Grant panelists will receive a copy of the rubric as a part of their panelist training materials. The rubric will be employed to ensure as fair and unbiased a panel process as possible. The scoring mechanism defines each of the four criteria scored by panelists: Excellence, Impact, Management, and Accessibility. Within each criterion, benchmark descriptions and corresponding point values are listed to serve as a guide in the scoring process.
Grant applicants can use the rubric as a guideline in completing their applications for the deadline.
Value | Description | Score |
---|---|---|
Excellent |
Strongly demonstrates public value of arts and culture. Merits investment of State of Florida funding. |
92 - 100 |
Good |
Satisfactorily demonstrates public value of arts and culture. Merits investment of State of Florida funding. |
80 - 91 |
Fair |
Does not sufficiently demonstrate public value of arts and culture. Does not merit investment of State of Florida funding. |
61 -79 |
Weak |
Makes an incomplete and/or inadequate case for the public value of arts and culture. Does not merit investment of State of Florida funding. Information is confusing, unclear, and lacks specific details. |
0 - 60 |
Panelists will consider the following application information when evaluating an application for Excellence: the responses to Applicant Mission Statement, and Proposal Description.
Excellent 37 - 40 points |
Good 32 - 36 points |
Fair 25 - 31 points |
Weak 0 - 24 points |
---|---|---|---|
Mission statement clearly describes organization and programs/activities fully support the mission |
Mission statement describes organization and programs/activities fully support the mission |
Mission statement describes organization and programs/activities do not fully support the mission |
Mission statement does not clearly describe organization and programs/activities do not fully support the mission |
Identifies clear goals and fully measurable objectives and activities |
Identifies clear goals and measurable objectives and activities |
Identifies goals and limited measurable objectives and activities |
Does not identify goals and very minimal objectives and activities |
Clearly describes exemplary proposed programs |
Clearly describes proposed programs |
Describes proposed programs |
Proposed programs are unclear |
Confident in the ability of the organization to carry out the proposal |
Very minimal concerns about the ability of the organization to carry out the proposal |
Concerns about the ability of the organization to carry out the proposal |
Multiple concerns about the ability of the organization to carry out the proposal |
Score: |
Panelists will consider the following application information when evaluating an application for Impact: the number of proposed events, opportunities for public participation, and counties served; the location of the project/programming; the estimated number of individuals, youth, elders, and artists benefiting; and marketing/promotion/publicity plans and audience development/expansion and Proposal Impact.
Excellent 28 - 30 points |
Good 24 - 27 points |
Fair 19 - 23 points |
Weak 0 - 18 points |
---|---|---|---|
Provides vital cultural services to community or service area |
Provides significant cultural services to community or service area |
Provides cultural services to community or service area |
Provides minimal cultural services to community or service area |
Provides compelling and specific information about extensive economic impact of programs and/or projects that relate to the organization's mission |
Demonstrates significant economic impact of programs/projects that relate to the organization's mission |
Describes limited economic impact of projects/programs that relate to the organization's mission |
Describes very minimal economic impact of programs/projects, and is not measureable |
Extensive activities are proposed and are achievable within the grant period |
Reasonable activities are proposed and these activities are achievable within the grant period |
Limited activities are proposed and/or concerns about the achievability of the activities within the grant period |
Very minimal activities are proposed and/or serious concerns about the achievability of the proposed activities during the grant period |
Educational and outreach components fully serve the constituency and are appropriate for the program(s) or project(s) |
Educational and outreach components serve the constituency, and are appropriate for the program(s) or project(s) |
Limited educational and outreach components serve the constituency and are minimally appropriate for the program(s) or project(s) |
Very minimal educational and outreach components do not serve the constituency and are not appropriate for the program(s) or project(s) |
Very appropriate and effective marketing/promotion/publicity and audience development/expansion efforts |
Appropriate and effective marketing/promotion/publicity and audience development/expansion efforts |
Limited and minimally effective appropriate marketing/promotion/publicity and audience development/expansion efforts |
Very limited and minimally effective marketing/promotion/publicity and audience development/expansion efforts |
Very appropriate number of individuals benefiting from the program/project |
Appropriate number of individuals benefiting from the program/project |
Minimal number of individuals benefiting from the program/project |
Very minimal number of individuals benefiting from the program/project |
Score: |
Panelists will consider the following application information when evaluating an application for Management: the applicant's reporting history and current compliance, Operating and Proposal Budget, and the responses to Evaluation Plan and Fiscal Condition and Sustainability.
Excellent 19 - 20 points |
Good 16 - 18 points |
Fair 13 - 15 points |
Weak 0 - 12 points |
---|---|---|---|
Very confident in the organization's fiscal stability and ability to carry out the proposed activities given the operating budget, grant proposal budget, and fiscal information |
Very minimal concerns about the organization's fiscal stability and ability to carry out the proposed activities given the operating budget, grant proposal budget, and fiscal information |
Concerns about the organization's fiscal stability and ability to carry out the proposed activities given the operating budget, grant proposal budget, and fiscal information |
Multiple concerns about the organization's fiscal stability and ability to carry out the proposed activities given the operating budget, grant proposal budget, and fiscal information |
Evaluation methods are well-defined, clear, and fully measureable and help the organization achieve its mission and proposed programs. |
Measureable evaluation methods help the organization achieve its mission and proposed programs |
Evaluation methods are not fully measureable and only minimally help the organization achieve its mission and proposed programs |
Evaluation methods are not clear and/or measureable and do not help the organization achieve its mission and proposed programs. |
Exemplary reporting history and current compliance |
Very minimal concerns about the applicant's reporting history and current compliance |
Concerns about the applicant's reporting history and current compliance |
Multiple concerns about the applicant's reporting history and current compliance |
Very confident in the ability of the applicant to sustain the programs after the grant period |
Very minimal concerns about sustainability |
Concerns about sustainability |
Multiple concerns about sustainability |
Score: |
Panelists will award points based on demonstration of accessibility in the applicant's facility and programming. Panelists will also consider responses to the Accessibility questions and efforts towards making the proposal inclusive for all participants.
Excellent 10 points |
Good 8 - 9 points |
Fair 7 points |
Weak 0 - 6 points |
---|---|---|---|
Has completed the Section 504 Self Evaluation Workbook from the NEA in the last 2 years or for 1st time self-evaluations the Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist |
Has completed the Section 504 Self Evaluation Workbook from the NEA or the Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist in the last 5 years |
Has completed the Section 504 Self Evaluation Workbook from the NEA or the Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist in the last 6 or more years |
Has never completed the Section 504 Self Evaluation Workbook from the NEA or the Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist |
Has accessibility policy, procedures and complaint process that address non-discrimination on the basis of disability |
Has accessibility policy, procedures and complaint process that address non-discrimination on the basis of disability |
Has accessibility policy, procedures and complaint process that address non-discrimination on the basis of disability |
Does not have accessibility policy, procedures and complaint process that address non-discrimination on the basis of disability |
Has a staff person responsible for compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Americans with Disabilities Act and Florida Statutes 553 |
Has a staff person responsible for compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Americans with Disabilities Act and Florida Statutes 553 |
Has a staff person responsible for compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Americans with Disabilities Act and Florida Statutes 553 |
Does not have a staff person responsible for compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Americans with Disabilities Act and Florida Statutes 553 |
Nearly all of the organization's programming, facilities, related materials, and communications are fully accessible |
A majority of the organization's programming, facilities, related materials, and communications are accessible. |
Minimal programming, facilities, related materials, and communications are accessible |
Programming, facilities, related materials, and communications are not accessible |
Has extensive ongoing efforts to improve accessibility |
Has significant ongoing efforts to improve accessibility |
Has limited ongoing efforts to improve accessibility |
No ongoing effort is made to improve accessibility |
Score: |
This information is available in alternate formats by contacting Sarah Stage at 850.245.6459 or [email protected]