Evaluation Rubric – Career Catalyst: Project Grants for New Generation Artists

In the grant assessment process, the Ontario Arts Council provides a rubric to assessors to guide them in rating applications. The following rubric is for the Career Catalyst: Project Grants for New Generation Artists program 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 [30% of total score]

Rating: Excellent (3)

• Clear and compelling artistic practice and achievements as demonstrated by applicant CV and answers to application questions.
• Vital and relevant artistic / cultural / aesthetic / geographic / language / community influences with consideration, as relevant to practice, of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and OAC’s priority groups. 
• Artistic example demonstrates excellent artistic quality.

 

Rating: Good (2)

• Defined artistic practice and achievements as demonstrated by applicant CV and answers to application questions.
• Clear artistic / cultural / aesthetic / geographic / language / community influences with consideration, as relevant to practice, of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and OAC’s priority groups. 
• Artistic example demonstrates good artistic quality.

 

Rating: Poor (1)

• Unclear artistic practice and lack of achievements as demonstrated by applicant CV and answers to application questions.
• Missing or irrelevant artistic / cultural / aesthetic / geographic / language / community influences with no consideration, as relevant to practice, of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and OAC’s priority groups. 
• Artistic example demonstrates poor artistic quality.

 

Impact [40% of total score]

Rating: Excellent (3)

• Clear and relevant goals for the artist’s career.
• Project plan is precise, well-researched and clear.
• Unique and compelling contribution to the applicant’s development.
• Proposed activity will have significant impact on applicant’s career.
• If the project involves additional people and/or organizations: these are well-chosen, highly appropriate and confirmed.

 

Rating: Good (2) 

• Appropriate goals for the artist’s career.
• Project plan includes adequate detail.
• Some contribution to applicant’s development. 
• Proposed activity will have some impact on applicant’s career.
• If the project involves additional people and/or organizations: these are appropriate and may or may not be confirmed. 

 

Rating: Poor (1)

• Irrelevant or unclear goals for the artist’s career.
• Project plan is vague and missing details.
• Limited or no contribution to applicant’s development. 
• Proposed activity will have little or no impact on applicant’s career.
• If the project involves additional people and/or organizations: these are not relevant and not confirmed.

Viability [30% of total score]

Rating: Excellent (3)

• Plan is clear and relevant to the project goals. 
• Activities are well-described and appear to have a high probability of success.
• Expense form information is detailed, complete and realistic.
• Estimates of all fees and expenses are appropriate and backed by careful research and planning.

 

Rating: Good (2)

• Plan is somewhat relevant to the project goals. 
• Some activities are well-described and appear to have a solid probability of success.
• Expense form information is realistic.
• Some estimates of fees and expenses are appropriate and backed by research and planning.

 

Rating: Poor (1)

• Plan is unclear or not relevant to the project goals.
• Activities are poorly described and appear to have a low probability of success.
• Expense form information is missing or unrealistic.
• Estimates of fees and expenses are unrealistic are not backed by research and planning.