[Skip to Content] download Acrobat Reader
Ontario Arts Council

Evaluation Rubric – Organizational Development

In the project grant assessment process, the Ontario Arts Council provides a rubric to assessors to guide them in rating applications. The following rubric is for grant programs for organizational development using three assessment criteria: artistic merit, impact and viability.

The rubric is used as applicable, based on the context and/or priorities of each grant program, as described on the program web page.
 

Artistic Merit (33.4 % of total score)

Rating: Excellent (5)

  • Clear and compelling history and achievements.
  • Distinctive and compelling intended activity.
 

Rating: Very Good (4)

  • Clear and defined history and achievements.
  • Distinctive and interesting intended activity.
  • Choice of collaborators highly relevant to activity, clarity on what they will bring to the project, with the right expertise and appropriate cultural knowledge with consideration, as relevant to project, of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
 

Rating: Good (3)

  • Defined history and achievements.
  • Distinctive intended activity.
  • Choice of collaborators relevant to activity, clarity on what they will bring to the project, with good expertise and appropriate cultural knowledge with consideration, as relevant to project, of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
 

Rating: Fair (2)

  • Vague or incomplete history and achievements.
  • General intended activity.
  • Choice of collaborators not particularly relevant to activity, insufficient information on what they will bring to the project, lack of expertise, some appropriate cultural knowledge without consideration, as relevant to project, of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
 

Rating: Poor (1)

  • Poor history and achievements.
  • Unclear or irrelevant intended activity.
  • Choice of collaborators not relevant to activity, little or no information on what they will bring to the project, little expertise, little appropriate cultural knowledge without consideration, as relevant to project, of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People.
 

Impact (33% of total score)

Rating: Excellent (5)

  • Clear and relevant goals and precise plans for having an impact on applicant and others.
  • Unique and compelling contribution to applicant’s development.
  • Service to one or more OAC priority groups (artists and/or audiences) if relevant to the project, with robust and culturally appropriate plans  to reach them.
 

Rating: Very Good (4)

  • Clear and achievable goals and plans for having an impact on applicant and others.
  • Clear and appropriate contribution to applicant’s development.
  • Service to one or more OAC priority groups (artists and/or audiences) if relevant to the project, with culturally appropriate plans to reach them.
 

Rating: Good (3)

  • Goals and plans for having an impact on applicant and others.
  • Explicit contribution to applicant’s development.
  • Some service to one or more OAC priority groups (artists and/or audiences) if relevant to the project, with plans to reach them.
 

Rating: Fair (2)

  • Vague goals and plans for having an impact on applicant and others.
  • Unclear contribution to applicant’s development.
  • Little service to one or more OAC priority groups (artists and/or audiences) if relevant to the project, with few or missing plans to reach them.
 

Rating: Poor (1)

  • Poor goals and plans for having an impact on applicant and others.
  • No discernible contribution to applicant’s development.
  • No service to any of OAC priority groups (artists and/or audiences) if relevant to the project.
 

Viability (33% of total score)

Rating: Excellent (5)

  • The work plan is coherent and realistic, includes all the major activities required, and has sufficient time and resources dedicated to each phase.
  • Past history of project and budget management is clear, relevant to the current project and indicates a high probability of success.
 

Rating: Very Good (4)

  • The work plan is realistic, includes all the major activities required, and has sufficient time and resources dedicated to each phase.
  • Past history of project and budget management is clear, relevant to the current project and indicates a probability of success.
 

Rating: Good (3)

  • The work plan is realistic, includes general categories of activity, and has sufficient time dedicated to each phase.
  • Past history of project and budget management is relevant to the current project and indicates some probability of success.
 

Rating: Fair (2)

  • The work plan has missing elements, and has insufficient time dedicated to one or more phase.
  • Past history of project and budget management is not relevant to the current project and doesn’t indicate probability of success.
 

Rating: Poor (1)

  • The work plan is unrealistic, is incomplete, and has insufficient time and resources dedicated to each phase.
  • There is little past history of project and budget management, and no indicators of the probability of success.