Community arts programs
Evidence Ratings
Scientifically Supported: Strategies with this rating are most likely to make a difference. These strategies have been tested in many robust studies with consistently positive results.
Some Evidence: Strategies with this rating are likely to work, but further research is needed to confirm effects. These strategies have been tested more than once and results trend positive overall.
Expert Opinion: Strategies with this rating are recommended by credible, impartial experts but have limited research documenting effects; further research, often with stronger designs, is needed to confirm effects.
Insufficient Evidence: Strategies with this rating have limited research documenting effects. These strategies need further research, often with stronger designs, to confirm effects.
Mixed Evidence: Strategies with this rating have been tested more than once and results are inconsistent or trend negative; further research is needed to confirm effects.
Evidence of Ineffectiveness: Strategies with this rating are not good investments. These strategies have been tested in many robust studies with consistently negative and sometimes harmful results. Learn more about our methods
Strategies with this rating are recommended by credible, impartial experts but have limited research documenting effects; further research, often with stronger designs, is needed to confirm effects.
Disparity Ratings
Potential to decrease disparities: Strategies with this rating have the potential to decrease or eliminate disparities between subgroups. Rating is suggested by evidence, expert opinion or strategy design.
Potential for mixed impact on disparities: Strategies with this rating could increase and decrease disparities between subgroups. Rating is suggested by evidence or expert opinion.
Potential to increase disparities: Strategies with this rating have the potential to increase or exacerbate disparities between subgroups. Rating is suggested by evidence, expert opinion or strategy design.
Inconclusive impact on disparities: Strategies with this rating do not have enough evidence to assess potential impact on disparities.
Strategies with this rating have the potential to decrease or eliminate disparities between subgroups. Rating is suggested by evidence, expert opinion or strategy design.
Evidence Ratings
Scientifically Supported: Strategies with this rating are most likely to make a difference. These strategies have been tested in many robust studies with consistently positive results.
Some Evidence: Strategies with this rating are likely to work, but further research is needed to confirm effects. These strategies have been tested more than once and results trend positive overall.
Expert Opinion: Strategies with this rating are recommended by credible, impartial experts but have limited research documenting effects; further research, often with stronger designs, is needed to confirm effects.
Insufficient Evidence: Strategies with this rating have limited research documenting effects. These strategies need further research, often with stronger designs, to confirm effects.
Mixed Evidence: Strategies with this rating have been tested more than once and results are inconsistent or trend negative; further research is needed to confirm effects.
Evidence of Ineffectiveness: Strategies with this rating are not good investments. These strategies have been tested in many robust studies with consistently negative and sometimes harmful results. Learn more about our methods
Strategies with this rating are recommended by credible, impartial experts but have limited research documenting effects; further research, often with stronger designs, is needed to confirm effects.
Disparity Ratings
Potential to decrease disparities: Strategies with this rating have the potential to decrease or eliminate disparities between subgroups. Rating is suggested by evidence, expert opinion or strategy design.
Potential for mixed impact on disparities: Strategies with this rating could increase and decrease disparities between subgroups. Rating is suggested by evidence or expert opinion.
Potential to increase disparities: Strategies with this rating have the potential to increase or exacerbate disparities between subgroups. Rating is suggested by evidence, expert opinion or strategy design.
Inconclusive impact on disparities: Strategies with this rating do not have enough evidence to assess potential impact on disparities.
Strategies with this rating have the potential to decrease or eliminate disparities between subgroups. Rating is suggested by evidence, expert opinion or strategy design.
Community conditions, also known as the social determinants of health, shape the health of individuals and communities. Quality education, jobs that pay a living wage and a clean environment are among the conditions that impact our health. Modifying these social, economic and environmental conditions can influence how long and how well people live.
Learn more about community conditions by viewing our model of health.
Community arts programs, also called participatory arts programs, include visual, media, and performing arts activities open to interested community members. Community-based organizations or art centers offer programs for community members to create artwork through collaboration and interactions with others. Programs can focus on building community, increasing awareness of the value of the arts, developing creativity, or addressing common issues within a community.
What could this strategy improve?
Expected Benefits
Our evidence rating is based on the likelihood of achieving these outcomes:
- Improved social networks
- Increased social capital
- Increased social cohesion
- Increased community involvement
Potential Benefits
Our evidence rating is not based on these outcomes, but these benefits may also be possible:
- Improved mental health
- Reduced stigma
- Increased self-confidence
What does the research say about effectiveness?
Community arts programs are a suggested strategy to increase social support1, 2, 3 and develop social capital and social cohesion throughout communities1, 4, 5, 6, 7. Such programs may also promote community involvement4, 5, 7, 8. Available evidence suggests community arts programs and creative activities can improve mental health for participants2, 9, 10, including youth at risk of delinquency11. However, additional evidence is needed to confirm effects.
UK- and Canada-based studies demonstrate that group-based community visual arts and music programs may improve physical and mental health outcomes and increase community connections among older adults10, 12, 13. A study of Porch Light, a Philadelphia-based mural art project, suggests that residents are more likely to perceive high levels of neighborhood cohesion and trust, and less likely to stigmatize individuals with mental illness in neighborhoods with participatory art projects6.
Creative extracurricular activities such as music, dance, drama, and visual arts, frequently part of community arts programs, can improve self-confidence and self-esteem, and increase positive behaviors among participating children and adolescents14. New York City-based studies suggest that neighborhoods with low incomes and high levels of racial diversity can experience the greatest social well-being and health benefits from arts programs and cultural resources; however, neighborhoods with low incomes have relatively fewer resources available than those with higher incomes15, 16.
A case study suggests community arts activities can be incorporated in reentry services to improve the well-being of individuals formerly incarcerated17. Arts-based programming in the public safety sector can promote empathy, understanding, and well-being, and increase quality of place in communities; such community arts programming can be designed to support prevention efforts (e.g., engaging law enforcement and community members in community theatre) or rehabilitation and reintegration efforts (e.g., horticultural programs in correctional facilities and fine arts career training for people formerly incarcerated)18.
How could this strategy advance health equity? This strategy is rated potential to decrease disparities: suggested by expert opinion.
Community arts programs have the potential to decrease disparities in social cohesion, social capital, and cultural assets between communities with high and low incomes28, 29, 30. Experts recommend community-based arts and cultural efforts to enhance social cohesion, which is linked to equitable community health and well-being28. Promoting arts and culture can increase social cohesion and cultural assets for communities of color and with low incomes30 and enhance social capital in communities, especially supporting underserved groups and groups experiencing health disparities29.
A New York City-based study shows that among neighborhoods with low incomes, neighborhood cultural resources (e.g., nonprofit cultural providers, resident artists, and cultural participants) are associated with lower incidence of child abuse and neglect, lower rates of obesity and serious crime, and higher test scores in English and math31.
What is the relevant historical background?
Throughout U.S. history, discriminatory housing, lending, and exclusionary zoning policies entrenched racial residential segregation and concentrated poverty32, 33. The built environment in under-resourced communities is a significant contributor to health inequities for people of color with low incomes34, 35, 36. Discrimination against marginalized groups increases exposure to traumatic experiences (e.g., hate crimes and police profiling), and residents in communities that are racially and/or economically segregated may be at higher risk of exposure to neighborhood violence and resulting traumatic loss, which can contribute to negative physical and mental health outcomes37. Marginalized groups may also experience historical trauma: the collective, transgenerational emotional and psychological injury of specific ethnic, racial, or cultural groups, and their descendants, who have experienced major events of oppression such as forced displacement or slavery38.
Arts programming can help communities whose history and culture have been suppressed to preserve their cultural heritage; arts education can help strengthen community and civic engagement39. However, arts programs are not equally accessible and available across racial and ethnic groups, and urban and rural areas. Childhood arts education opportunities, in and out of school, fell by 40-50% for Hispanic and Black students between 1982-2008, while white students did not experience a reduction40. According to a 2019 national report, students at schools whose majority are Black, Hispanic, or Native American are less likely to have access to arts education than their peers at schools whose majority are white41. Arts and cultural organizations in rural areas are more likely to face challenges in running programs due to difficulty in hiring qualified workers and lower staff wages than urban organizations42. Challenges for rural arts education include lack of economic opportunity, physical distance, recruitment and retention of teachers, lack of funding, and policies that do not support arts education43.
Equity Considerations
- What infrastructure, services, resources, or tools are needed to help your local community arts programs increase participation and thrive?
- How can your community arts programs support local needs and interests? What outreach efforts could raise awareness about opportunities to engage with local culture and increase neighborhood connections?
- How is your community engaging intended participants, such as residents of color, those with low incomes, or older residents, in the planning and development of community arts programs and events for the community? Are community arts program staff trained in diversity, equity, and inclusion?
Implementation Examples
Several states have Arts Boards that promote art in the community programs19. Examples of community art programs include P.S. ARTS in California20, Free City Mural Festival in Flint, Michigan21, Mill Hill Arts Village activities in Macon, Georgia22, and Groundswell in New York City23. The Woodland Indian Arts Initiative in Wisconsin24 and the Native Arts Initiative25 are examples of efforts to support traditional arts and cultural assets in Native American communities.
Project HEAL (Health. Equity. Art. Learning.) is a cultural blueprint for both urban and rural communities that is designed to activate the potential of community arts and cultural assets to support health, well-being, capacity and engagement in communities7. Americans for the Arts provides toolkits26 and a framework27 that promotes appreciation of creative work among artists, funders, and community members at the intersection of participatory arts and civic engagement, community development, and justice.
Implementation Resources
‡ Resources with a focus on equity.
NEA - National Endowment for the Arts (NEA).
Animating Democracy - Animating Democracy. A program of Americans for the Arts: Fostering civic engagement through arts and culture.
Americans for the Arts-Toolkits - Americans for the Arts. (n.d.). Toolkits. Retrieved September 8, 2025.
Art of the Rural‡ - Art of the Rural. (n.d.). Change the narrative and bridge divides. Retrieved September 9, 2025.
Footnotes
* Journal subscription may be required for access.
1 NEA-Strategic plan 2014 - National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). Art works for America: Strategic plan, FY 2014-2018. Washington, D.C.: National Endowment for the Arts (NEA); 2014.
2 Kelaher 2013 - Kelaher M, Dunt D, Berman N, Curry S, Joubert L, Johnson V. Evaluating the health impacts of participation in Australian community arts groups. Health Promotion International. 2013: Epub ahead of print.
3 Stuckey 2010 - Stuckey HL, Nobel J. The connection between art, healing, and public health: A review of current literature. American Journal of Public Health. 2010;100(2):254-63.
4 Lewis 2013a - Lewis, F. (2013). Participatory art-making and civic engagement. Animating Democracy. A Working Guide to the Landscape of Arts for Change. Americans for the Arts.
5 Jones 2010 - Jones PM. Developing social capital: A role for music education and community music in fostering civic engagement and intercultural understanding. International Journal of Community Music. 2010;3(2):291-302.
6 Tebes 2015 - Tebes JK, Matlin SL, Hunter B, et al. Porch Light Program: Final evaluation report. The Consultation Center at Yale. Yale School of Medicine; 2015.
7 Project HEAL-Edmonds 2017 - Edmonds T, Persad P, Wendel M. Project HEAL: Health impact assessment. IDEAS xLab, Louisville Department of Public Health and Wellness, Commonwealth Institute of Kentucky. 2017.
8 Chung 2009 - Chung B, Jones L, Jones A, et al. Using community arts events to enhance collective efficacy and community engagement to address depression in an African American community. American Journal of Public Health. 2009;99(2):237-244.
9 Leckey 2011 - Leckey J. The therapeutic effectiveness of creative activities on mental well-being: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. 2011;18(6):501-509.
10 Beauchet 2020 - Beauchet O, Bastien T, Mittelman M, Hayashi Y, Hau Yan Ho A. Participatory art-based activity, community-dwelling older adults and changes in health condition: Results from a pre–post intervention, single-arm, prospective and longitudinal study. Maturitas. 2020;134:8-14.
11 Rapp-Paglicci 2011 - Rapp-Paglicci L, Stewart C, Rowe W, Miller JM. Addressing the Hispanic delinquency and mental health relationship through cultural arts programming: A research note from the prodigy evaluation. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice. 2011;27(1):110-21.
12 Hallam 2012 - Hallam S, Creech A, Varvarigou M, McQueen H. Perceived benefits of active engagement with making music in community settings. International Journal of Community Music. 2012;5(2):115-174.
13 Phinney 2014 - Phinney A, Moody EM, Small JA. The effect of a community-engaged arts program on older adults' well-being. Canadian Journal on Aging. 2014;33(3):336-345.
14 Bungay 2013 - Bungay H, Vella-Burrows T. The effects of participating in creative activities on the health and well-being of children and young people: A rapid review of the literature. Perspectives in Public Health. 2013;133(1):44-52.
15 SIAP-Stern 2017 - Stern MJ, Seifert SC. The social wellbeing of New York City's neighborhoods: The contribution of culture and the arts. University of Pennsylvania Social Impact of the Arts Project (SIAP). 2017.
16 Foster 2016 - Foster N, Grodach C, Murdoch J. Neighborhood diversity, economic health, and the role of the arts. Journal of Urban Affairs. 2016;38(5):623-642.
17 Urban-Esthappan 2018 - Esthappan S. Art beyond bars: A case study of the People’s Paper Co-Op in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Urban Institute; 2018.
18 Urban-Ross 2016 - Ross C. Examining the ways arts and culture intersect with public safety: Identifying current practice and opportunities for further inquiry. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute; 2016.
19 NASAA - National Assembly of State Arts Agencies (NASAA). State arts agency directory.
20 PS ARTS - P.S. ARTS. (n.d.). Advancing equity and opportunity for children and youth by providing arts education. Retrieved September 5, 2025.
21 Flint Mural - Flint Public Art Project. (2025). Free City Mural Festival. Retrieved September 8, 2025.
22 Macon Arts - Macon Arts Alliance. (n.d.). Mill Hill: East Macon Arts Village. Retrieved September 8, 2025.
23 Groundswell - Goundswell. Art for change.
24 WAB-Woodland - Wisconsin Arts Board (WAB). Woodland Indian Arts Initiative.
25 NAI - First Nations Development Institute. Native Arts Initiative (NAI).
26 Americans for the Arts-Toolkits - Americans for the Arts. (n.d.). Toolkits. Retrieved September 8, 2025.
27 AD-Aesthetic perspectives - Animating Democracy (AD). (2017). Aesthetic perspectives: Attributes of excellence in arts for change.
28 Ergh 2021 - Ergh, R., Martin, B., Kidd S. L., & Nicodemus, A. G. (2021). WE-making: How arts & culture unite people to work toward community well-being. Metris Arts Consulting. Retrieved September 8, 2025.
29 CC-Social capital - Community Commons (CC.) (n.d.). Introduction to social capital. Retrieved September 8, 2025.
30 PolicyLink-Rose 2017 - Rose K, Daniel MH, Liu J. Creating change through arts, culture, and equitable development: A policy and practice primer. PolicyLink; 2017.
31 SIAP RF 2017 - University of Pennsylvania Social Impact of the Arts Project (SIAP) and Reinvestment Fund. (February 2017). Culture and social wellbeing in New York City: Highlights of a two-year research project. Culture and Social Wellbeing in New York City. Retrieved September 8, 2025.
32 Zdenek 2017 - Zdenek RO, Walsh D. Navigating community development: Harnessing comparative advantages to create strategic partnerships. Chapter: The background and history of community development organizations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan; 2017.
33 Kaplan 2007 - Kaplan J, Valls A. Housing discrimination as a basis for Black reparations. Public Affairs Quarterly. 2007;21(3):255-273.
34 Prochnow 2022 - Prochnow T, Valdez D, Curran LS, et al. Multifaceted scoping review of Black/African American transportation and land use expert recommendations on activity-friendly routes to everyday destinations. Health Promotion Practice. 2022.
35 McAndrews 2022 - McAndrews C, Schneider RJ, Yang Y, et al. Toward a gender-inclusive Complete Streets movement. Journal of Planning Literature. 2022;38(1):3-18.
36 Brookings-Semmelroth 2020 - Semmelroth L. How Wilmington, Del. is revitalizing vacant land to rebuild community trust. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution; 2020.
37 Stolbach 2017 - Stolbach, B. C., & Anam, S. (2017). Racial and ethnic health disparities and trauma-informed care for children exposed to community violence. Pediatric Annals, 46(10).
38 AAP-Duffee 2021 - Duffee, J., Szilagyi, M., Forkey, H., & Kelly, E. T. (2021). Trauma-informed care in child health systems. Pediatrics, 148(2), e2021052579.
39 AAAS-Arts education 2021 - American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAAS). (2021). Art for life’s sake: The case for arts education. Retrieved September 9, 2025.
40 NORC-Rabkin 2011 - Rabkin, N. & Hedberg, E. C. (2011). Arts education in America: What the declines mean for arts participation. NORC at the University of Chicago. Retrieved September 9, 2025.
41 AEDP-Morrison 2022 - Morrison, R. B., McCormick, P., Shepherd, J. L., Cirillo, P. (2022). National arts education status report 2019. Arts Education Data Project, Quadrant Research, State Education Agency Directors of Arts Education (AEDP). Retrieved September 9, 2025.
42 NEA-Rural arts 2017 - National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). (2017). Arts data profile: Rural arts, design, and innovation. Retrieved September 9, 2025.
43 MCLA-Donovan 2017 - Donovan, L. & Brown, M. (2017, May). Leveraging change: Increasing access to arts education in rural areas. Working Paper. Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts (MCLA). Retrieved September 9, 2025.
To see all strategies:
countyhealthrankings.org/whatworks