Mapping Arts and Health
Activity in Ireland in 20191

Contents
Executive Summary ........................... 3

3.1.2 Respondent organisations .. 9

1. Introduction ................................. 3

3.2 Programmes ............................. 9

2. Methodology ............................... 3

3.2.1 Programme types ............... 9

3. Findings ...................................... 3

3.2.2 Artforms ............................ 10

3.1 Respondents.......................... 3

3.2.3 Healthcare contexts .......... 11

3.2 Programme types, artforms
and contexts ................................ 3

3.2.4 Locations .......................... 12

3.3 Locations ............................... 3

3.2.6 Partners ............................ 15

3.4 Personnel and partners ......... 3

3.2.7 Funders ............................ 16

3.5 Funders ................................. 4

3.2.8 Lifespan ............................ 18

3.6 Lifespan ................................. 4

3.2.9 Beneficiaries ..................... 20

3.7 Beneficiaries, budgets andresearch ....................................... 4

3.3 Budgets .................................. 21

3.2.5 Personnel involvement ..... 14

3.4 Research and policy ............... 21

3.8 Comparison to previous
mapping report from 2001 ........... 4

3.5 Comparison to previous mapping
report ............................................ 21

1 Introduction ..................................... 5

3.5.1 Number of programmes ... 21

1.1 Background and context ........... 5

3.5.2 Funders ............................ 22

1.2 Aims and objectives .................. 5

3.5.3 Artforms ............................ 22

1.3 Definitions and scope ................ 6

3.5.4 Contexts ........................... 22

1.3.1 Definitions ........................... 6

3.5.5 Locations .......................... 22

1.3.2 Boundaries of the report ..... 6

3.5.6 Personnel ......................... 22

2 Methodology .................................... 7

3.5.7 Lifespan ............................ 22

2.1 Online survey ............................ 7

3.5.8 Beneficiaries ..................... 22

2.1.1 Piloting ................................ 7

3.5.9 Budgets ............................ 23

2.2 Identification of respondents ..... 7

4 Reflections .................................... 24

2.3 Timeline .................................... 7

5 Bibliography ................................ 266

2.4 Removal of duplicates ............... 7

6 Appendices ................................. 277

3 Findings........................................... 8

6.1 Appendix One: Arts and Health
Mapping Group ........................... 277

3.1 Respondents ............................. 8
3.1.1 Respondent roles ................ 8

6.2 Appendix Two: Survey
Questions ................................... 277

2

Executive Summary
1. Introduction
The goal of this mapping exercise, commissioned by Arts and Health Co-ordinators
Ireland (AHCI), was to measure the level and nature of active service provision in thefield of Arts and Health in the Republic of Ireland in 2019.

2. Methodology
An online survey was chosen as the methodology for the exercise. The survey wascreated in SurveyMonkey and piloted with five professionals working in Arts and
Health. Following amendments, the survey was launched in October 2020 andremained open for six weeks. Potential respondents were identified through anexisting database held by AHCI and an open call via social media and e-zines.

3. Findings
3.1 Respondents
Completed surveys were received from seventy unique respondents, representing 92
Arts and Health programmes across the Republic of Ireland. These programmes
involved 3,854 personnel in total. Arts-based roles (e.g. artists, arts officers and arts
facilitators) were the most commonly reported, accounting for half of all respondents.
Just over one fifth of respondents were linked to a hospital or other healthcareorganisation (21%). This may have been due to the COVID-19 pandemic priorities of
the healthcare sector at the time of the survey.
3.2 Programme types, artforms and contexts
The most common type of programme was collaborative and participatory arts (67%),
while the most popular artform was visual arts (60%). Six out of ten programmes
involved multiple types (61%) and artforms (59%). The maximum number of types andartforms in any one programme was eight and 10, respectively. The highest
percentage of programmes were conducted in day hospitals, day care centres orcommunity health settings (33%). Two thirds of programmes took place in more than
one healthcare context (62%; maximum 8 contexts).
3.3 Locations
Dublin had the highest number of programmes, representing 36% of the total. Cork
and Kildare were the next most popular counties, with 20% and 14% of programmes,
respectively. Every county except Carlow was involved in at least one programme.
Three quarters of programmes involved counties in Leinster (76%). Counties in
Munster were the next highest percentage (43%), followed by Connacht (28%) andthen Ulster (8%). Most programmes (80%) took place in one location only. The
maximum number of locations for any one programme was 14.
3.4 Personnel and partners
In total, 3,854 personnel were engaged in the delivery of 92 programmes.
Approximately equal numbers of artists and healthcare staff were involved (996 and3

989, respectively). Almost all programmes engaged at least one artist (96%) and the
majority of artists were paid (88%). Over half of programmes involved healthcare staff(51%) and Arts managers (58%). The most common programme partners were
healthcare providers (54%), followed by local authority arts offices (42%) and arts
organisations (39%). Two-thirds of programmes had multiple partners (62%;maximum 6 partners), one quarter had one partner (24%) and 14% had no partners.
3.5 Funders
The most frequent funders were local authorities (48%), the Health Service Executive(HSE; 37%) and The Arts Council (32%). Two-thirds of programmes had multiple
funders (70%) and the maximum number of funders for any one programme was ten.
Ten percent of programmes received no funding. Local authorities were also the mostfrequent funder across healthcare contexts (i.e. 9 out of 12 contexts surveyed).
However, it should be noted that the percentage of programmes funded does notreflect the amount of funding given.
3.6 LifespanFour out of every ten programmes lasted between 27 and 52 weeks. The average
duration of programmes was 31 weeks. Over two thirds of programmes were still
active at the time of survey (69%). Two-thirds of longer programmes (i.e. >27 weeks)
had multiple funders (62%). Longer programmes also tended to have more funders
and bigger budgets. That is, all programmes with a budget of €50,000+ had multiple
funders, and most of these lasted 27+ weeks (i.e. 9 out of 10 programmes).
3.7 Beneficiaries, budgets and researchTwo-thirds of programmes (70%) reported multiple beneficiaries. The most common
beneficiary was health service users (85%), followed by family, friends and carers(60%) and then healthcare staff (54%). Just over one in ten programmes (13%) had
no dedicated budget. The most common budget category was €1,001-€10,000 (27%of programmes). Six percent of programmes had budgets of €100,001-€300,000, while
2% had budgets of €300,000 or more. Seventy percent of programmes also received
in-kind contributions. Two-thirds of programmes were evaluated (63%). Most
programmes had not published any research or policy documents in 2019 (74%).
3.8 Comparison to previous mapping report from 2001
Findings indicate that there has been a six-fold increase in the provision of Arts and
Health initiatives from the previous mapping period (1987-2001) to 2019. Visual arts
continues to be the most frequent artform (60% of programmes), while local authorities
have replaced the HSE as the most frequent programme funder. Compared to theprevious period, a higher percentage of programmes in 2019 had multiple contexts(11% vs. 65%), locations (4% vs. 20%) and beneficiaries (21% vs. 70%). Involvementof arts personnel has remained stable (>97%), while involvement of healthcare staff
appeared to have decreased (83% to 51%). The average duration of programmes
increased from 6-10 weeks to 31 weeks. Available funding has also increased. Just
3% of budgets surveyed between 1987 and 2001 were above €55,000, compared to
15% of budgets above €50,000 in 2019.
4

1

Introduction

1.1 Background and context
Arts and Health has evolved considerably over the past 30 years in Ireland. Today,arts experiences are integrated into a variety of healthcare contexts, from hospitals
and day care centres, to community settings and health promotion1. The benefits ofsuch experiences to healthcare users, staff and the public are widely recognised.
These can include stress reduction, improved health and well-being outcomes,
development of creativity and enhanced sense of community1.
Arts and Health Co-ordinators Ireland2 (AHCI) is a voluntary network of professionals
who manage Arts and Health initiatives in the Republic of Ireland. Formed in 2003,
AHCI aims to build capacity within Arts in Health in Ireland and support its membersin their work.
AHCI engaged researcher Dr. Francesca Farina in March 2020 to undertake amapping exercise of current Arts and Health activities in the Republic of Ireland. The
rationale for this exercise was to support AHCI in:
1. Influencing the policy and funding environment for Arts and Health practice.
2. Advocating at local and national levels for the development of practice.

1.2 Aims and objectives
The aim of this mapping exercise was to measure the level and nature of active service
provision in the field of Arts and Health in the Republic of Ireland in 2019.
Specific objectives were to:
1. Determine the number of Arts and Health programmes that occurred andcategorise them with respect to:a. Programme typeb. Artforms usedc. Healthcare contexts
d. Geographical locatione. Personnel

f. Partners
g. Funders
h. Lifespani. Beneficiaries
j. Budget.

2. Measure the growth (or otherwise) of the sector since the previous mapping
exercise completed by Ruairí Ó Cuív and Leargas Consulting in 20015.
3. Identify the number of programmes that published research and policy
documents on their work.

5

1.3 Definitions and scope
1.3.1 Definitions
For the purposes of this mapping exercise, Arts and Health was defined as:‘The generic term that embraces a range of arts practices occurring primarily inhealthcare settings, which brings together the skills and priorities of both artsand health professionals.’
The Arts Council Arts and Health Policy and Strategy, 20103
Arts and Health is distinct from Arts therapies and Arts and Disability, which aredefined below.
Arts Therapies: the use of arts to improve mental health and well-being4. Contrary toArts and Health, the primary goal of Arts Therapies is clinical3.
Arts and Disability: the use of arts for the specific purpose of engaging and involving
people with disabilities. Similar to Arts and Health, Arts and Disability incorporates
both artistic and health aims3,5.
Other Arts practices: Arts and Health can also overlap with a number of other related
practices. For example, individual artists may be involved in arts activities that takeplace within healthcare contexts or community settings, which may benefit peoples’
well-being6. Arts and Health activities may also intersect with arts and medical
humanities or arts and science approaches1. Whether these activities are defined as
Arts and Health depends on the degree to which they incorporate the goals of botharts and healthcare6.
1.3.2 Boundaries of the report
The scope of the mapping exercise was such that it was not possible to survey every
healthcare service and arts organisation in Ireland. Therefore, it is possible that there
are additional Arts in Health programmes that were not recorded by the mapping
exercise, and so are not reflected in the report. It is also possible that some activities
were undocumented due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which may have limited
individuals’ ability to engage in the exercise.

6

2

Methodology

The researcher worked with the AHCI Mapping Group (see Appendix 1 formembership) to define the scope of the exercise and methodology. It was decided that
all initiatives would be counted, regardless of scale. Thus, both individual projects andlarger programmes of work are included. For ease of reporting, all initiatives arereferred to as programmes below and in the subsequent sections. Members of the
AHCI Mapping Group sign-posted the researcher to existing research. It was decided
that an online survey would be the most efficient means of data collection.

2.1 Online survey
An online survey was created in SurveyMonkey, based on discussions with the
Mapping Group and previous mapping work5. The survey was refined through further
consultation with the Mapping Group. During these conversations, it was decided thatthe mapping exercise would focus on programmes carried out in 2019 only.
2.1.1 Piloting
Five individuals working in Arts and Health were identified to test the survey. Testers
were asked to provide feedback on the clarity and relevance of questions, ease ofcompleting the survey and any additional questions they felt should be included.
Based on testers’ feedback, and following further consultation with the Mapping
Group, the survey was amended (see Appendix 2 for the finalised survey).

2.2 Identification of respondents
Respondents were identified through an existing database of individuals working in
the Arts and Health sector held by AHCI. This included:
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•

AHCI members
Arts organisations
Local Authority Arts Officers
Cultural institutions

Social prescribing programmes
Community health organisations
Acute hospitals
E-zines.

The survey link was also shared online through social media channels (e.g. Twitter).
The AHCI Mapping Group contacted key respondents directly to encourage them tocomplete the survey.

2.3 Timeline
Initially, data collection was due to take place during the summer of 2020. However,
due to the COVID-19 pandemic, release of the call out for information was postponed
until the autumn. The survey was opened in October 2020 and closed six weeks later.

2.4 Removal of duplicates
Duplicate respondents and programmes were removed from the data before analysis.
7

3

Findings

3.1 Respondents
Completed surveys were received from seventy unique respondents, representing 92
Arts and Health programmes across the Republic of Ireland. These programmes
involved 3,854 personnel in total (discussed further in Section 3.2).
3.1.1 Respondent roles
Table 1 shows the different roles held by the respondents. Arts-based roles were themost commonly reported, accounting for half of all respondents. These included
individual artists, arts officers, art facilitators, art teachers, curators, musicians and art
therapists. By comparison, only 7% of respondents held the role of Arts and Healthco-ordinator. Just over one fifth of respondents were Founders or Directors of anorganisation (21%), while one in ten respondents (10%) were programme managers.
The remaining 9% was evenly split between healthcare roles (e.g. nurses, medical
scientists), community workers, education officers, marketing and development
managers, researchers and students.
Table 1: Number and percentage of respondent roles
Role
Number
Percentage
Founder / Director
17
21%
Artist12
15%
Arts facilitator
11
13%
Arts officer
10
12%Programme manager
8
10%
Arts and Health co-ordinator
6
7%
Curator4
5%
Art therapist
22%
Education officer22%Musician
2
2%
Nurse
2
2%
Art teacher
11%Community worker
11%Marketing and Development manager
1
1%
Medical scientist
11%Researcher
11%Student
1
1%
Total
82
100%
Note: The total number of roles, 82, is greater than the total number of respondents,
70, as some respondents indicated more than one role. Percentages are rounded to
the nearest number and so may not total to 100%.

8

3.1.2 Respondent organisations
Table 2 shows the range of organisations respondents were affiliated with. Just over
one fifth of respondents were linked to a hospital or other healthcare organisation(21%). Fourteen percent of respondents were affiliated to arts-based settings,
including arts centres and services, music groups and theatre groups. Local
Authorities were named on 13% of programmes, while non-governmentalorganisations were named on 11%. Fewer than one in ten programmes wereassociated with Arts and Health centres (6%), cultural and education centres (8%),
community health groups (4%) or festivals (1%). The remaining one fifth of
respondents reported having no affiliation. These respondents included independent
artists and freelance community workers.
Table 2: Number and percentage of respondent organisations
Organisation
Number
Percentage
Hospital / healthcare organisations
15
21%
None
14
20%
County council
913%
Non-governmental organisations
8
11%
Cultural institution
5
7%
Arts & Health centre
4
6%Arts service
4
6%
Arts centre
3
4%Community health group
3
4%
Theatre group2
3%
Education centre
1
1%
Festival
1
1%Music group
1
1%
Total
70
100%
Note: Percentages are rounded to the nearest number and so may not total 100%.

3.2 Programmes
Fifty-eight respondents (83%) were involved in one Arts and Health programme in
2019. The remaining 12 respondents (17%) were involved in more than one
programme. The numbers of respondents reporting more than one programme wereas follows: two programmes (six people, 9%), three programmes (four people, 6%),four programmes (one person, 1%) and six programmes (one person, 1%). No
respondents listed five programmes. Due to multiple programmes being reported per
respondent, the total number of unique programmes was 92.
3.2.1 Programme types
Figure 1 illustrates the percentage of programme types identified. The largest category
was collaborative and participatory arts, which accounted for two thirds of programmes(67%). Approximately one third of programmes involved either performance (38%) or
residency (32%), while one quarter of programmes involved an exhibition (27%) or an9educational element (24%). Only 16% of programmes incorporated Arts and Healthresearch. One in ten programmes involved either a festival (11%) or public art
commission (10%). The remaining 12% of programmes involved types not listed in thesurvey. These included community events, conferences and workshops, strategicplanning, alternative research, storytelling, book gifting and art therapy.
Sixty-one percent of programmes involved multiple types; the remaining 39% had one
type only. The maximum number of types in any one programme was eight.
Percentage of programme types
Collaborative and participatory arts

67%

Performance

38%

Residency

32%

Exhibition

27%

Training, education and CPD

24%

Arts and Health research

16%

Other

12%

Festival

11%

Public art commission

10%

Figure 1: Programme types in each category expressed as a percentage of thetotal number.
Note: CPD = Continuing Professional Development.
3.2.2 Artforms
Figure 2 illustrates the percentage of artforms identified across programmes. The twomost common artforms were visual arts (60%) and music (52%). Approximately one
fifth of programmes involved literature and creative writing (23%) or film (20%). Slightly
fewer programmes involved dance (18%), theatre (17%), craft (16%) or traditional arts
(14%), while one in ten programmes incorporated design (11%). The least common
artforms were architecture and circus, street art and spectacle, representing 5% ofprogrammes each. The remaining 9% of programmes involved artforms not listed in
the survey. These included educational and environmental arts, animation and digitalart, photography and storytelling.
Fifty-nine percent of programmes included multiple artforms; the remaining 41%
included one artform only. The maximum number of artforms incorporated in any one
programme was ten.

10Percentage of programme artforms
Visual Arts

60%

Music (including Opera)

52%

Literature / Creative writing

23%

Film

20%

Dance

18%

Theatre / Drama

17%

Craft

16%

Traditional Arts

14%

Design

11%

Other

9%

Circus, street art and spectacle

5%

Architecture

5%

Figure 2: Programme artforms expressed as a percentage of the total number.
3.2.3 Contexts
Figure 3 illustrates the spread of programme healthcare contexts. One third of all
programmes (33%) were carried out in day hospitals, day care centres or services, orcommunity health settings. Approximately one quarter of programmes were conductedin acute hospitals (28%), residential care (26%), well-being and health promotion(24%) or training and education settings (24%). One in five programmes wereconducted in community-based support organisations for people with chronic illness
and carers. Mental health and paediatric care settings also represented a sizeable
percentage of programmes, at 18% and 15%, respectively. Less than one in ten
programmes took place in rehabilitation and respite care, primary care, maternity or
palliative care settings.
Seventeen percent of programmes also involved contexts other than those listed in
the survey. These included nursing units, intensive care units, child sexual abuse units
and outpatient departments, as well as charities (i.e. disability and dementia) (6% in
total). Also included were arts-based settings such as galleries, community halls andfestivals (10%). One percent of programmes took place online via Zoom. Two-thirds
of programmes (63%) took place in multiple contexts. One-third took place in one
context only. The maximum number of contexts represented in any one programme
was eight.
We also investigated the percentage of Arts managers (paid or un-paid) acrossprogramme contexts (see Table 3). Acute hospitals had the highest percentage of Arts
managers (32%).

11

Table 3: Percentage of programmes with an Arts manager across contexts
Context
Percentage
Acute Hospitals
32%
Well-being initiatives / Health promotion28%
Day hospitals / Day care centres or services / Community Health28%
settings
Training and education
26%
Community based support organisations for people with chronic
25%
illness and carers
Mental health settings
19%
Paediatric care
17%
Residential care
17%
Primary care
8%
Maternity hospitals
6%
Rehabilitation and respite care
6%
Hospices / palliative care
2%Note: Percentages are based on the contexts reported for each programme, not therole of the respondents.
3.2.4 Locations
Figure 4 shows the geographical spread of programmes. Dublin had the largest
number of programmes, representing 36% of the overall total. Cork and Kildare were
the next most popular counties, with 20% and 14% of programmes, respectively. Everycounty except Carlow had at least one programme. Three quarters of programmes
involved counties in Leinster (76%). Counties in Munster were the next highest
percentage (43%), followed by Connacht (28%) and then Ulster (8%). The majority of
programmes (80%) took place in one location only. The remaining 20% took place in
two or more locations (range = 2-14 counties). Only one programme was carried out
nationally; this was the Waterford Healing Arts Trust (WHAT) National Arts & HealthSupport Work.

12

Percentage of programme contexts
33%

Day hospitals / Community Health settings*
28%

Acute hospitals
26%

Residential care
Well-being initiatives / Health promotion

24%

Training and education

24%
20%

Community based support organisations**

18%

Mental Health settings

17%

Other
15%

Paediatric Care
7%

Rehabilitation and respite care

5%

Primary Care
Maternity hospitals

4%

Hospices / palliative care

4%

Figure 3: Percentage of contexts represented across programmes.
Note: *Day hospitals / Community Health settings included day care centres and services. **Community based support organisations
were specific to people with chronic illness and carers. One respondent did not provide a context.

13

Figure 4: Percentage of programmes according to geographical location.
Counties are colour coded according to the percentage of programmes.
3.2.5 Personnel involvement
Table 4 highlights the various categories of personnel involved in programmes. In total,
3,854 personnel were engaged in the delivery of 92 programmes. The number ofartists and healthcare staff was approximately equal (996 and 989, respectively).
14

In general, the number of personnel in each category varied considerably, from zeroin some programmes to 700 in others. Almost all programmes involved at least one
artist (96%), most of whom were paid (88%). Over half of all programmes included
healthcare staff (51%) and Arts managers (58%). Volunteers were involved in one fifthof programmes (22%). One quarter of programmes involved students or people oncommunity employment (CE) schemes (25%). Sixteen percent of programmes
involved other personnel not listed. These included programme managers, musicians,
architects, engineers and administrators.
Table 4: Personnel involved in programmes.
Number of Number ofCategory
personnel programmes Percentage Average Range
Paid artists
609
81
88%
7
0-100
Un-paid artists
387
16
17%
4
0-300
Healthcare staff 989
47
51%
11
0-300
Paid arts
managers
79
49
53%
1
0-8
Un-paid arts
managers
12
5
5%
0
0-8
Volunteers
905
20
22%
2
0-40
Students
705
16
17%
8
0-600
People on CE
schemes
12
7
8%
0
0-5
Other
156
15
16%
10
0-700
Note: The total number of personnel, 3,854, is greater than the total number ofprogrammes, 92, as most programmes had input from more than one source.
Percentages are expressed out of the total number of programmes. CE = Community
employment.
3.2.6 Partners
Figure 5 illustrates the percentage of partners across programmes. The most common
partners were healthcare providers, accounting for over half of all partnerships (54%).
Partnerships with arts organisations and local authority arts offices were slightly lesscommon at 39% and 42%, respectively. However, it should be noted that half of all
respondents held arts-based roles; thus, the percentage of arts-based partners may
have been lower simply because respondents were themselves working in these roles(and so were not listing arts-based organisations as partners).
One in four programmes partnered with community organisations (27%). Partnerships
with educational institutions and patient advocacy groups were less common. The
remaining 18% was comprised of funders not listed in the survey. These included a
range of sources, including festivals, galleries, libraries, charities, the National Lottery,education services and non-governmental organisations. Two-thirds of programmes(62%) had multiple partners. One quarter (24%) had one partner and 14% had no
partners. The maximum number of partners in any one programme was six.

15

Table 5 shows the most frequent partners across programme contexts. Healthcare
providers were the dominant partner (i.e. 12 out of 12 contexts).
Percentage of programme partners
54%

Healthcare providers
42%

Local authority arts office39%

Arts organisation(s)27%Community organisation(s)
Other

18%

Educational institution

17%
15%

No partners / co-organisers
Patient advocacy group(s)9%Figure 5: Percentage of partners across programmes.
Table 5: Most frequent partners across programme contexts.
Context
Most frequent partner(s)Paediatric care
Healthcare providers
Local authority arts office / Healthcare
Maternity hospitals
providers / Arts organisation(s) /Educational institution
Hospices / palliative care
Healthcare providers
Community based support
Healthcare providers
organisations
Day hospitals / Community
Healthcare providers
Health settings
Mental health settings
Healthcare providers
Well-being initiatives /Local authority arts office / Healthcare
Health promotion
providersPrimary care
Healthcare providers
Training and education
Acute Hospitals
Residential care
Rehabilitation and respite
care

Healthcare providers
Local authority arts office / Healthcare
providers
Local authority arts office / Healthcare
providers
Healthcare providers / Community
organisations / Patient advocacy
group(s)Percentage
79%
75% (all)
75%
72%
70%
65%
64% (both)60%
59%
54% (both)
54% (both)
50% (all)

3.2.7 Funders
Figure 6 shows the various funding sources available to programmes. In considering
these figures, it is important to note that they do not provide information about how
16much each funding body contributed. Rather, they reflect the percentage of overall
programmes that were funded.
Local authorities funded nearly half of all programmes (48%). The next most frequent
funders were the Health Service Executive (HSE) and the Arts Council, which funded
approximately one third of programmes each (37% and 32%, respectively). One infour programmes were funded by sponsorship and philanthropy (24%). The
percentage of programmes funded by private fundraising was lower at 15%. Creative
Ireland funded one in five programmes, while Arts and healthcare organisations
funded 17% and 16% of programmes, respectively. Seven percent of programmes
were funded by the National Lottery. One quarter of programmes listed additional
funding sources (24%). These included cultural and educational institutions, local
development companies and festivals. One in ten programmes received no funding.
For programmes with funding, two-thirds (70%) had multiple funders, while one-third(30%) had one funder. The maximum number of funders for any one programme wasten.
Percentage of programme funders
Local authority
Health Service Executive
Arts council
Sponsorship / philanthropy
Other
Creative Ireland
Arts organisation(s)Healthcare institution(s)Private fund-raising
No funders
Voluntary group(s)National Lottery

48%
37%
32%
24%
24%
20%
17%
16%
15%
10%
10%
7%

Figure 6: Percentage of programmes funded by various sources.
Note: Percentages are not representative of how much money each fundercontributed.
Table 6 shows the most frequent funders of programmes with one funder only. Of
these, the highest percentage of programmes were funded by the HSE (22%) followed
by local authorities (19%), while arts organisations funded approximately one in ten
programmes (11%).
The most frequent funders across programme contexts were also investigated (seeTable 7). Local authorities funded the most contexts (i.e. 9 out of 12), whereas The
Arts Council was not a dominant funder in any context. However, it is important to notethat these figures do not reflect the amount of funding given; therefore, we cannot
conclude that local authorities are the largest funder, but rather, that their funding is
the most spread across contexts.

17

Table 6: Most frequent funders for programmes with one funder only.
Funder
Percentage
HSE
22%
Local authority
19%
Other (please specify)
19%
Arts organisation(s)11%Healthcare organisation(s)7%Sponsorship / philanthropy
7%
The Arts Council
4%
Creative Ireland
4%
Voluntary group(s)4%The National Lottery
4%
Private fund-raising e.g. fundraising events0%
Note: Percentages do not take into account the total amount of funding contributed byeach funder.
Table 7: Most frequent funders across programme contexts.
Context
Most frequent funder(s)Percentage
Local authority / HSE /Maternity hospitals
75% (all)Sponsorship and philanthropy
Well-being initiatives / Health
Local authority
73%
promotion
Paediatric careSponsorship and philanthropy
71%
Community based support
Local authority
66%
organisations
Day hospitals / Community Health
Local authority
63%
settings
Residential care
Local authority
63%
Primary care
Local authority / HSE
60% (both)
Mental health settings
HSE
59%
Training and education
Local authority
59%
Acute Hospitals
Local authority
57%
Sponsorship and philanthropy /Hospices / palliative care
50% (both)
Private fund-raising
Local authority / Voluntary
Rehabilitation and respite care
33% (all)group(s) / Private fund-raising
Note: Percentages do not take into account the total amount of funding contributed byeach funder.
3.2.8 LifespanFigure 7 illustrates the duration of programmes as a percentage of the total number ofprogrammes. Two thirds of programmes took place over 6 weeks or more (64%). The
largest duration category was 27 to 51 weeks, which represented four out of every ten
programmes. One in four programmes lasted between 6 and 26 weeks (24%). Only
8% of programmes lasted less than five weeks. The average duration of programmes
was 31 weeks.
18Lifespan of programmes
One day2%

1<3 days0%

4<7 days

1%

1<5 weeks5%

6<10 weeks

7%

11<26 weeks

17%

27<52 weeks

Continuous
Unknown / unclear

40%
15%

12%

Figure 7: Lifespan of programmes as a percentage of the total number.
Over two thirds of programmes (69%) were still active at the time of survey (October2020). Most of the remaining programmes had finished (29%), with the exception of
2% of programmes whose status was unknown. Thirteen percent of programmes had
been active before 2019. Years active ranged from one to 25.
The relationship between programme longevity and funding was also examined (seeTable 8). Two-thirds of longer programmes (i.e. >27 weeks) had multiple funders(62%). Programmes that ran continuously throughout the year had at least one funder.
Table 8: Relationship between programme lifespan and funders.
LifespanNo funders
One funder
Multiple funders
27-52 weeks
14%
24%
62%
Continuous
0%
60%
40%
Note: Table shows percentage of programmes in each category.
Next, we examined the relationship between programme lifespan, funders andbudgets (see Figure 8). Longer programmes (i.e. >27 weeks) tended to have more
funders and bigger budgets. For example, all programmes with a budget of €50,000+
had multiple funders, and most of these lasted 27+ weeks (i.e. 9 out of 10
programmes).

19

Programmes lasting >27 weeks€300,000+€200,001-€300,000€100,001-€200,000€50,000-€100,000€25,001-€50,000€10,001-€25,000€1,001-€10,000
Less than €1,000

No budget
02

No funders

46
8
Number of programmes
One funder

10

12Multiple funders

Figure 8: Programmes lasting >27 weeks according to budget category andnumber of funders.
3.2.9 Beneficiaries
Figure 9 shows the programme beneficiaries. The majority of programmes listed
health service users as beneficiaries (85%). Family, friends and carers of healthcareusers were listed as beneficiaries in 60% of programmes, while healthcare staff werelisted in just over half (54%). One third of programmes also reported otherbeneficiaries (34%). These included the public, students, teachers, parents and arts
organisations. Two-thirds of programmes (70%) had multiple beneficiaries, while onethird (30%) had one beneficiary.
Percentage of beneficiaries
85%

Health service users
60%

Family / friends / carers

54%

Healthcare staff
34%

Other

Figure 9: Percentage of programme beneficiaries across categories.

203.3 Budgets
Table 9 shows a breakdown of the programme budgets across categories, inclusiveof core costs (i.e. salaries and overheads). Overall budgets varied considerably acrossprogrammes. Just over one in ten programmes (13%) had no dedicated budget. The
highest proportion of programmes had budgets in the €1,001-€10,000 range (27%).
Six percent of programmes had budgets of between €100,001 and €300,000, while
2% of programmes had budgets of €300,000 or more. In-kind contributions were also
common, with 70% percent of respondents stating that the programme received someform of contribution.
Table 9: Programme budget totals and percentages
Budget category
Overall (%)
No budget
7 (13%)
Less than €1,000
5 (9%)€1,001-€10,000
15 (27%)€10,001-€25,000
11 (20%)€25,001-€50,000
10 (18%)€50,000-€100,000
4 (7%)€100,001-€200,000
2 (4%)€200,001-€300,000
1 (2%)€300,000+
1 (2%)
Note: Percentages are rounded to the nearest number and so may not total to 100%.

3.4 Research and policy
Sixty-three percent of programmes were evaluated, while 37% were not. The majorityof respondents had not published any research or policy documents related to theirprogramme in 2019 (74%). Twenty-three respondents (26%) indicated that they did
publish their work. The total number of documents produced was 27. Of these, 18
were published as case studies on the artsandhealth.ie website; four were publishedin academic journals and five were published as online PDFs.

3.5 Comparison to previous mapping report
Ruairí Ó Cuív and Leargas Consulting completed the previous mapping exercise in20015. This report mapped Arts and Health activities that had taken place in the
Republic of Ireland between 1987 and 2001.
3.5.1 Number of programmes reported
The previous mapping exercise identified 150 activities, which took place from 1987
to 20015 (14 years in total). The number of activities varied across years, ranging from
two activities in 1988 to 38 activities in 1998, approximately. The average number ofactivities per annum was 17. By comparison, the current mapping exercise identified
92 programmes in 2019. These averages indicate that there has been a six-foldincrease in the provision of Arts and Health initiatives from 1987-2001 to 2019.

21

3.5.2 Funders
Local authorities replaced the HSE (formerly health boards) as the most frequent
programme funder. The percentage of programmes funded by the HSE decreased
from 50% between 1987 and 2001 to 37% in 2019. In contrast, the percentage ofprogrammes funded by local authorities increased from 29% to 48% across the same
period. The percentage of programmes funded by The Arts Council also increased
from 20% to 32%, while the percentage of programmes funded by arts organisations
remained stable (19% between 1987-2001 vs 17% in 2019).
3.5.3 Artforms
The most frequent artform reported in both exercises was visual arts, accounting forsix out of every ten programmes between 1987 and 2001 (59%) and in 2019 (60%).
The percentage of programmes with a musical element increased from 39% between
1987 and 2001 to 52% in 2019, while those with a drama element decreased from
42% to just 17%.
3.5.4 Contexts
Due to differences in how the data pertaining to contexts was collected, it was notpossible to compare across individual healthcare contexts. However, the overall
percentage of programmes that took place in more than one context increased
substantially from 11% in the period between 1987 and 2001 to 65% in 2019.
3.5.5 Locations
The percentage of programmes that took place across more than one geographicalarea increased from just 4% between 1987 and 2001 to 20% in 2019. Nevertheless,the majority of programmes (80%) still took place in one region only.
3.5.6 Personnel
The percentage of arts personnel involved in programmes remained stable acrossmapping reports; 97% in 2019 compared to 100% between 1987 and 2001. However,the percentage of healthcare staff involved appeared to decrease from 83% (19872001) to just over half (51%; 2019).
3.5.7 LifespanThe average duration of programmes increased from 6-10 weeks in the period
between 1987 and 2001 to 31 weeks in 2019. The percentage of programmes lasting
27 weeks or more also increased from 13% to 40%.
3.5.8 Beneficiaries
Programmes carried out in 2019 tended to have more beneficiaries than those inprevious years. Specifically, 70% of programmes in 2019 reported having multiple
beneficiaries, including health service users, staff, family, friends and carers. By
comparison, only 21% of activities surveyed between 1987 and 2001 reported multiple
beneficiaries.

223.5.9 Budgets
Budgets in the previous report were reported in pounds sterling. For ease ofcomparison, these have been converted to euros here. Approximately one quarter ofactivities (24%) surveyed between 1987 and 2001 had a budget of less than €1,100.
By comparison, only 9% of programmes had a budget of less than €1,000 in 2019.
Conversely, 9% of activities between 1987 and 2001 had a budget of €11,000€55,000, whereas 38% of programmes in 2019 had similar budgets of €10,000€50,000. Just 3% of budgets surveyed between 1987 and 2001 were above €55,000.
In contrast, 15% of budgets in 2019 were above €50,000; half of these (8%) wereabove €100,000 and 2% were above €300,000. Taken together, these results indicatethat the funding available for Arts and Health programmes has increased considerablyfrom 1987-2001 to 2019.

23

4

Reflections

The members of Arts and Health Co-ordinators Ireland (AHCI) have been deliveringarts experiences to health service users in the Republic of Ireland for almost two
decades. As such, we are aware of the diversity of Arts and Health practice in termsof healthcare contexts, artforms, scale, longevity of programmes and governancearrangements. We remain professionally connected to each other by the challenge ofnavigating the healthcare system on behalf of artists and others for the benefit service
users and ensuring that the Arts and Health programmes we lead are delivered to thebest possible standards. This includes ensuring the necessary resources are in place
and the work is aligned with local and national healthcare policy and protocols.
As opposed to a systematic, policy driven approach at national level, Arts and Healthprogrammes in Ireland tend to come about because of the vision of individual
champions and / or the meeting of minds between healthcare and arts stakeholders.
Yet the outcomes of Arts and Health work comfortably chime with the ambition ofnational strategies such as Healthy Ireland. Whilst some aspects of Arts and Healthpractice, such as an arts experience in dementia care, during renal dialysis and cancer
treatments, have gained traction over the years, there are also gaps in provision interms of geography, healthcare contexts and artforms.
AHCI aspires to the provision of access to arts experiences for all health service users
regardless of health status, geography or means. By mapping the level and nature ofcurrent Arts and Health provision, it aims to identify areas of sustained and growing
practice as well as gaps in provision.
The outcomes of this mapping exercise illustrate that those programmes, which havecontinued over sustained periods, had larger budgets and multiple funders andpartners. This is not simply a question of resources. It demonstrates that those
programmes with input from multiple stakeholders are more likely to survive thevagaries of the ever-changing funding landscape.
When the findings of this mapping exercise are compared to those from a similar Artsand Health mapping exercise carried out by Ruairí Ó Cuív and Leargas Consulting in
2001, we find not only a six-fold increase in the provision of Arts and Health initiatives
from the previous period (1987-2001), but also a more complex scene. A higher
percentage of programmes in 2019 involved more contexts, locations andbeneficiaries than in 1987-2001. In short, we see an increased number of programmesdelivered over a longer timeframe, with a wider reach. However, this growth has taken
time and happens where partnerships and programmes are long established. These
examples of local or regional successes highlight the inequalities in provisionnationally.

24

Budgets for Arts and Health programmes have increased since 2001. Local authorities
have replaced the HSE as the most frequent programme funder and we can see how
Arts managers working in healthcare settings, particularly acute settings, have leveredresources from non-healthcare sources for the benefit of service users.
The low level of academic research as part of Arts and Health practice can be seen
as a reflection of both available resources and the culture of the artists and arts
managers who often drive Arts and Health programmes. The case around the benefitsof Arts in Healthcare has been persuasively made through international research andthis is something that Irish practitioners regularly draw upon.
It is hoped that the outcomes of this mapping exercise, which was carried out by Dr.
Francesca Farina on behalf of AHCI, will provide a benchmark for future and ongoing
mapping of the practice and will lead to a more strategic and policy-driven approachto embedding arts into service users’ experience of healthcare in Ireland.
Mary Grehan, Chair of AHCI Mapping Group and Children’s Health Ireland (CHI) Arts
in Health Curator
Justine Foster, Chair of AHCI, and Programme Manager at Uillinn West Cork Arts
CentreClaire Meaney, Director, Waterford Healing Arts Trust (WHAT)
Bernadette Jackson, Chair of the Arts Committee, Naas General Hospital
Ali Baker-Kerrigan, Programme Manager, National Centre for Arts and Health at
Tallaght University Hospital.

25

5

Bibliography

1. The Arts and Health Handbook: A Practical Guide. (2003). the Arts Council.
Source:http://www.artsandhealth.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Thearts_health_handbook-a-practical-guide.pdf.
2. Arts and Health Co-ordinators Ireland website.
https://artsandhealthcoordinatorsireland.wordpress.com/.

(2020).

Source:3. Arts and Health: Policy and Strategy. (2010). The Arts Council. Source:
http://www.artsandhealth.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Arts-CouncilArts_and_health_policy_strategy-2010_2014.pdf.
4. Irish Association of Creative Arts Therapists website. (2020). Source:
https://www.iacat.ie/art-therapy.
5. Why arts and health should not be confused with arts and disability? (2016).
Pádraig Naughton. Source: http://www.artsandhealth.ie/perspectives/why-artshealth-should-not-be-confused-with-arts-disability/.
6. Mapping the Arts in Healthcare Contexts in the Republic of Ireland. (2001).
Ruairi Ó Cuív and Leargas Consulting.

26

6

Appendices6.1 Appendix One: Arts and Health Mapping Group
Mary Grehan, Chair of AHCI Mapping Group and Children’s Health Ireland (CHI) Arts
in Health Curator
Ali Baker-Kerrigan, Programme Manager, National Centre for Arts and Health at
Tallaght University Hospital.
Justine Foster, Chair of AHCI, and Programme Manager at Uillinn West Cork Arts
CentreBernadette Jackson, Chair of the Arts Committee, Naas General Hospital
Claire Meaney, Director, Waterford Healing Arts Trust (WHAT)

6.2 Appendix Two: Survey Questions
Section 1: Participant details
1.1. Name:
1.2. Role:
1.3. E-mail address:
1.4. Organisation (if applicable):
1.5. Website (if applicable):
Section 2. Programme / Project Details
2.1. What is the name of the programme / project?
2.2. In which health care context(s) did the programme / project take place?
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Acute hospitals
Maternity hospitals
Mental Health settings
Paediatric careCommunity
based
supportorganisations for people withchronic illness and carers
Well-being initiatives / Healthpromotion

•
•
•
•
•
27

Hospices / palliative care
Day hospitals / Community
Health settings
Residential care
Primary care
Rehabilitation and respite care
Training and education
Other. Please specify

2.3. What artform(s) were used?
•
•
•
•
•
•

Architecture
Circus, street art and spectacle
Dance
Film
Literature / Creative writing
Music (including opera)

•
•
•
•
•
•

Theatre / Drama
Visual Arts
Traditional Arts
Craft
DesignOther. Please specify•

Training / Education /Continuous Professional
Development
Festival
Other. Please specify

2.4. What type of programme / project was it?
•
•
•
•
•
•

Collaborative / participatory arts
Exhibition
Performance
Public art commission
Arts and Health research
Residency••

2.5. What was the lifespan of the programme / project from start to finish? Please givethe total number of days / weeks, e.g. one day per week for 12 weeks:
2.6. Is the programme / project still active?
•

•

Yes

•

No

Don’t know

2.7. Was the programme / project evaluated?
•

•

Yes

No

2.8. What was the budget for the programme / project, including core costs (salaries
and overheads)?
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

No budget
Less than €1,000€1,001-€10,000€10,001-€25,000€25,001-€50,000€50,000-€100,000€100,000+

2.9. Were any in-kind contributions made?
•

•

Yes

No

2.10. Where did the programme / project take place?
••••

Carlow
Cavan
Clare
Cork

•
•
•
•

DonegalDublinGalway
Kerry
28

•
•
•
•

KildareKilkenny
Laois
Leitrim

•
•
•
•
•
•

Limerick
Longford
Louth
Mayo
Meath
Monaghan

•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•

OffalyRoscommon
Sligo
Tipperary
Waterford
WestmeathWexfordWicklow
National
Other

2.11. How many personnel were involved in the delivery of the programme / project?
Please enter a number for each category that applies.
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

Paid artists:
Un-paid artists:
Healthcare staff:
Paid arts managers:
Un-paid arts managers:•

Volunteers:
Students:
People working on community
employment schemes:
Other:

If ‘Other’, please specify:
2.12. Who were the programme / project beneficiaries?
•
•

•
•

Health service users
Family / friends / carers of healthservice users

Healthcare staff
Other. Please specify

2.13. Who were the programme / project partners and / or co-organisers?
••••

No partners / co-organisers
Local authority arts office
Healthcare providers
Arts organisation(s)

•
•
•
•

Educational institution
Community organisation(s)Patient advocacy group(s)Other. Please specify

•
•
•
•

The National Lottery
Voluntary group(s)Sponsorship / philanthropy
Private fund-raising, e.g.
fundraising events
Other. Please specify

2.14. Who funded the programme / project?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

No funders
The Arts Council
Creative Ireland
Arts organisation(s)Local authority
HSE
Healthcare institution(s)•3. Research and Policy
3.1. Have you published research on your Arts and Health work? E.g. journal article,
case study, etc.
•

Yes

•

No
29

3.2. Please add links to any relevant published research or policy documents.
4. Additional Comments
4.1. Please add any additional comments below.
4.2. In some cases, we may need to contact respondents to clarify details about theirprogramme / project(s). Please tick this box if you are happy to be contacted by us. 
4.3. Please tick this box if you would like to receive a summary of the results. 30

Arts + Health Co-ordinators Ireland (AHCI) is a voluntary network of professionals who
manage Arts and Health initiatives in Ireland. AHCI aims to build capacity andmaximise resources for its membership throughout Ireland.

This Research was commissioned by Arts and Health Coordinators Ireland and is a
joint initiative between Arts for Health, West Cork; Arts in Health at Cork University
Hospital; Children’s Hospital Ireland Arts in Health Programme; Creative Spark;
Helium; Kids Classics; Kildare County Council Arts Health and Well-being Programme;
Limerick Culture and Arts Office, Limerick City and County Council; National Centre
for Arts and Health at Tallaght University Hospital; Naas General Hospital Arts
Committee; Saolta Arts; West Cork Mental Health Services Arts and Health
Programme and Waterford Healing Arts Trust

C/O Uillinn West Cork Arts Centre, Skibbereen, County Cork, P81VW98
Email: justine@westcorkartscentre.com
Tel: 028-22090
Web: https://artsandhealthcoordinatorsireland.wordpress.com
31