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

Evaluation Rubric –Professional 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 professional development using one assessment criterion: merit.

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

 

Merit

Rating: Excellent (5)

  • Clear and relevant goals and rationale.
  • Excellent ideas on outcomes, with 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.
  • Clear and relevant intended activity.
  • Choice of collaborators highly relevant to activity, clarity on what they will bring to the project, with the right expertise.
 

Rating: Very Good (4)

  • Clear and defined goals and rationale.
  • Good ideas on outcomes, with 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.
  • Clear and defined intended activity.
  • Choice of collaborators relevant to activity, clarity on what they will bring to the project, with good expertise.
 

Rating: Good (3)

  • Clear goals and rationale.
  • Reasonable ideas on outcomes, with some plans for having an impact on applicant and others.
  • Clear contribution to applicant’s development.
  • Some service to one or more OAC priority groups.
  • Clear intended activity.
  • Choice of collaborators relevant to activity, information on what they will bring to the project, with expertise.
 

Rating: Fair (2)

  • Vague or incomplete goals and rationale.
  • Few ideas on outcomes, with vague plans for having an impact on applicant and others.
  • Unclear contribution to applicant’s development.
  • Little service to one or more OAC priority groups.
  • Vague intended activity.
  • Choice of collaborators not particularly relevant to activity, insufficient information on what they will bring to the project, lack of expertise.
 

Rating: Poor (1)

  • Poor goals and rationale.
  • No details on outcomes, with poor plans for having an impact on applicant and others.
  • No discernible contribution to applicant’s development.
  • No service to one or more OAC priority groups.
  • Unclear or irrelevant intended activity.
  • Choice of collaborators not relevant to activity, little or no information on what they will bring to the project, with little or no expertise.