We don’t often take a look at museums, but this month Professor Pat Thomson reviews a comprehensive research report focused on disparities in museum attendance for children in the US. The research echoes our own 2025 Report Card in identifying socioeconomic status as strongly predicting a child’s engagement, and also identifies racial and ethnic disparities.
Crispin Laura M. & Beck Molly I. (2025) Disparities in museum attendance among youth over two decades: an empirical analysis of who attends and how often, Arts
Education Policy Review, 126:1, 25-37, DOI: 10.1080/10632913.2023.2187499
Crispin and Beck examines disparities in museum attendance among American children and young people aged 5-18 over two decades. While the results are not surprising, this is the first comprehensive US analysis documenting who attends museums and how often. It provides robust evidence on museum attendance/non-attendance which is associated with the development of cultural capital.
Drawing on five nationally representative datasets spanning 1987-2009, the researchers analysed attendance patterns for different age groups and museum types. These datasets include information from parents and students about museum visits during various time periods (past month, past summer, past year, or ever). Crispin and Beck used regression models to identify key characteristics associated with museum attendance, controlling for demographic factors, school quality, and geographic information.
The results of their analysis show that museum attendance rates among children and young people typically ranged from 50-70%, meaning that 30-50% of them are not regularly attending museums. Consistent patterns emerged across datasets showing significant disparities by socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, gender, and location.
Most notably, socioeconomic status strongly predicted museum attendance across all data sets. A one standard deviation increase in socioeconomic status increased the likelihood of museum attendance by 6.7-17.1 percentage points. Parents’ educational attainment particularly influenced attendance, with children of university-educated parents being 8.7-15.7 percentage points more likely to visit museums.
Racial and ethnic disparities were also evident, with white students generally more likely to attend museums than non-white students. The differences ranged from negligible to 14.4 percentage points, with Hispanic and Black students showing lower attendance rates.
Gender differences emerged primarily in older cohorts. While few differences existed in elementary school, by high school, significant gender gaps appeared, especially in attendance at science museums. Interestingly, females were 5-8.8 percent less likely to visit science museums in the 1980s, but by 2009, females were 5 percent more likely to visit science museums than males.
Geographic disparities were substantial, with rural youth considerably less likely (6.6-12.6 percent) to visit museums compared to urban peers. There were of course less museums to visit! Regional differences also existed, with those outside the Northeast generally showing lower attendance rates.
The authors suggest that children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and rural areas would benefit from programmes designed to increase museum access. The researchers recommended school field trips, free or reduced-cost admission days, programmes like “Museums for All” and library museum pass programmes all of which were in operation in parts of the US., but not all.
The authors acknowledged that the study did not address the relationship between museum attendance and outcomes, nor whether differences in attendance stem from preferences or barriers to access. They suggested future research should examine these.
Arts educators in England might note the similarities between this very large-scale research and the much smaller 2023 research by the Art Fund where only 52 percent of low SES children and young people surveyed had been to a museum in the past year. Crispin and Beck’s research shows that equitable access to museums is not just a problem in England. Their research also provides evidence-based support for targeted outreach efforts and underscores the need for programmes that increase accessibility for under-served populations, particularly in low-income communities and rural areas, perhaps through a targeted pupil premium fund, just as CLA has often recommended.
