Basic Income for the Arts

Initial Impact Assessment (6-month)

Nadia Feldkircher, Doire Ó Cuinn, Brian O’Donnell

Basic Income for the Arts Research Team
December 2023

This paper has been prepared by IGEES staff in

the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts,
Gaeltacht, Sports and Media. The views presented
in this paper do not represent the official views of
the Department or Minister of Tourism, Culture,
Arts, Gaeltacht, Sports and Media.
1
Table of Contents
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................. 2
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 3
Research Design and Methodology ..................................................................................... 7
Arts Work Viability Impacts ................................................................................................ 17
1. Ability to sustain oneself through arts work alone ................................................ 17
2. Weekly Hours Spent on Arts Work.......................................................................... 18
Sectoral Retention Impacts ................................................................................................ 21
3. Weekly Hours Spent Working outside the Arts ...................................................... 21
Well-being Impacts ............................................................................................................. 22
4. Life Satisfaction ........................................................................................................ 22
5. Depressed or downhearted in last four weeks; Anxious in the last four weeks ... 25
6. Felt depressed or anxious during the last six months ............................................ 26
Income Impacts ................................................................................................................... 29
7. Making Ends Meet ................................................................................................... 29
8. Enforced Deprivation Rate (SILC) ............................................................................ 32
9. Types of deprivation experienced (SILC)................................................................. 33
Practice Development Impacts .......................................................................................... 39
10. Monthly Practice Expenditures ............................................................................... 39
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ 41
Appendix I – Balance Table................................................................................................. 42
Appendix II – Regression Tables ......................................................................................... 45

2
Introduction

Background
The Basic Income for the Arts (BIA) is a pilot research programme. It was developed as a
randomised control trial that consists of two groups of randomly selected people: one which is
receiving the basic income payment, and a control group which is not. The main element of this
randomised control trial is a longitudinal survey that both groups complete every six months, the
results of which are continuously analysed for the duration of the pilot, based on the comparison
of averages between the responses of these two groups.

This paper is the first in a series of research papers that will be published as part of this research.
The research that accompanies the pilot will include ongoing, longitudinal impact assessment
over the lifetime of the pilot, as well as the potential for additional analysis and research.

This first paper focuses on some of the most important initial impacts that were observed over
the first 6 months. The information provided by research participants is rich and very detailed,
and enables significant insights into the impacts of the pilot. Later papers in the series will be able
to analyse this longitudinal data even further to understand additional impacts and the effects of
the Basic Income for the Arts intervention over time.

The Department wishes to thank both BIA recipients and the control group for their continued
engagement with the research programme. The data that is being produced will help inform
future policy for the arts sector.

3
Key Findings
It was found that during the first six months of the pilot:

 Each week, BIA recipients spend one and a half hours more on research and
experimentation, one hour more on management and administration, and one
hour more presenting to audiences compared to the control group, i.e. 3.5
additional hours on their creative practice per week.
 BIA recipients decreased the weekly amount of time spent working in another
sector by 3 hours compared to the control group.
 BIA recipients are 12 percentage points more likely than the control group to be
able to sustain themselves through arts work alone.
 Life satisfaction, measured on a scale of one to ten, increased by more than half a
point for BIA recipients compared to the control group.
 Depression and anxiety experienced in the previous 4 weeks decreased by almost
10 percentage points for BIA recipients compared to the control group.
 BIA recipients were 3.6 percentage points less likely to have felt depressed or
anxious “all of the time” compared to the control group.
 BIA recipients were 19.2 percentage points less likely to have difficulty making ends
meet compared to the control group.
 The Enforced Deprivation Rate, as measured by the CSO, declined by 18.5
percentage points for BIA recipients compared to the control group.
 BIA recipients experienced a decline in material deprivation across all 11 SILC
indicators, ranging from -3 percentage points to -19 percentage points.
 BIA recipients spent each month €353 more on equipment and materials, €18 more
on advertising and marketing, €34 more on work spaces, and €24 more on work
travel compared to the control group.

4
Definitions and abbreviations

BIA: Basic Income for the Arts

Control Group: Participants not in receipt of the BIA payment

CSO: Central Statistics Office

Percentage points (pp): the arithmetic difference between two percentages

SILC: Survey on Income and Living Conditions

Statistical significance: indicates that an observed effect is likely not to have occurred
by chance

Treatment Group: Recipients of the BIA payment

5
 Arts Work Viability Work in Other Sectors Work in the Arts

+12pp 3 hours 3.5 hours

BIA Recipients BIA Recipients spent
BIA Recipients more time each week
reduced the
more likely to say on their practice
amount of time
they can sustain 1.5 additional hours
they worked in researching and experimenting
themselves
other sectors by 1 additional hour on
through arts work management and admin
an average of 3
alone 1 additional hour on
hours per week presenting to audiences

Life satisfaction Depression and Anxiety Arts Practice Spending

0.7 -10pp €450

Depression and BIA recipients
Life satisfaction anxiety increased
for BIA Recipients experienced in the
monthly spending
increased by prev. 4 weeks
on their artistic
more than half a were almost 10
percentage points
practice by
point on a scale
lower for BIA almost €450
of 1 to 10
recipients

6
Research Design and Methodology

Scheme Development
In September 2020, Minister Catherine Martin set up the Arts and Culture Taskforce which was
tasked with producing a report on how the arts and culture sector could adapt and recover from
the COVID-19 pandemic.

The number one recommendation from the taskforce report Life Worth Living was to pilot a Basic
Income scheme for a 3-year period in the in the arts, culture, audio-visual and live performance
and events sectors.

As part of the National Economic Recovery Plan launched on 1 June 2021, Minister Martin
secured a commitment from Government for a Basic Income Pilot Scheme.

Throughout 2021, the Department engaged in a policy development process which has involved
discussions with the Life Worth Living Oversight Group, engaging with sectoral stakeholders,
convening an inter-departmental working group to assess challenges, and reviewing international
research and best practice. The Department used this work to inform its proposal for a pilot Basic
Income for the Arts (BIA).

Stakeholder engagement was core to the policy development process and this included a
stakeholder forum on 15 December 2021, where over 150 participants including artists and arts-
workers resource and representative bodies came together to discuss the proposal. A public
consultation took place throughout the month of January 2022. The purpose of the consultation
was to ensure that the general public, artists, and those working in the arts and culture sector had
the opportunity to contribute to policy development for the pilot scheme. In particular, potential
participants had the opportunity to see and discuss the types of questions which would be asked
in the pilot scheme surveys.

The Basic Income for the Arts pilot launched in the spring of 2022 and over 8,200 eligible
applications were received. The first payments were issued to artists and creative arts workers in
October of the same year (backdated to August 2022, which was the date of selection), when the
research programme formally launched and participants completed the first of a series of surveys.

Overview of Scheme Guidelines

The pilot includes three streams: artists, creative arts workers, and recently trained artists or
creative arts workers. Most applicants qualified for the artist stream. The creative arts workers
stream was created to include those whose creative work makes a key contribution to the arts
sector (e.g. light design, stage design, costume design, etc.). The stream for recently trained
applicants was included to ensure that those who had recently completed their arts-related
studies were included. This was important due to the area of Sectoral Retention being analysed as
part of the scheme and in recognition of those who, upon finishing their arts education, entered
the arts sector during the pandemic.

7
To be considered eligible for the Basic Income for the Arts pilot scheme applicants had to
demonstrate that their creative practice met the definition of art in the Arts Act (2003) which is:

‘any creative or interpretive expression (whether traditional or contemporary), in

whatever form, and includes, in particular, visual arts, theatre, literature, music, dance,
opera, film, circus, and architecture, and includes any medium when used for these
purposes.’ [emphasis added]

The guidelines also provided for applications from those who considered themselves “Creative
Arts Workers”, which was defined as

‘…someone who has a creative practice and whose creative work makes a key
contribution to the production, interpretation or exhibition of the arts.”

Eligible applicants demonstrated that they met either of these definitions by providing evidence
of either proof of any income from work as an artist, proof of active engagement within their art
form, or evidence of membership of a relevant representative body.

Applicants were asked to evidence their eligibility as an artist or creative arts worker by uploading
two pieces of evidence. There are three categories under which applicants could demonstrate
their eligibility:

1. Evidence of membership of a relevant resource or representative body, and/or;

2. Proof of income from their work as an artist or a creative arts worker, and/or;

3. Proof of active engagement within their creative field/art form.

Proof of active engagement included for example: having undertaken an artist’s residency; having
had work included in a curated exhibition; having been represented by a gallery, promoter, or
agent; had work produced by a recognised theatre/film/dance company; had had work reviewed
in the press; have been credited for film or theatre work; having received or having been
shortlisted for an award by a recognised arts organisation; professional references (on letter
headed paper) for engagement/employment/work in a creative field; a minimum of two
unsuccessful grant applications from a recognised arts organisation; have worked with local arts
via Local Authority Arts Office or other community organisation such as local school, community
centre, library, local arts group; website/digital presence for artistic work; a relevant qualification
or training in the arts; and expenditure on resources for creative practice. This list is not
exhaustive.

The guidelines also provided for applications from people who recently trained in the arts
(training course, graduate degree, or an arts related apprenticeship), and

‘…who have completed their training in the last 5 years or who will complete their training
by October 2022.”

All participants of the scheme had to be at least 18 years of age on commencement of the
scheme, be based in the Republic of Ireland, and be fully tax compliant with Irish Revenue
Services.

8
Full-time students, or those who were aware that they would be engaged in full-time study during
the period October 2022 to October 2025 were not eligible. Aosdána members in receipt of the
Cnuas were not eligible to apply.

The portal for applications opened on 12 April 2022 and closed on 12 May 2022. More than 9,000
applications were received, of which more than 8,200 were assessed as eligible. An appeal
process was available to candidates deemed not eligible.

Treatment group participants are paid €325 per week in monthly instalments of €1417. Control
group participants are paid €650 per year in recognition of the time taken to complete two
surveys. The BIA payment is reckonable income for the purposes of tax and social protection
payments and is treated as earnings from self-employment.

Participation in the BIA is anonymous. Anonymity was important to ensure a large pool of
applicants and to avoid distortions in the research programme, for example participants receiving
more favourable or less favourable treatment when competing for funding or job opportunities.
As this is a research project we needed people to feel comfortable providing us with very
personal data on income, hours worked, family life, wellbeing and mental health. Participants are
however free to disclose their participation if they so wish.

Pilot Design
The Basic Income for the Arts pilot has been designed as a randomised control trial (RCT), where
one group receives the payment (treatment group, or “BIA recipients”) and another group does
not (control group). Groups are then compared to each other over time. Both groups have been
randomly chosen from a pool of more than 8,000 eligible applications: random allocation, given a
large enough pool, ensures that people in both groups have similar characteristics on average.
Comparing the differences in the outcomes of both groups over time allows us to examine the
effects of the policy.

In an RCT, the treatment group is observed to measure the impact of the policy while the control
group provides a counterfactual - effectively providing data on what would have happened if the
policy was not in place.

Since the start of the pilot, both groups have been exposed to important macroeconomic
changes: the pandemic recovery, large increases in inflation, a shock on energy prices at the
beginning of the Ukraine war, and recently, a tight labour market. But because both groups are
equally exposed to these macro level events, and only differ on whether they are in receipt of the
payment or not, it is still possible to isolate the impact of the payment using a commonly
employed statistical analysis approach, known as difference-in-differences.

Goals
Engagement with sectoral stakeholders, arts organisations, and artists was essential in the pilot
design. Several themes emerged as part of the Department’s research and policy development
process, as well as during stakeholder meetings and consultations with artists, creative arts
workers, and the public.

9
These themes informed the development of six research topics, which mirror the various
objectives of the pilot intervention. By assessing impact within these themes, the research aims
to understand whether the pilot is meeting the objectives and aims of the intervention as initially
set out.

Figure 1 Goals

Arts Work
Viability

Income
Wellbeing
Stability

Recognition
Practice
and
Development
Opportunities

Sectoral
Retention

Work in the arts can be precarious. The intermittent, and often project-based, nature of work in
the arts sector can often mean that artists and creative arts workers can experience financial
instability. At the same time, periods of intense work can be mentally and physically exhausting as
art practitioners can be working long hours but are generally paid a fixed amount.

In a 2018 survey of its members, Theatre Forum found that “30% of artists and creative
practitioners in the performing arts earned less than the 2018 National Minimum Wage of €9.55
per hour, […] partly because 83% were paid flat fees regardless of the number of hours worked.”
It also found that “23% of artists had to take non-arts jobs to top up their income”, and that “23%
of artists and creative practitioners received social welfare payments or benefits”1.

Theatre Forum conducted the same study again in 2022, and found that median hourly earnings

1
Theatre Forum - Review of Pay and Conditions in the Performing Arts in 2018

10
for the performing arts sector was €17.31. Furthermore, 72% of respondents earned less than the
overall national average hourly earnings, and 16% earned less than the national minimum wage
of €10.50. The number one issue for respondents was the expectation “to work unpaid or for very
low wages e.g., unpaid overtime / flat fees for long hours”.2

Another issue identified was the difficulty “to balance [a] developing arts career with need to
work to earn a living and home responsibilities (therefore lack of time, availability for work
related to their creative practice and impact on mental health)”.3

These challenges have led some artists to leave the sector for jobs in other sectors that provide
more security, a trend that was exacerbated during the pandemic. Alternatively, some have
moved abroad in search of better opportunities. Finally, during the BIA engagement process
artists spoke about feeling undervalued in society. Despite the time and work that many of them
invested into their careers, they felt that the arts are often not viewed as a real career and they
feel pressure from society to leave the field.

Objectives:

 To enable artists and creative arts workers to focus on artistic and creative work during
the period of the pilot, without having to enter into employment in other sectors to
sustain themselves.
 To assesses if, during the period of the pilot, self-employment presents a viable pathway
for artistic and creative work, by reducing income instability.
 To capitalise on investment in sectoral skills and expertise developed through education
within the sector.
 To minimise the loss of skill and experience from the arts sector.
 To reduce the need for artists and creative arts workers to avail of social protection
supports including Jobseekers.
 To ensure participants retain a steady and predictable income during the period of the
pilot.
 To measure any multi-dimensional well-being impacts of the scheme on participants.
 To give recognition to the value of time spent on developing a creative practice.
 To give recognition to the value of the arts and the role of creative practice in Irish
society.

Sample Selection
A random sampling technique was employed to select participants from within the cohort of the
8,206 eligible applicants to the Basic Income for the Arts pilot scheme in August 2022. Because
there was no recent, reliable data on the composition of the arts sector in Ireland that could
guide a possible stratification process, no stratification was conducted.

Out of the 8,206 eligible applicants 3000 were randomly assigned to either the treatment group
(2,000) or the control group (1,000) in September 2022. Applicants were informed about the
assignment, and asked to consent to their participation as part of their assigned group.

2
Theatre Forum - Review of Pay and Conditions in the Performing Arts in 2022
3
Theatre Forum - Review of Pay and Conditions in the Performing Arts in 2022

11
Where applicants declined to take up their assigned spots, a further random selection process
was conducted to fill the vacated spots. While a total of 27 applicants assigned to the treatment
group declined participation, this phenomenon was naturally more pronounced in the control
group, where 408 applicants declined to take up their assigned spot.

The final groups at baseline were:

- Treatment group: 2,000
- Control group: 997

Surveys
Surveys are administered every 6 months for the duration of the pilot (2022-2025), starting in
October 2022 (baseline survey). Respondents are asked to think back about the previous six
months and respond accordingly; meaning that, for example, data collected in October 2022
relates to the period from April 2022 to October 2022. The survey is the same for treatment and
control group, and will not change for the duration of the pilot to ensure comparability across
time. As part of the on-boarding process participants were provided with journaling tools to
assist them in the ongoing collection of their data.

The survey questionnaire was designed by the Basic Income for the Arts Research Team, drawing
on desk research in relation to basic income schemes internationally, as well as prior research on
the arts sector. The team also conducted research into the policy context of the arts sector and
consulted with other Government Departments to ensure consistency with existing research and
allow for meaningful comparisons to be made with the results of other survey research. In
particular, consistency with questions common to the Census, the Survey on Income and Living
Conditions, and Arts Council definitions was pursued where possible.

The survey drafting process included a peer review process with colleagues from the Irish
Government Economic and Evaluation Service (IGEES) to ensure the robustness of the
instrument. Additionally, a final draft of the survey was reviewed by the Economic and Social
Research Institute (ESRI).

The primary objective of the data collection is to capture a wide range of information related to
the artists' demographics, income sources, spending habits, financial well-being, work and job
quality, perceptions of the arts sector, time use, health and well-being, and experiences of
discrimination.

Surveys are administered through a bespoke online platform, wherein pilot participants log in and
complete the survey at their convenience. This online platform provides for efficient data
collection and ensures the privacy and confidentiality of the respondents, with the responses
provided to the Basic Income for the Arts Research Team having been removed of personally
identifying information such as names and addresses. This information remains available to the
Basic Income for the Arts Operations Team for the purpose of conducting the day-to-day
management of the pilot such as processing payments, ensuring tax compliance, responding to
participants’ queries, and follow-up if surveys are not completed on time.

Baseline survey (October 2022)

12
After the groups were finalised participants were asked to complete the first survey, also known
as the baseline survey, from 14 October 2022. Responses were submitted by all 2997 participants.

From a research perspective it would have been ideal to conduct the baseline survey ahead of
selection, both to gain data from the entire eligible pool, and to prevent bias that can arise when
participants know what groups they have been assigned to. This was however technically not
possible because the survey platform was still being developed. Also, the survey is time-intensive
as it includes more than 80 questions, which would have made the application more complex and
possibly discouraged some people from applying.

However, limited demographic information was collected as part of the application process and is
therefore available for the entire pool of eligible applicants. This information includes gender,
age, county of residence, stream, and primary art form.

First post-intervention survey (first wave, April 2023)

In April 2023, participants completed the survey for the second time. This survey captures the
data relating to the first six months of the invention, i.e. the period from October 2022 to April
2023. From a research perspective, differences between the two groups are expected to begin to
emerge.

Due to attrition and a small number of un-returned surveys4, the final groups in April 2023 were:
- Treatment group: 1991
- Control group: 973

Retention rates are 99.95% for the treatment group and 97.69% for the control group. There
appears to be no systematic differences in the characteristics of those who have dropped out
compared to those who remain in the sample.

The main reason provided for leaving the pilot is moving abroad, followed by starting full-time
education. Both are incompatible with the programme, and lead to ineligibility.

Data limitations
The data collected relies on self-reported information provided by the participants. Self-reporting
is subject to various biases, including recall bias and social desirability bias. Participants may have
difficulty accurately recalling certain details or may provide responses that they perceive to be
more socially acceptable, potentially leading to inaccurate or biased data. An additional
consideration is in relation to the potential differences in responses for those who were assigned
to either the treatment or control group of the research pilot, as there might be an incentive to
provide answers that will ensure the continuation of the policy.

Attrition can become an issue if it does not happen randomly, and can pose a threat in particular
when it is related to the outcome of interest.

While efforts were made to obtain a diverse and representative sample, it is important to note

4
20 surveys were not returned.

13
that the findings of this study may not be fully generalised to the entire arts sector or to other
contexts. The characteristics and experiences of artists and creative arts workers can vary widely,
and the specific circumstances of the BIA pilot programme may introduce unique factors that
limit the generalisability of the findings.

The data collection process relied on an online survey administered through a bespoke survey
platform, and applying to participate in the scheme required the use of an online application
system. Together, these may have a potential selection bias impact although accommodations
were made to allow participants to fill out the application process and subsequent survey by
phone where needed. It is possible that artists who are less technologically inclined or have
limited internet access, have visual impairments or neurodiversity, may be underrepresented in
the sample, which could impact the representativeness of the findings.

Applicants were strongly advised to investigate what their own particular tax and social welfare
situation may be should they receive the payment. Since the BIA payment is reckonable income
for the purposes of tax and social protection payments and is treated as earnings from self-
employment, it is possible that applicants in receipt of social protection payments declined
participation to avoid losing access to certain social protection supports. Therefore, the sample
might be skewed in this regard.

The data collection period was limited to a specific time frame, asking participants to report on
their experiences and circumstances in the preceding 6 months. This time constraint may
introduce some limitations, as artists' situations and conditions can vary over time and work in
the sector is often sporadic or seasonal.

Methodology

A difference-in-differences approach is used to evaluate the impact of the payment. This

approach has been chosen because there are some differences at baseline between treatment
and control group. A balance table in Appendix I provides an overview of the groups’
characteristics at baseline.

These differences likely arise from different take-up rates among treatment and control groups:
while both were randomly selected, applicants selected to be in the control group were much
more likely to decline participation from the outset. This is because the incentive to join the trial
is lower for control group participants. Therefore, there has been a degree of self-selection out of
the pilot, which means that the control group differs somewhat from the treatment group on
some characteristics.

Difference-in-differences

By comparing the differences in average outcomes of a treatment and control group over time,
the difference-in-differences methodology allows us to evaluate the causal impact of the policy.

It does so by calculating the difference in the average pre- and post-policy outcomes of the
treatment and control group.

14
The difference in outcomes among the control group is then subtracted from the difference in
outcomes from the treatment group, therefore isolating the impact of the payment (“net effect”).

First, four averages are calculated:

1. average value at baseline (October 2022) for the treatment group,

2. average value post intervention (April 2023) for the treatment group,

3. average value at baseline (October 2022) for the control group,

4. and average value post intervention (April 2023) for the control group.

Change over time for the treatment group: April 2023 values – October 2022 values = A

Change over time for the control group: April 2023 values – October 2022 values = B

Then, the value for the control group is subtracted from the value for the treatment group. This
gives us the net effect (C):

A–B=C

The net effect is the impact of the basic income payment.

Example:

Table 1 Example

Weekly hours spent working in a Difference

October 2022 April 2023 Net effect
sector other than the arts (April - October)

BIA Recipients 8.4 hours 5.6 hours -2.8 hours

-3.3 hours
Control group 9.6 hours 10.1 hours +0.5 hour

In this example, we see that the control group increased the number of hours worked in another
sector since the commencement of the pilot, whereas the number of hours worked in another
sector for the treatment group has decreased over the same period. Had there been no basic
income payment, it is assumed that the treatment group would also have had to increase the
time spent working in another sector.

15
Therefore, changes in the control group need to be taken into account when measuring the total
impact of the payment. The impact of the policy is not only the surplus or deficit displayed by the
treatment group over time – it needs to include the surplus or deficit seen in the control group at
the same point in time.

While the method can be visualised using four averages, as above, it is implemented in a
regression framework. The advantage of this is that it gives indicators of statistical significance.
When an observed outcome is statistically significant, it means that it can be confidently
attributed to the basic income payment.

Throughout the paper, statistical significance is indicated by the use of stars, namely *** for p-
values5 under 0.01, ** for p-values under 0.05, and * for p-values under 0.1. The number of stars
indicates the level of certainty on the link between the basic income payment and the outcome.
Where no star is included, it means that no statistically significant effect was detected and
therefore the observed change cannot be attributed to the basic income payment.

5
P-values indicate the probability that an observed effect can occur by chance.

16
Arts Work Viability Impacts

1. Ability to sustain oneself through arts work alone

1.1 Impact Analysis

Six months into the pilot, BIA recipients are almost 12 percentage points more likely to be able to
sustain themselves through arts work alone. This effect is statistically significant.

Table 2 Able to sustain oneself through arts work alone

Able to sustain
Difference
oneself through arts October 2022 April 2023 Net effect
(April - October)
work alone (%)
+9.24 percentage
BIA Recipients 22.00% 31.24%
points
+11.56
percentage
-2.32 percentage
Control group 23.49% 21.17%
points points***

During the same period, the share of those in the control group who answered “yes” to this
question reduced by 2.32 percentage points. Therefore, the net improvement for the treatment
group, i.e. BIA recipients, was observed to be 11.56 percentage points.

In October 2022, less than one quarter of BIA recipients were able to sustain themselves through
arts work alone. Six months later, almost one third of BIA recipients reported that they can
sustain themselves through arts work alone.

1.2 Understanding this indicator

The ability of artists and creative arts workers to sustain themselves through art work alone was a
key consideration for the development of the BIA pilot. The aims of the intervention include
ensuring that arts work remains a viable career for those who wish to pursue it, and reduction of
the loss of skill and knowledge from the sector when artists and creative arts workers decide to
work in other sectors for reasons of economic necessity or income reliability.

One way this is being measured as part of the BIA pilot is by measuring the number of
respondents who indicate whether they can sustain themselves through arts work alone. In the
longitudinal survey, this questions is posed as follows: Are you able to sustain yourself through
arts work alone? Possible answers are “Yes” or “No”.

17
2. Weekly Hours Spent on Arts Work

2.1 Impact Analysis

Table 3 Weekly Hours Spent Developing One’s Art Practice

Research and
Presenting/ performing Management and
Cohort experimentation
work (hours) Admin (hours)
(hours)

October 2022 April 2023 October 2022 April 2023 October 2022 April 2023

BIA Recipients 3.6 3.6 9.4 10.4 6 6.9

Control 4.1 3.1 10.2 9.6 6.5 6.5

Table 4 Weekly Hours Spent Developing One’s Art Practice – Net effects

Presenting/ Research and Management and

performing work experimentation administration

Net effect + 1 hour* +1.5 hour*** +1 hour**

After six months, the group receiving the payment spends each week; 1.5 hours more on research
and experimentation, 1 hour more on management and administration related to their artistic
practice, and 1 hour more presenting/performing to audiences, compared to the control group.
These effects are statistically significant. These are areas that could be associated with the
development of their practice and the associated business.

BIA recipients spend more weekly hours than the control group on other activities related to
practice development, but these changes are not statistically significant, meaning that they can’t
be confidently attributed to the introduction of the basic income payment. It is possible however
that these changes will become statistically significant over time, as the longitudinal study
progresses. Further research will continue to monitor these trends and will report on any change
in statistical significance.

Changes in these other categories are detailed below. These include changes in respect of making
work, training (related to one’s art practice), and travelling for work (e.g. touring). Also, no
statistically significant effect was detected for weekly hours spent mentoring and volunteering in
the arts.

18
Table 5 Weekly Hours Spent Developing One’s Art Practice

Travelling for Work

Cohort Making Work (hours) Training (hours)
(hours)

Survey October 2022 April 2023 October 2022 April 2023 October 2022 April 2023

BIA Recipients 21.3 23.0 2.3 2.6 4.1 4.3

Control 21.6 22 2.7 2.6 4.0 4.1

2.2 Understanding this indicator

Respondents were asked how they spend their time, specifically how many hours they allocate to
certain activities. The question asked is “Thinking back on the past six months, in a typical week
on average how much time would you estimate you spent on the following?” 15 categories are
available.

The “Arts practice development” section captures the different aspects involved in developing an
artistic practice. The “Wider arts sector work” section captures the work done by artists and
creative arts workers in the wider arts sector, since many of them teach in the arts, or might be
employed in an arts organisation in administrative roles. Further, some artists and creative arts
workers mentor or coach others in their field in order to help them develop. The “Care work,
household work” section captures the time spent doing unpaid household work and on caring
responsibilities. The “Wellbeing and free time” area captures aspects that are important for work-
life balance.

Table 6 Time-use Questionnaire

Area Category Hours

Arts practice Weekly hours making work (This will be specific to your individual
development creative practice but may include for example composing,
practising, rehearsing etc.)
If you are a performing artist, weekly hours spent presenting /
performing “finished” work
Weekly hours research and experimentation, in relation to your
work as an artist or creative arts worker
Weekly hours management and administration, in relation to your
work as an artist or creative arts worker
Weekly hours training related to your work as an artist or creative
arts worker (including training courses as well as being mentored
or coached)
Weekly hours travelling for work including touring
Wider arts Weekly hours working in the arts (paid and unpaid) outside your
sector work own practice (e.g. arts administration role, teaching arts)
Weekly hours mentoring or coaching others in relation to their
artistic or creative practice
Weekly hours working for pay outside of the arts sector

19
 Work outside of Volunteering outside of the arts sector
the arts sector
Care work, Weekly hours household work
household work Weekly hours care work (i.e. taking care of others)
Wellbeing and Weekly hours leisure activities and socialising
free time Weekly hours exercising, doing sport or physical activity
Weekly hours sleeping

Pilot participants have been provided with a time-log document that lists the categories above to
facilitate completion of the relevant section in the 6-monthly survey. Participants are however
free to use other methods to keep track of their time use.

20
Sectoral Retention Impacts

3. Weekly Hours Spent Working outside the Arts

3.1 Impact Analysis

Table 7 Weekly Hours Spent Working outside the Arts

Difference
Hours working outside the arts October 2022 April 2023 Net effect
(April - October)

BIA Recipients 8.4 hours 5.6 hours -2.8 hours

-3.3 hrs***
Control group 9.6 hours 10.1 hours +0.5 hours

The group in receipt of the basic income payment has decreased their weekly hours spent
working for pay in other sectors by over 3 hours, when compared to the control group. This effect
is statistically significant.

This may indicate less reliance on income from other sectors. During the same period the hours
worked by the control group in other sectors increased by half an hour.

3.2 Understanding this indicator

As with other indicators, this indicator helps to assess the reduction of the loss of skill and
knowledge from the sector which can happen when artists and creative arts workers decide to
work in other sectors for reasons of economic necessity.

As in the section above, this information was collected from recipients in the survey by asking
them to report how many hours per week, on average, they spent working for pay in a sector
other than the arts over the past 6 months.

21
Well-being Impacts

4. Life Satisfaction

4.1 Impact Analysis

Table 8 Life Satisfaction

Difference
Life Satisfaction October 2022 April 2023 Net effect
(April - October)

BIA Recipients 6.2 6.9 +0.7

+0.7***
Control group 6.1 6.1 +/- 0

The group which receives the basic income payment registered an increase of almost three-
quarters of a point (0.7) in life satisfaction compared to the control group, on a scale from one to
ten. This effect is statistically significant.

Life satisfaction did not change for the control group.

We can get further insight into the responses of participants by categorising them in terms of
“Low”, “Medium” and “High” life satisfaction.

Figure 2 Life Satisfaction

Comparison of BIA Recipients and Control Group after 6

months
73% 80%
70%
61%
60%
50%

32% 40%
30%
17%
20%
11%
7% 10%
0%
Low (1-5) Medium (6-8) High (9-10)

Control Apr 23 BIA Recipients Apr 23

22
 4.2 Understanding this indicator
This indicator uses data from the following question on the longitudinal survey: How do you rate
your overall life satisfaction, with 1 being most dissatisfied and 10 being the most satisfied?”. This
question was asked to measure the subjective well-being of participants. Financial pressure, the
precarity of working conditions and the inability to plan for the future can have a negative impact
on a person’s wellbeing.

The OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) defines life satisfaction as
a measure of how people evaluate their life as a whole. When asked to rate their general
satisfaction with life on a scale from 0 to 10, people across the OECD gave 6.7 on average.6

This question is also asked in the CSO/Eurostat’s Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC),
and allows us to compare the participants’ responses with those of the general population in
20187. The CSO has not yet published more recent data for the general population, but results
from the SILC 2022 survey are expected in the coming months.

Here it is important to note that the general population sample for SILC might differ considerably
from both BIA recipients and the control group. The data however provides a general indication
of life satisfaction rates at the national level.

Table 9 Life Satisfaction Levels Comparison

Life satisfaction levels (%)

6 Month Control 6 Month Treatment General population

(SILC 2018)
Low (0-5 points) 32.37% 16.57% 8.7%

Medium (6-8 points) 61.05% 72.73% 47%

High (9-10 points) 6.58% 10.70% 44.4%

6
OECD – Life satisfaction
7
CSO, Survey on Income and Living Conditions 2018. Table WBA37 Overall Life Satisfaction.

23
Figure 3 Life Satisfaction Levels Comparison

Life Satisfaction Levels (%)

80.00%
72.73%
70.00%
61.05%
60.00%

50.00% 47.00%
44.40%

40.00%
32.37%
30.00%

20.00% 16.57%
10.70% 8.70%
10.00% 6.58%

0.00%
High (9-10) Medium (6-8) Low (1-5)

BIA Recipients Apr 23 Control Apr 23 SILC 2018

Six months into the pilot, life satisfaction rates for participants are still well below national
averages although there is considerable improvement for BIA recipients compared to the control
group.

In SILC 2018, 44% of the general population rated their life satisfaction as high. In April 2023,
fewer than 7% in the control group and roughly 10% in the treatment group rated their life
satisfaction as high.

In SILC 2018, less than 10% in the general population rated their life satisfaction as low. In April
2023, more than one third in the control group and more than 15% in the treatment group rated
their life satisfaction as low.

24
5. Depressed or downhearted in last four weeks; Anxious
in the last four weeks

5.1 Impact Analysis

Here we are looking at two indicators: prevalence of depression in the previous four weeks, and
prevalence of anxiety in the previous four weeks. In the next section we will look at a similar
indicator which examines the frequency of depression or anxiety in the previous six months.

Over the 4 weeks before completion of the survey, the treatment group was almost 10
percentage points less likely to have experienced depression, and almost 10 percentage points
less likely to have experienced anxiety compared to the control group. These effects are
statistically significant.

Table 10 Depressed or Downhearted in the Last Four Weeks

Have been
depressed or Difference
October 2022 April 2023 Net effect
downhearted in last (April - October)
four weeks (%)

-9.79 percentage
BIA Recipients 68.45% 58.66%
points -9.8
percentage
Control group 74.70% 74.72%
+0.02 percentage points***
points

Table 11 Anxious in the Last Four Weeks

Have been anxious

Difference
in last four weeks October 2022 April 2023 Net effect
(April - October)
(%)
-8.97 percentage
BIA Recipients 82.35% 73.38%
points -9.6
percentage
+0.71 percentage
Control group 82.13% 82.84%
points
points***

5.2 Understanding this indicator

Participants were asked if they felt depressed or downhearted in the previous 4 weeks, and if
they felt anxious in the previous 4 weeks. Respondents were able to choose either yes or no as
answers.

25
A similar question is asked in SILC 2018. While SILC 2018 asked how often respondents felt
downhearted or depressed in the four weeks prior to interview, it is difficult to make a
comparison with our sample, as our survey provided only yes or no answers. CSO respondents
were asked how often they felt ‘downhearted or depressed’ in the four weeks prior to interview,
and the responses were given on a 5-point scale, with answers ranging from ‘none of the time’ to
‘all of the time’. SILC asked the question to people aged 16 and over, while our sample includes
people aged 18 and over.

The proportion of those who felt downhearted or depressed in SILC 2018 is 36.6%.8 The CSO has
not yet published more recent data for this indicator.

6. Felt depressed or anxious during the last six months

6.1 Impact Analysis

Over the 6 months before completion of the survey, the treatment group was 3.6 percentage
points less likely to have felt depressed or anxious “all of the time” (5) compared to the control
group. This effect is statistically significant.

Table 12 Depressed or Anxious “All of the Time” in the Previous Six Months
Have been
depressed or
Difference
anxious all of the October 2022 April 2023 Net effect
(April - October)
time in prev. 6 mths
(%)

-3.24 percentage
BIA Recipients 5.65% 2.41%
points -3.6
percentage
Control group 8.03% 8.43%
+0.4 percentage points***
points

Respondents could choose among five different answers: never (1), once or rarely (2), sometimes
(3), often (4), all of the time (5). The prevalence of these answers is explored below.

8
Includes those who answered “All of the time”, “A little of the time”, “Some of the time” and “Most of the
time”. CSO, Survey on Income and Living Conditions 2018. Table WBA45 Feeling Downhearted or
Depressed.

26
Figure 4 Depressed or Anxious During the Previous 6 Months (October 22)

Felt depressed or anxious during previous 6

months
50.00% 47.30%
43.78%

40.00%
33.13%
31.85%
30.00%

20.00%
11.24%
11.80% 8.03%
10.00% 5.65%
3.82%
3.40%
0.00%
Never Once or Rarely Sometimes Often All of the time

Control Oct 22 BIA recipients Oct 22

At baseline, there were small differences between the groups.

Figure 5 Depressed or Anxious During the Previous 6 Months (April 23)

Felt depressed or anxious during previous 6

months
60.00% 53.39%
50.00% 44.60%

40.00%
31.24%
30.00%
22.15%
17.58%
20.00%
12.13%
8.43%
10.00% 4.47%
3.60% 2.41%
0.00%
Never Once or Rarely Sometimes Often All of the time

Control Apr 23 BIA recipients Apr 23

In April 2023, 2.41% of the treatment group reported feeling depressed or anxious all of the time
during the previous six months, whereas more than double that number (5.65%) felt that way in
October 2022. This is a decrease of over 57%.

In April 2023, 8.43% of the control group reported feeling depressed or anxious all of the time
during the previous six months – a slight increase compared to rate of 8.03% in October 2022.

27
In April 2023, 4.47% of the treatment group reported never feeling depressed or anxious during
the previous six months, whereas 3.40% felt that way in October 2022. This is an improvement of
more than 31%.

6.2 Understanding this indicator

Participants are asked if they have felt depressed or anxious in the previous 6 months, on a scale
from 1 to 5. Possible answer options are: never, once or rarely, sometimes, often, all of the time.

Similar to the previous question, this indicator measures participants’ wellbeing, but over a longer
period of time.

28
Income Impacts

7. Making Ends Meet

7.1 Impact Analysis

Over the first 6 months of the intervention, the treatment group was 19.2 percentage points less
likely to make ends meet with any degree of difficulty (1-3) compared to the control group. This
effect is statistically significant.

Table 13 Making Ends Meet with Any Degree of Difficulty

Making ends meet

Difference
with any degree of October 2022 April 2023 Net effect
(April - October)
difficulty (1-3) %

-23.34 percentage
BIA Recipients 69.75% 46.41%
points - 19.2
percentage
Control group 69.78% 65.67%
-4.11 percentage points***
points

It is important to note that over the same period, there was a decline for control group as well,
however it was much smaller at -4.11 percentage points.

Further to this, it is interesting to note how the distribution in responses changed among
participants over time. The following two charts show the distribution in October 2022, and then
April 2023 for both groups.

29
Figure 6 Making Ends Meet (October 22)

Making Ends Meet (October 2022)

50.00%
43.85%
45.00% 41.37%
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
24.40% 24.50%
25.00%
20.00% 18.37%
17.25%
15.00%
10.04%
10.00% 8.65%
4.72% 4.55%
5.00% 1.10% 1.20%
0.00%
With great With difficulty With some Fairly easily (4) Easily (5) Very easily (6)
difficulty (1) (2) difficulty (3)

Control BIA recipients

Figure 7 Making Ends Meet (Apr 23)

Making Ends Meet (April 2023)

45.00% 41.08%
40.00% 37.92%
38.42%
35.00%
30.00% 28.06%

25.00%
20.00% 16.55%
15.00% 11.20%
9.49%
10.00% 6.03% 5.04%
5.00% 1.96% 3.01%
1.23%
0.00%
With great With difficulty With some Fairly easily (4) Easily (5) Very easily (6)
difficulty (1) (2) difficulty (3)

Control BIA recipients

30
 7.2 Understanding this indicator

Participants were asked how their household made ends meet in the previous 6 months. Possible
answer options were: with great difficulty (1), with difficulty (2), with some difficulty (3), fairly
easily (4), easily (5), and very easily (6).

This question is also asked in the CSO/Eurostat’s Survey on Income and Living Conditions.
According to Eurostat, this indicator “aims to assess the respondent’s feeling about the level of
difficulty experienced by the household in making ends meet.”9 This question is closely related to
income instability, which can be an issue for many artists and creative arts workers.

Data for the general population in 2022 is included in the bar chart below.

Figure 8 Making Ends Meet (SILC 2022)

SILC 2022

5.90% 12.50% 32.40% 29.90% 12.00% 7.30%

Figure 9 Making Ends Meet (BIA Recipients Apr 23)

BIA Recipients (Apr 23)

3.01%
1.96%

6.03… 38.42% 41.08% 9.49%

With great difficulty With difficulty With some difficulty Fairly Easily Easily Very Easily

Figure 10 Making Ends Meet (Control Group Apr 23)

Control group (Apr 23)

1.23%

11.20% 16.55% 37.92% 28.06% 5.04%

With great difficulty With difficulty With some difficulty Fairly Easily Easily Very Easily

9
Working paper with the description of the "Income and living conditions dataset" 2014

31
Six months into the pilot, the treatment group is diverging considerably from the control group.
Only 1.96% of BIA recipients make ends meet with great difficulty, compared to 11.20% in the
control group. The share of respondents who make ends meet fairly easily is also the largest
among BIA recipients at 41.08%, compared to 28.06% in the control group.

Comparisons with the general population might not be accurate, because the samples might be
very different from each other. However, it is interesting to see if over time data for BIA
recipients trends towards the general population.

8. Enforced Deprivation Rate (SILC)

8.1 Impact Analysis

The treatment group experienced a decline of 18.5 percentage points in the likelihood of
experiencing enforced deprivation, compared to the control group. This effect is statistically
significant.

Table 14 Enforced Deprivation Rate

Enforced
Difference
Deprivation Rate October 2022 April 2023 Net effect
(April - October)
(SILC) (%)

BIA Recipients 56.40% 34.86% -21.54% -18.5

percentage
Control group 56.53% 53.44% -3.09%
points***

Six months into the pilot, the enforced deprivation rate is 34.86% for BIA recipients and
53.44% for the control group. This a decline of almost 40% for the treatment group and 5.47% for
the control group.

If we compare this data to the general population via SILC report 2022; we see that 17.7% of the
general population were defined as living in enforced deprivation.

32
 8.2 Understanding this indicator
This question originates in the CSO/Eurostat’s Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC) and
aims to measure material deprivation among respondents.

Respondents were presented with a list of items, and asked if they had to go without any of
them:

 Went without heating at some stage in the last year

 Unable to afford a morning, afternoon or evening out in last fortnight
 Unable to afford two pairs of strong shoes
 Unable to afford a roast once a week
 Unable to afford a meal with meat chicken or fish every second day
 Unable to afford new (not second-hand) clothes
 Unable to afford a warm waterproof coat
 Unable to afford to keep the home adequately warm
 Unable to afford to replace any worn out furniture
 Unable to afford to have family or friends for a drink or a meal once a month
 Unable to afford to buy presents for family or friends at least once a year

The CSO considers a household to be experiencing enforced deprivation if 2 or more of the 11

items are selected. The same approach is used here, where an individual selecting 2 or more
items is considered to be experiencing enforced deprivation. Therefore, the enforced deprivation
rate is the share of respondents who ticked 2 or more items.

9. Types of deprivation experienced (SILC)

9.1 Impact Analysis

This section examines the data from the previous section in more detail. Specifically, it provides
information on which of the 11 deprivation categories were selected by respondents.

BIA recipients experienced a decrease in the likelihood of deprivation across all 11 items
compared to the control group. Worded differently, BIA recipients are more likely than the
control group to be able to afford the listed items.

The decline ranges from -3 percentage points for “Unable to afford a roast once a week” to -19
percentage points for “Unable to afford new (not second-hand) clothes”. These effects are
statistically significant.

33
Table 15 Deprivation Items (SILC)
Unable to afford a
Went without heating Unable to afford two
morning, afternoon or
Cohort at some stage in the last pairs of strong shoes
evening out in last
year (%) (%)
fortnight (%)

October 2022 April 2023 October 2022 April 2023 October 2022 April 2023

BIA Recipients 30.25% 25.01% 35.65% 16.37% 20.25% 7.18%

Control 34.04% 34.43% 38.45% 34.84% 22.69% 19.63%

-15.7
-5.5 percentage -10 percentage
Net effect percentage
points** points***
points***
Unable to afford a
Unable to afford new
Unable to afford a roast meal with meat,
Cohort (not second-hand)
once a week (%) chicken or fish every
clothes (%)
second day (%)

October 2022 April 2023 October 2022 April 2023 October 2022 April 2023

10.30% 4.17% 8.45% 3.92% 33.25% 14.97%

BIA Recipients

Control 15.16% 12.02% 10.14% 9.66% 30.12% 31.24%

-3 percentage -4 percentage -19 percentage
Net effect
points* points*** points***
Unable to afford a Unable to afford to Unable to afford to
Cohort warm waterproof coat keep the home replace any worn out
(%) adequately warm (%) furniture (%)

October 2022 April 2023 October 2022 April 2023 October 2022 April 2023

14.05% 4.82% 29% 20.04% 40.15% 26.77%

BIA Recipients

Control 16.67% 14.39% 31.83% 30.22% 37.65% 38.03%

-7 percentage -7 percentage -14 percentage
Net effect
points*** points*** points***

34
 Unable to afford to Unable to afford to buy
have family or friends presents for family or
Cohort
for a drink or a meal friends at least once a
once a month (%) year (%)

October 2022 April 2023 October 2022 April 2023

26.10% 12.00% 23.20% 9.79%

BIA Recipients

Control 25.60% 24.46% 20.28% 20.66%

-13 percentage -14 percentage
Net effect
points*** points***

Figure 11 Deprivation Items (SILC) BIA Recipients Comparison

BIA Recipients only

Unable to afford to buy presents for family or friends at… 9.79%

23.20%
Unable to afford to have family or friends for a drink or a… 12.00%
26.10%
Unable to afford to replace any worn out furniture 26.77%
40.15%
Unable to afford to keep the home adequately warm 20.04%
29%
Unable to afford a warm waterproof coat 4.82%
14.05%
Unable to afford new (not second-hand) clothes 14.97%
33.25%
Unable to afford a meal with meat, chicken or fish every… 3.92%
8.45%
Unable to afford a roast once a week 4.17%
10.30%
Unable to afford two pairs of strong shoes 7.18%
20.25%
Unable to afford a morning, afternoon or evening out in… 16.37%
35.65%
Went without heating at some stage in the last year 25.01%
30.25%

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00%

Apr 23 Oct 22

Although the initial six months between surveys is a relatively short period of time; when looked
at in isolation BIA recipients show an average decrease of 11 percentage points across all
indicators, with a minimum improvement of 4.53 percentage points for “Unable to afford a meal
with meat, chicken or fish every second day” and maximum improvement of 19.28 percentage
points for “Unable to afford a morning, afternoon or evening out in last fortnight”.

The following chart shows the percentage of respondents in each group who ticked a specific
item from the list above, compared to the general population (SILC 2022). Here it is important to

35
note however that the general population sample for SILC might differ considerably from both
BIA recipients and the control group.

Figure 11 Deprivation Items (SILC) Groups Comparison

Deprivation items (SILC)

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00%

25.01%
Went without heating at some stage in the last year 34.43%
9.20%

Unable to afford a morning, afternoon or evening out in 16.37%

34.84%
last fortnight 9.80%

7.18%
Unable to afford two pairs of strong shoes 19.63%
2.30%

4.17%
Unable to afford a roast once a week 12.02%
3.50%

Unable to afford a meal with meat chicken or fish every 3.92%

9.66%
second day 1.40%

14.97%
Unable to afford new (not second-hand) clothes 31.24%
9.50%

4.82%
Unable to afford a warm waterproof coat 14.39%
1.60%

14.39%
Unable to afford to keep the home adequately warm 30.22%
7.20%

26.77%
Unable to afford to replace any worn out furniture 38.03%
20.30%

Unable to afford to have family or friends for a drink or a 12.00%

24.46%
meal once a month 9.80%

Unable to afford to buy presents for family or friends at 9.79%

20.66%
least once a year 4.30%

BIA recipients (Apr 23) Control (Apr 23) General population (SILC 2022)

36
As of April 2023, one in four BIA recipients and one in three people in the control group reported
going without heating at some stage in the previous year. This compares to 9.2% in the general
population in 2022, or one in eleven people. The figures are similar on the inability to afford to
keep the home adequately warm, with one in seven BIA recipients unable to do so, and one in
three in the control group. The rate in the general population is 7.2% - almost one in 14.

As of April 2023, 3.92% of BIA recipients reported being unable to afford a meal with meat
chicken or fish every second day, and 9.66% of the control group. Only 1.40% in the general
population reported the same. This is 1 in 25 BIA recipients, 1 in 10 in the control group; and just
over 1 in 71 in the general population. On the question of being unable to afford a roast once a
week, BIA recipients responded at a rate of 4.17% (1 in 24) and control group at 12.02% (1 in 8),
with a general population rate of 3.50% (1 in 29). The rate for the control group is almost three
times higher than BIA recipients and almost 4 times higher than that for the general population.

Unable to afford to have family or friends for a drink or a meal once a month sees BIA recipients
at 12.00% (1 in 8) and control group 24.46% (1 in 4 ) with the general population at 9.79% (1 in
10). The rate of respondents unable to afford a morning, afternoon or evening out in last
fortnight is 16.37% for BIA recipients (1 in 6), and 34.84% for the control group (1 in 3); with the
general population at 9.80% (1 in 10).

As of April 2023, the figures for “unable to afford to buy presents for family or friends at least
once a year” are at 9.79% for BIA recipients and at 20.66% for the control group, while the
general population shows a level of 4.30%.

As of April 2023, “unable to afford to replace any worn out furniture” shows BIA recipients at
26.77% (approximately 1 in 4) and the control group at 38.03% (over 1 in 3), with the general
population at 20.30% (1 in 5).

As of April 2023, almost 5% of BIA recipients and 14.39% of the control group are unable to afford
a warm waterproof coat. This is 1 in 20 BIA recipients and 1 in 7 for the control group. This
compares to 1.60% of the general population or one in 62.5 people. We see that unable to afford
new (not second-hand) clothes shows BIA recipients at 14.97% (nearly 1 in 6), and control group
31.24% (almost 1 in 3), with the general population showing a rate of 9.50% (1 in 10).

The trend of the control group being more likely to be in a worse situation than BIA recipients,
and in turn BIA recipients being in a worse situation than the general population, continues when
we look at “unable to afford two pairs of strong shoes”. 7.18% (1 in 14) of BIA recipients; 19.63%
(1 in 5) of the control group and 2.30% of the general population (1 in 43) responded that they
were unable to afford two pairs of strong shoes in the previous six months.

9.2 Understanding this indicator

This question originates in the CSO/Eurostat’s Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC) and
aims to measure material deprivation among respondents.

Respondents were presented with a list of items, and asked if they had to go without any of
them:

 Went without heating at some stage in the last year

37
 Unable to afford a morning, afternoon or evening out in last fortnight
 Unable to afford two pairs of strong shoes
 Unable to afford a roast once a week
 Unable to afford a meal with meat chicken or fish every second day
 Unable to afford new (not second-hand) clothes
 Unable to afford a warm waterproof coat
 Unable to afford to keep the home adequately warm
 Unable to afford to replace any worn out furniture
 Unable to afford to have family or friends for a drink or a meal once a month
 Unable to afford to buy presents for family or friends at least once a year

38
Practice Development Impacts

10. Monthly Practice Expenditures

10.1 Impact Analysis

Each month over the studied period the treatment group spent €353 more on equipment and
materials, €18 more on advertisement and marketing, €34 more on work spaces, and €24 more
on work travel compared to the control group. These effects are statistically significant.

Table 16 Monthly Practice Expenditures

Equipment/ Advertisement/
Work space Work travel Training
Cohort materials Marketing
Monthly spend Monthly spend Monthly spend
Monthly spend Monthly spend

October April October April October April October April October April
2022 2023 2022 2023 2022 2023 2022 2023 2022 2023
BIA
€715.3 €887.8 €59.0 €87.9 €118.6 €130.8 €25.6 €40.0 €50.7 €56.0
Recipients
Control €785.3 €605.0 €75.9 €70.4 €127.6 €115.4 €32.6 €28.8 €43.9 €31.7

Table 17 Monthly Practice Expenditures Net Effects

Equipment/ Advertisement/
Work space Work travel
materials Marketing

Net effect €352.80*** €34.36** €24.31* €18.13**

Here it is important to note that on all categories, spending among the control group reduced, in
particular for equipment and materials.

There is some variation within the sample with regard to the expenditure on these items, as
indicated by large standard errors10 (see Appendix II for regression tables). This is not surprising
because overall, the practices in some art forms may require a lot of equipment, designated work
space (e.g. studio rental), work travel (e.g. touring) - while others may not.

No effect was detected on training expenses.

10
Standard errors are a measure of the accuracy of the estimated effect.

39
 10.2 Understanding this indicator
Participants were asked “Thinking back over the past six months, how much have you spent on
your arts or creative practice under the following categories on average each month? Enter zero if
not applicable.” The categories provided are equipment and materials, rental of studio or office
space, travel for work, courses or training, advertisement and marketing.

This indicator provides information on the level of investment that is going into the artistic
practice of participants.

40
Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr Paul Redmond (Economic and Social Research Institute) for
extensive feedback on methodology; and Maurice Dagg, Steven Lucas, and Harry Williamson
(Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment) for their input, feedback, and advice.

The authors would also like to thank the BIA Operational Team for their continued excellent
support.

41
Appendix I – Balance Table

Balance table: Group characteristics at baseline

For reference, the average values for both groups at baseline (October 2022) are listed below, on
a range of different variables.

We observed some difference in certain categories, in particular income. Overall, there has been
less attrition in the treatment group compared to the control group, hence the treatment group is
more reflective of the overall pool of eligible applicants.

The control group tends to have a higher income, both generating from their work in the arts and
from their work in other sectors. It is possible that those who were assigned to the control group
and were most in need of economic support decided to disengage from the pilot, while those
with high income overall were more likely to stay engaged.

Table 18 Balance Table

Control group Treatment group Difference
age 41.339 41.938 0.598
(12.056) (12.556) (0.498)
gender 1.561 1.571 0.010
(0.601) (0.601) (0.023)
ethnicity 7.499 7.517 0.019
(1.397) (1.502) (0.057)
stream 1.964 1.981 0.018
(0.424) (0.403) (0.016)
Disability 0.159 0.194 0.036*
(0.478) (0.522) (0.020)
Practice in Irish 0.012 0.018 0.005
(0.109) (0.131) (0.005)
Nr of dependent 0.521 0.481 -0.040
children
(0.914) (0.876) (0.034)
Nr of dependent 0.234 0.280 0.046**
adults
(0.529) (0.613) (0.023)
Education (NFQ level) 7.385 7.383 -0.002
(2.025) (2.020) (0.078)
Worked as self- 0.730 0.778 0.048***
employed (in the
arts)
(0.444) (0.416) (0.017)
Worked as an 0.159 0.143 -0.016
employee (in the
arts)
(0.366) (0.350) (0.014)
Worked unpaid (in 0.313 0.330 0.017

42
 the arts)
(0.464) (0.470) (0.018)
Satisfaction with 3.524 3.526 0.002
work in the arts
(1.145) (1.097) (0.044)
Pressure to leave the 4.139 4.024 -0.115***
sector
(1.131) (1.137) (0.044)
Weekly hours making 21.588 21.272 -0.316
work
(15.476) (15.712) (0.607)
Weekly hours 4.121 3.646 -0.474
presenting work
(7.953) (6.977) (0.389)
Weekly hours 10.200 9.362 -0.838**
research and
experimentation
(10.585) (8.722) (0.364)
Weekly hours 6.538 5.997 -0.541*
management and
administration
(8.757) (6.801) (0.291)
Weekly hours training 2.701 2.257 -0.444*
(6.708) (5.620) (0.233)
Weekly hours 4.032 4.063 0.031
travelling for work11
(7.531) (6.603) (0.269)
Weekly hours 4.135 3.589 -0.546
volunteering in the
arts
(9.136) (8.760) (0.345)
Weekly hours 1.323 1.315 -0.008
mentoring
(4.041) (3.554) (0.144)
Weekly hours 9.649 8.424 -1.224**
working for pay in
other sectors
(14.704) (13.040) (0.528)
Weekly hours making 10.539 10.257 -0.282
work
(10.484) (11.318) (0.428)
Weekly hours on 9.272 8.102 -1.170
household work
(22.135) (19.295) (0.787)
Weekly hours leisure 6.156 6.760 0.604**
(5.987) (6.705) (0.251)

11
Touring, etc.

43
 Mood affected work 3.024 3.029 0.004
negatively
(1.033) (0.976) (0.039)
Sense of worth 3.761 3.766 0.005
(1.097) (1.051) (0.041)
Depression/anxiety in 3.303 3.246 -0.058*
previous 6 months
(0.909) (0.859) (0.034)
Anxiety in prev. 4 0.821 0.823 0.002
weeks
(0.383) (0.381) (0.015)
Health 3.868 3.803 -0.065**
(0.877) (0.836) (0.033)
Life satisfaction 6.126 6.164 0.038
(1.825) (1.658) (0.067)
Observations 99612 2,000 2,99613
Standard errors in parenthesis

12
A pattern of answers which lay exceedingly outside the expected value-range was detected for one
control-group participant, whose responses were therefore excluded from the analysis.
13
A pattern of answers which lay exceedingly outside the expected value-range was detected for one
control-group participant, whose responses were therefore excluded from the analysis.

44
Appendix II – Regression Tables

The Treatment variable is a binary variable that takes the value of 1 for the treatment group and
0 for the control group.

The Wave variable is also binary and takes a value of 0 if the data relates to October 2022 and a
value of 1 if the data relates to April 2023.

The Interaction variable results from the multiplication of Treatment and Wave, and its
coefficient produces the difference in differences, i.e. the “net effect”.

No covariates have been added to the model. Robust standard errors have been used.

Ability to sustain oneself through arts work alone

(1)
VARIABLES Ability to sustain oneself through arts work alone

Treatment -0.0149
(0.0163)
Wave -0.0232
(0.0188)
Interaction 0.116***
(0.0234)
Constant 0.235***
(0.0134)

Observations 5,960
R-squared 0.010
Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Time use
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
VARIABLES Making Presenting Research Managem Training Work
work work and ent and travel
experiment admin
ation

Treatment -0.316 -0.474 -0.838** -0.541* -0.444* 0.0307

(0.604) (0.406) (0.388) (0.316) (0.247) (0.281)
Wave 0.370 -1.018** -0.551 -0.0514 -0.146 0.107
(0.789) (0.425) (0.517) (0.405) (0.317) (0.340)
Interaction 1.415 0.980* 1.638*** 0.977** 0.485 0.129

45
 (0.932) (0.529) (0.602) (0.480) (0.369) (0.392)
Constant 21.59*** 4.121*** 10.20*** 6.538*** 2.701*** 4.032***
(0.491) (0.344) (0.336) (0.277) (0.213) (0.239)

Observations 5,953 3,373 5,956 5,959 5,959 5,955

R-squared 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.000
Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

(1) (2) (3)

VARIABLES Volunteering in Mentoring Volunteering
the arts outside of the
arts

Treatment -0.546 -0.00823 -0.145

(0.350) (0.151) (0.107)
Wave 0.0964 0.00606 0.0366
(0.432) (0.171) (0.162)
Interaction -0.128 0.0954 -0.0702
(0.508) (0.206) (0.175)
Constant 4.135*** 1.323*** 0.796***
(0.290) (0.128) (0.0955)

Observations 5,959 5,960 5,960

R-squared 0.001 0.000 0.001
Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

(4)
VARIABLES Work in other
sectors

Treatment -1.224**
(0.550)
Wave 0.456
(0.780)
Interaction -3.315***
(0.866)
Constant 9.649***
(0.466)

Observations 5,960
R-squared 0.016
Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

46
Life satisfaction

(1)
VARIABLES Life satisfaction 1-
10 scale

Treatment 0.0385
(0.0687)
Wave -0.00628
(0.0832)
Interaction 0.722***
(0.0973)
Constant 6.126***
(0.0578)

Observations 5,960
R-squared 0.041
Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Depression (4 weeks), anxiety (4 weeks)

(1) (2)
VARIABLES Depression in the previous 4 Anxiety in the previous 4
weeks weeks

Treatment -0.0625*** 0.00221

(0.0173) (0.0148)
Wave 0.000186 0.00708
(0.0196) (0.0171)
Interaction -0.0980*** -0.0968***
(0.0248) (0.0216)
Constant 0.747*** 0.821***
(0.0138) (0.0121)

Observations 5,960 5,960

R-squared 0.020 0.011
Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

47
Depression or anxiety (6 months)

(1)
VARIABLES All of the time (5 on scale)
depression or anxiety in the
previous 6 months

Treatment -0.0238**
(0.0100)
Wave 0.00395
(0.0124)
Interaction -0.0363***
(0.0139)
Constant 0.0803***
(0.00861)

Observations 5,960
R-squared 0.011

Monthly practice expenditures

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
VARIABLES Equipment/ Training Work space Work travel Advertisement
Materials /Marketing

Treatment -69.96 6.790 -16.87* -8.957 -6.904

(62.01) (10.38) (9.037) (8.925) (4.300)
Wave -180.3** -12.25 -5.449 -12.12 -3.806
(73.25) (8.703) (10.73) (10.48) (5.450)
Interaction 352.8*** 17.47 34.36** 24.31* 18.13**
(86.87) (12.04) (13.48) (12.68) (7.066)
Constant 785.3*** 43.91*** 75.86*** 127.6*** 32.56***
(53.04) (7.492) (8.031) (7.332) (3.680)

Observations 5,960 5,958 5,959 5,960 5,959

R-squared 0.004 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.002
Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

48
Make ends meet

(1)
VARIABLES Make ends meet w. any degree of
difficulty (1-3)

Treatment -0.000291
(0.0178)
Wave -0.0411*
(0.0211)
Interaction -0.192***
(0.0260)
Constant 0.698***
(0.0146)

Observations 5,960
R-squared 0.048
Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Enforced deprivation rate

(1)
VARIABLES Enforced deprivation rate

Treatment -0.00126
(0.0192)
Wave -0.0308
(0.0224)
Interaction -0.185***
(0.0272)
Constant 0.565***
(0.0157)

Observations 5,960
R-squared 0.039
Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

49
SILC single categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
VARIABLES No Time out15 Shoes16 Roast17 Meal with
heating14 meat/fish18

Treatment -0.0379** -0.0280 -0.0244 -0.0486*** -0.0169

(0.0182) (0.0188) (0.0160) (0.0132) (0.0114)
Wave 0.00393 -0.0361* -0.0306* -0.0314** -0.00480
(0.0214) (0.0217) (0.0184) (0.0154) (0.0135)
Interaction -0.0563** -0.157*** -0.100*** -0.0300* -0.0405***
(0.0256) (0.0256) (0.0213) (0.0174) (0.0155)
Constant 0.340*** 0.385*** 0.227*** 0.152*** 0.101***
(0.0150) (0.0154) (0.0133) (0.0114) (0.00957)

Observations 5,960 5,960 5,960 5,960 5,960

Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

(6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)

VARIABLES New Waterproo Warm Replace Have Buy
clothes19 f coat20 house21 furniture22 someone presents24
for a drink
or a meal23

Treatment 0.0313* -0.0262* -0.0283 0.0250 0.00498 0.0292*

(0.0180) (0.0141) (0.0179) (0.0189) (0.0170) (0.0159)
Wave 0.0112 -0.0228 -0.0161 0.00376 -0.0114 0.00377
(0.0208) (0.0163) (0.0209) (0.0219) (0.0195) (0.0182)
Interaction - - - -0.138*** -0.130*** -0.138***
0.194*** 0.0695*** 0.0735**
*
(0.0246) (0.0187) (0.0249) (0.0264) (0.0230) (0.0216)
Constant 0.301*** 0.167*** 0.318*** 0.377*** 0.256*** 0.203***
(0.0145) (0.0118) (0.0148) (0.0154) (0.0138) (0.0127)

Observations 5,960 5,960 5,960 5,960 5,960 5,960

14
Went without heating at some stage in the last year
15
Unable to afford a morning, afternoon or evening out in last fortnight
16
Unable to afford two pairs of strong shoes
17
Unable to afford a roast once a week
18
Unable to afford a meal with meat, chicken or fish every second day
19
Unable to afford new (not second-hand) clothes
20
Unable to afford a warm waterproof coat
21
Unable to afford to keep the home adequately warm
22
Unable to afford to replace any worn out furniture
23
Unable to afford to have family or friends for a drink or a meal once a month
24
Unable to afford to buy presents for family or friends at least once a year

50
R-squared 0.034 0.023 0.012 0.015 0.025 0.023

Robust standard errors in parentheses

*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

51