonly used financial metrics include liquidity, solvency, leverage, efficiency, and profitability ratios, which are calculated using information from the organization’s financial statements. Along with these essential metrics for the organization, we also include metrics for measuring the financial success of individual events, such as a gala or an art exhibit. In addition, while many organizations view workforce metrics primarily as satisfaction measures, we take it a step further and argue that employee satisfaction levels directly impact the bottom line. If an employee is unhappy in the organization and leaves, some estimates suggest that, on average, replacing that employee will cost the organization approximately 33% or more of that person’s salary. On a positive note, if employees love working for your organization, that is a metric you should share to recruit excellent up-and-coming artists as well as employees. Artistic Value: Measuring artistic value is not as straightforward as measuring fiscal performance, but there are effective and efficient ways to measure innovation, perception, image, and reputation of your work and that of your organization. Here, we include things like awards won, frequent requests for consulting or advising, media imprints, social media metrics like hits to your website, downloads, going viral, and any buzz surrounding your work or organization. Community Impact: This is the most important story you can tell about your organization, and we believe it is the most critically aligned with the long-term mission of the organization. Fortunately, you don’t have to reinvent the wheel when it comes to demonstrating the value of the arts to a community. Established tools, such as the Creative Vitality Index and the Arts and Economic Prosperity Calculator, already help measure the economic, emotional, and social contributions of arts and cultural activities to community well-being. In the long term, participation in the arts has been shown to enhance mental health, reduce stress, foster social connection, and contribute to a greater sense of belonging and overall well-being. When considering the short-term impact on the community, we recommend including indicators that measure access to programming for a diverse range of community members, including those from various socioeconomic backgrounds and other demographics such as age, gender, and race/ethnicity. For example, one indicator that I have used in my research to measure community impact was whether the organization offered free or discounted tickets to the community. Engagement: Levels of engagement metrics are easy to capture and easy for stakeholders to understand. While participation metrics are relatively easy to measure, we recommend going beyond just whether the concert was sold out and finding out more about how concert attendees engaged with the performance and how they became aware that the concert was even happening, for example. Also, keep in mind that some metrics are very specific to a particular type of arts organization. If you are an arts advocacy organization, you may want to measure the impact of a specific intervention, such as increasing knowledge of a particular issue, like fair contracting practices for freelance artists. Museums are not just exhibition venues but also play a role as civic and cultural spaces, and may want to get feedback from marginalized or underserved visitors on whether they felt welcome and represented. Concerts are time-bound and highly emotional experiences, and managers may want to measure how deeply the concert moved the audience and whether the experience inspired continued participation in the arts.
Question: Are you aware of an example or case study where the FACE metrics were applied in a real arts or cultural project? What insights did this evaluation provide that might have been missed through traditional methods?
Absolutely. One example that really stands out for me is a small-town museum I recently worked with. For a long time, they measured their success in the most traditional ways, things like attendance numbers, ticket sales, and how much economic activity they generated for the local area. Those financial metrics were what their board and funders wanted to see, so that’s where they focused their energy. However, after 2020, following the George Floyd protests and the ensuing social justice movement, many foundations and individual donors began to push for greater equity and inclusion in community spaces. The museum started asking deeper questions: Who are we really reaching? Who’s not in the room? That’s when I helped them apply my broader metrics framework so they could start to look beyond dollars to capture things like access, representation, and community connection. Once we started digging, we found some wonderful stories that had never been part of their “impact narrative.” For example, the museum had a policy that anyone who qualified for SNAP or Medicaid could come in for free. They’d also partnered with the local library so that anyone with a library card could check out a museum pass just like a book and visit at no cost. On top of that, every year the local senior center organized a “museum day,” where they brought a group of older residents for a free visit and social outing. What was interesting is that all these efforts had been happening quietly for years, but no one had ever documented or measured them. When we brought them into the framework, it completely changed how the museum understood and communicated its impact. Instead of just discussing liquidity and overhead ratios, they could now demonstrate how they were increasing access for underrepresented groups, supporting seniors, and strengthening community connections. The evaluation really helped them tell a different story, one that reflected the heart of their mission. And in the end, it resonated much more deeply with their community, their funders, and even their own staff.
Question: Looking ahead, how do you see the role of evaluation evolving in the arts and cultural management field? What is the role of education in this direction?
Looking ahead, I see evaluation in the arts and cultural management field evolving from a compliance-oriented exercise toward a more reflective, participatory, and values-driven practice. Instead of being a process that organizations use simply to prove their worth through numbers, evaluation is increasingly becoming a process of collective learning, and one that helps organizations better understand their cultural, social, and emotional impact in more nuanced ways. In recent years the sector has grappled with questions of equity, access, and sustainability, and I believe that evaluations will play a more vital role in making those commitments visible and actionable. As educators, we have a very important role to play in this shift. So, we need to prepare emerging arts leaders to view evaluation not as a bureaucratic requirement or a checklist of boxes to tick, but rather as a creative, ethical, and collaborative process. Our job is to cultivate the next generation of professionals who will use evaluation as a means to advance inclusion, social justice, and community well-being. This means teaching not only methods and metrics, but also critical reflection, storytelling, and culturally responsive approaches that honor the complexity of artistic and cultural work. Our coursework needs to evolve and move beyond just measurement and towards teaching students to use evaluation as a tool for insight, dialogue, and transformation.
Matina Magkou, Researcher, Université Côte d’Azur, France
Matina is an Associated Researcher at the SIC.Lab Méditerranée of the University Côte d’Azur in France. She holds a PhD in Leisure, Communication and Culture from the University of Deusto. Her tesis focused on the evaluation of international cultural cooperation projects, with a focus on the EuroArab region. Her expertise lies on creative spaces, cultural and creative industries, cultural relations and cultural policies. She is currently investigating collective responses from creative professionals in regard to the challenges posed by AI. In the past Matina has worked for festivals, theater productions and large-scale events such as the Olympic Games Athens 2004, the European Capital of Culture Patras 2006 and the International Expo Zaragoza 2008. She has also worked for public institutions such as the European Parliament, the Greek Ministry of Education and the Municipality of Athens.
Cleopatra Charles, Professor, Rutgers University, United States of America
Cleopatra Charles is an Associate Professor with expertise in nonprofit finance, philanthropy, and civic engagement in the School of Public Affairs and Administration at Rutgers University, where she has been since 2010. During 2019-2020 she was a Fulbright Visiting Scholar in the Department of Civil Society Studies at Charles University in the Czech Republic, and in 2021-2022 she was a Fulbright Visiting Scholar at the National University for Public Service in Hungary. Dr. Charles brings deep regional knowledge and longstanding academic and professional connections in Central Europe. Her work bridges theory and practice, focusing on how civil society organizations navigate post-communist transitions and democratic challenges.
Margaret F. Sloan, Director, School of Strategic Leadership Studies at James Madison University, United States of America
Margaret F. Sloan is the director and faculty member in the School of Strategic Leadership Studies at James Madison University and serves as the director of the National Center for Nonprofit Enterprise. Prior to teaching, she worked in the nonprofit sector for ten years in a variety of management roles with a focus on arts management, youth programs, and resource development.
