[Skip to Content] download Acrobat Reader
Ontario Arts Council
Grants Advanced Search
Grants Advanced Search

Evaluation Rubric – Community-Engaged 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 community-engaged 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 and facilitation skills necessary to complete the project successfully. 

  • Choice of 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 and facilitation skills necessary to complete the project successfully. 

  • Choice of 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 and facilitation skills relevant to the project. 

  • Choice of 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. 

  • General intended activity; support material that doesn’t sufficiently demonstrate quality of past work or evidence of artistic and facilitation skills relevant to the project. 

  • Choice of 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 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 and facilitation skills relevant to the project. 

  • Choice of 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% of total score) 

Rating: Excellent (5) 

  • Clear and relevant goals and precise plans for having an impact on participants, communities, partners, and artists. 

  • Clear and relevant plans to reach community participants and, if applicable, intended public/audience members. 

  • Service to one or more OAC priority groups (artists and/or audiences), with robust and culturally appropriate plans to reach them. 

  • If the project has collaborators: well-chosen and highly appropriate collaborators, with detailed and respectful interactions, and major contributions to the project. 

  • Relevant and practical strategies are in place to address the safety and well-being of all involved. 

Rating: Very Good (4) 

  • Clear and achievable goals and plans for having an impact on participants, communities, partners, and artists. 

  • Clear and achievable plans to reach community participants and, if applicable, intended public/audience members. 

  • Service to one or more OAC priority groups (artists and/or audiences), with culturally appropriate plans to reach them. 

  • If the project has collaborators: well-chosen and appropriate collaborators, with detailed interactions, and significant contributions to the project. 

  • Practical strategies are in place to address the safety and well-being of most involved. 

Rating: Good (3) 

  • Clear goals and plans for having an impact on participants, communities, partners, and artists. 

  • Some appropriate plans to reach community participants and, if applicable, intended public/audience members 

  • Some service to one or more OAC priority groups (artists and/or audiences), with plans to reach them. 

  • If the project has collaborators: appropriate collaborators, with detailed interactions, and clear contributions to the project. 

  • Some strategies are in place to address the safety and well-being of the participants. 

Rating: Fair (2) 

  • Vague goals and plans for having an impact participants, communities, partners, and artists. 

  • Vague plans to reach community participants and, if applicable, intended public/audience members. 

  • Little service to one or more OAC priority groups (artists and/or audiences), with few or missing plans to reach them. 

  • If the project has collaborators: identified collaborators, with unclear interactions, and unclear contributions to the project. 

  • Few strategies are in place to address the safety and well-being of the participants.  

Rating: Poor (1) 

  • Poor goals and plans for having an impact on participants, communities, partners, and artists. 

  • Poor or no plans to reach community participants and if applicable, intended public/audience members. 

  • No service to any of OAC priority groups (artists and/or audiences). 

  • If the project has collaborators: collaborators not described well, with little rationale, unclear interactions, and no contributions to the project. 

  • No strategies are in place to address safety and well-being.  
     

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. 

  • 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. 

  • Community partner(s) is/are highly relevant to activity and what they bring to project is clear including the right expertise to provide support for the project, communities and/or participants. Projections of fees and other expenses are backed up by careful research and planning, and compensate artists appropriately

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. 
  • 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. 
  • Community partner(s) is/are relevant to activity, and what they bring to project is clear including expertise to provide support for the project, communities and/or participants. Projections of fees and other expenses are backed up by research and planning, and compensate artists appropriately

Rating: Good (3) 

  • 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. 

  • Community partner(s) is/are mostly relevant to activity and what they bring to the project is clear including some expertise to provide support for the project, communities and/or participants.  

  • Most projections of fees and other expenses are backed up by research and planning, and compensate artists appropriately

Rating: Fair (2) 

  • The work plan has missing elements

  • 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. 

  • Community partner(s) is/are somewhat relevant to activity. 

  • Some projections of fees and other expenses are backed up by research and planning, and artist compensation is insufficient

Rating: Poor (1)

  • 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. 

  • Community partner(s) is/are not relevant to activity. 

  • Projections of fees and other expenses are not backed up by research and planning, and artist compensation is insufficient.