The economic impact of the arts on the health and wellbeing of children and young people: A systematic review

Children and young people today are facing a quiet crisis. Reports show a sharp rise in health complaints, particularly those rooted in psychological distress, with one in five young people in Europe needing mental health support. The cost of this crisis is not just emotional; it is financial. When young people struggle with their health, it drains resources from healthcare systems, reduces future productivity, and places a heavy burden on society. While doctors and educators have long relied on medication and talking therapies to help, these treatments often come with barriers to entry, risks of side effects, or high rates of people dropping out before they finish. In response, policymakers and health leaders are increasingly looking toward the arts—music, painting, dance, theatre, and more—as a way to prevent these problems and support wellbeing. But a crucial question has remained unanswered for decision-makers: does spending money on arts programmes actually save money in the long run?

A team of researchers from universities across the United Kingdom and beyond set out to find the answer. They conducted a systematic review, a rigorous method of gathering and analyzing all available evidence on a specific topic, to understand the economic impact of arts engagement on the health and wellbeing of children and young people. They searched through thousands of records published over the last two decades, looking for studies that involved young people between the ages of five and twenty-four, used some form of art, and reported on financial outcomes. Their goal was not just to see if the arts made people feel better, but to determine if those improvements translated into tangible economic benefits for individuals, families, and society.

The researchers found fourteen studies that met their strict criteria. These studies came from high-income countries, including the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, and several European nations. The young people involved ranged from those in general school populations to those in youth justice settings, hospitals, or community centres. The arts programmes they examined were diverse, covering everything from mixed-arts workshops and music classes to dance interventions and theatre performances. Some programmes were led by professional artists or therapists, while others were self-directed or run by teachers.

The findings were consistent and compelling. Every single study included in the review reported that the benefits of the arts programmes outweighed the costs of running them. The researchers found evidence of these benefits through several different economic lenses. Some studies used complex modelling to estimate the total value to society, calculating that arts engagement could generate hundreds of millions of pounds in societal benefits annually. Others looked at specific programmes and found that for every single unit of currency invested, the return ranged from nearly two units to as high as thirty-two units. In simpler terms, for every dollar or pound spent on these arts initiatives, the return in health savings, improved education, and social benefits was significantly higher.

The types of savings were varied. Some studies measured direct healthcare cost reductions, such as fewer hospital visits or shorter recovery times after surgery when medical clowns or music were involved. Others looked at broader social returns, such as improved attendance in school, better behaviour in youth justice settings, and increased confidence and resilience among participants. One study of a dance intervention found that the cost of the programme was so low compared to the health benefits gained that it was considered highly cost-effective, with a very high probability of being a good use of money. Another study of a music programme for children with a chronic lung condition found that using tailored music during therapy avoided thousands of dollars in respiratory infection costs.

The researchers also examined how well these studies were reported. They found that most of the research was of high quality, with clear methods and transparent data. However, they noted that the evidence comes almost entirely from wealthy nations, leaving a gap in knowledge about how these programmes work in lower-income countries. They also observed that while the studies were positive, they varied in how they measured success. Some focused on immediate health savings, while others tried to estimate the lifetime value of a child's improved mental health. Despite these differences, the overall picture was clear: investing in the arts for young people is not just a cultural luxury, but a sound economic strategy that improves health and saves money.

The authors conclude that the evidence supports continued and increased investment in arts programmes to improve the health and wellbeing of children and young people. They suggest that future evaluations should use standardised ways to measure both short-term and long-term economic impacts, ensuring that the full value of these interventions is understood. By treating the arts as a vital part of health and education infrastructure, rather than an optional extra, societies can address the rising tide of youth mental health issues while simultaneously building a more productive and resilient future. The review does not claim to have solved every problem, but it provides a strong, evidence-based foundation for making the case that when we invest in the creative lives of young people, we are investing in the economic and social health of the whole community.