Evaluation Rubric – Professional Development Projects

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 professional development grant programs 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.
• Vital and relevant artistic / cultural / aesthetic / geographic / language / community influences with consideration, as relevant to project, of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and OAC’s priority groups.
• Distinctive and compelling intended activity; support material demonstrates high artistic quality, clearly related to the project, and demonstrates the artistic skills necessary to complete the project successfully.
• Choice of artistic collaborators highly relevant to activity; clarity on what they will bring to the project, with the right expertise in the art form and appropriate cultural knowledge with consideration, as relevant to project, of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
• Distinct artistic goals and rationale, robust ideas on outcomes.

 

Rating: Very Good (4)

• Clear and defined history and achievements.
• Relevant artistic / cultural / aesthetic / geographic / language / community influences with consideration, as relevant to project, of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and OAC’s priority groups.
• Distinctive and interesting intended activity; support material that is high quality, related to the project, and demonstrates the artistic skills necessary to complete the project successfully.
• Choice of artistic collaborators relevant to activity; clarity on what they will bring to the project, with good expertise in the art form and appropriate cultural knowledge with consideration, as relevant to project, of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
• Clear artistic goals and rationale, good ideas on outcomes.

 

Rating: Good (3)

• Defined history and achievements.
• Clear artistic / cultural / aesthetic / geographic / language / community influences with consideration, as relevant to project, of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and OAC’s priority groups.
• Distinctive intended activity; support material that is good quality, related to the project, and demonstrates artistic skills relevant to the project.
• Choice of artistic collaborators relevant to activity; information on what they will bring to the project, with expertise in the art form and appropriate cultural knowledge with consideration, as relevant to project, of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
• Clear artistic goals and rationale, reasonable ideas on outcomes.

 

Rating: Fair (2)

• Vague or incomplete history and achievements.
• Imprecise artistic / cultural / aesthetic / geographic / language / community influences, with no consideration, if relevant, of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and OAC’s priority groups.
• Vague activity; support material that doesn’t sufficiently demonstrate quality of past work or evidence of artistic skills relevant to the project.
• Choice of artistic collaborators not particularly relevant to activity; insufficient information on what they will bring to the project, lack of expertise in the art form, some appropriate cultural knowledge but without consideration, as relevant to project, of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
• Unclear artistic goals and rationale, few ideas on outcomes.

 

Rating: Poor (1)

• Poor history and achievements.
• Missing or irrelevant artistic / cultural / aesthetic / geographic / language / community influences and no consideration, if relevant, of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and OAC priority groups.
• Unclear or irrelevant intended activity; support material that doesn’t demonstrate quality of past work or evidence of artistic skills relevant to the project.
• Choice of artistic collaborators not relevant to activity; little or no information on what they will bring to the project, little expertise in the art form, little appropriate cultural knowledge without consideration, as relevant to project, of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
• Unclear artistic goals and rationale, with no details on outcomes.

 

Impact (33.3% of total score)

Rating: Excellent (5)

• Clear and relevant goals and precise plans for having an impact on applicant, other artists, communities, audiences and/or participants.
• Unique and compelling contribution to applicant’s development or group’s objectives.
• If the project has collaborators: well-chosen and highly appropriate collaborators, with detailed and respectful interactions, and major contributions to the project.

 

Rating: Very Good (4)

• Clear and achievable goals and plans for having an impact on applicant, other artists, communities, audiences and/or participants.
• Clear and appropriate contribution to applicant’s development or group’s objectives.
• If the project has collaborators: well-chosen and appropriate collaborators, with detailed interactions, and significant contributions to the project.

 

Rating: Good (3)

• Goals and plans for having an impact on applicant, other artists, communities, audiences, and/or participants.
• Explicit contribution to applicant’s development or group’s objectives.
• If the project has collaborators: appropriate collaborators, with detailed interactions, and clear contributions to the project.

 

Rating: Fair (2)

• Vague goals and plans for having an impact on applicant, other artists, communities, audiences and/or participants.
• Unclear contribution to applicant’s development or group’s objectives.
• If the project has collaborators: identified collaborators, with unclear interactions, and unclear contributions to the project.

 

Rating: Poor (1)

• Poor goals and plans for impacting applicant, other artists, communities, audiences and/or participants.
• No discernible contribution to applicant’s development or group’s objectives.
• If the project has collaborators: collaborators not described well, with little rationale, unclear interactions, and no contributions to the project.

 

Viability (33.3% of total score)

Rating: Excellent (5)

• Past history of project and budget management is clear, relevant to the current project and indicates a high probability of success.
• The work plan is coherent and realistic, includes all the major activities required, and has sufficient time and resources dedicated to each phase.
• Plans for raising sufficient funds to realize the project, including in-kind donations if relevant, are robust and realistic, and include an appropriate mix of revenues to the project, applicant and community; there is a strong contingency plan.
• Projections of fees and other expenses are backed up by careful research and planning, and compensate artists appropriately.

 

Rating: Very Good (4)

• Past history of project and budget management is clear, relevant to the current project and indicates a probability of success.
• The work plan is realistic, includes all the major activities required, and has sufficient time and resources dedicated to each phase.
• Plans for raising sufficient funds to realize the project, including in-kind donations if relevant, are appropriate and realistic and include an appropriate mix of revenues (appropriate to the project, applicant and community); there is a realistic contingency plan.
• Projections of fees and other expenses are backed up by research and planning, and compensate artists appropriately.

 

Rating: Good (3)

• Past history of project and budget management is relevant to the current project and indicates some probability of success.
• The work plan is realistic, includes general categories of activity, and has sufficient time dedicated to each phase.
• Plans for raising sufficient funds to realize the project, including in-kind donations if relevant, are realistic and include an appropriate mix of revenues (appropriate to the project, applicant and community); there is a contingency plan.
• Most projections of fees and other expenses are backed up by research and planning, and compensate artists appropriately.

 

Rating: Fair (2)

• Past history of project and budget management is not relevant to the current project and doesn’t indicate probability of success.
• The work plan has missing elements, and has insufficient time dedicated to one or more phase.
• Plans for raising sufficient funds to realize the project, including in-kind donations if relevant, are unrealistic, and don’t include an appropriate mix of revenues (appropriate to the project, applicant and community); there is an unrealistic contingency plan.
• Some projections of fees and other expenses are backed up by research and planning, and artist compensation is insufficient.

 

Rating: Poor (1)

• There is little past history of project and budget management, and no indicators of the probability of success.
• The work plan is unrealistic, is incomplete, and has insufficient time and resources dedicated to each phase.
• There are no plans for raising sufficient funds to realize the project, including in-kind donations if relevant, and there is no appropriate mix of revenues (appropriate to the project, applicant and community); there is no contingency plan.
• Projections of fees and other expenses are not backed up by research and planning, and artist compensation is insufficient.