The Arts and Culture Indicators in Community Building Project (ACIP) was initiated in 1996, with the support of the Rockefeller Foundation. It was conceived as a dimension in the Urban Institute's National Neighborhood Indicators Project (NNIP) as an exploratory and experimental effort intended to develop arts and culture-related neighborhood indicators. To this end, the project has undertaken several reconnaisance efforts which have sought to provide a better understanding of (1) the presence and role of arts and culture in inner-city neighborhoods and community-building contexts and (2) the utility of existing data collection practices among community-based as well as large mainstream arts and culture-related organizations for the purposes of developing neighborhood indicators. Also, to expand the empirical base of information on arts and culture in neighborhoods and to experiment with the development of indicator categories and data collection methods, ACIP has launched pilots in Boston and Washington, D.C. in conjunction with NNIP participants, and in Los Angeles in partnership with the Getty Research Institute.

This work has enabled ACIP staff to learn of several examples of the presence and role of art and culture, the role of cultural institutions, and the role of artists in neighborhoods and in community-building contexts. A synthesis of these examples has led to the development of several key concepts, which can contribute to a body of theory about the role of art and culture in neighborhoods, as well as the creation of indicator categories and corresponding empirical methods.

Generally, these key concepts involve a reconsideration and expansion of prevalent definitions and assumptions. First, the field work affirmed that mainstream definitions of the arts have generally excluded the cultures and values of many groups that live in the inner city. Second, typically, in most arts-related collection efforts, art and culture have been viewed as products to be consumed, and cultural participation has been understood primarily as audience participation. Third, as mentioned above, in most data collection efforts, cultural participation has typically been understood as audience participation. Fourth, to capture more adequately the presence of art and culture in neighborhoods, one must look beyond the traditional mainstream cultural venues associated with the presentation of art as product. Last, to obtain a better sense of how the activities, events, or things in question are valued, one must understand the indigenous venues of validation by which meaning and value are ascribed. (p.201-203)