How to use this rubric

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 and Innovation, Impact, Program 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.

Overall consideration for the applications

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

Excellence and Innovation (Up to 40 Points)

Panelists will consider the following application information when evaluating an application for Excellence and Innovation: Goals, Objectives and Activities, Applicant Mission Statement, and Narrative responses to the Proposal Description, Culture Builds Florida's Future (Strengthening the Economy, Learning and Wellness, Building Leadership and/or Design and Development), Marketing and Promotion, and Personnel and Partners.

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 clearly 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 reflects excellence in proposed programs

Clearly describes proposed programs

Describes proposed programs

Proposed programs are unclear

Marketing and promotional plan is effective, and strong partnerships are established to help implement the proposal

Marketing, promotional plan, and partnerships are used to help implement the proposal

Limited marketing, promotional efforts, and partnerships used to help implement the proposal

Very minimal and limited marketing,  promotional efforts, and partnerships used to help implement the proposal

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

Organization's programs reflect excellence in addressing the Culture Builds Florida's Future strategic plan

Organization's programs address the Culture Builds Florida's Future strategic plan

Organization's programs partially address the Culture Builds Florida's Future strategic plan

Organization's programs minimally address the Culture Builds Florida's Future strategic plan

Score:

Impact (Up to 30 Points)

Panelists will consider the following application information when evaluating an application for Impact: The estimated number of individuals, youth, elders and artists, and number of events, opportunities and counties served, and the Narrative responses to Assessment and Planning, Proposal Impact, and Education and Outreach.

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 measurable impact of programs and/or projects that relate to the organization's mission

Demonstrates measurable impact of programs/projects that relate to the organization's mission

Describes limited measureable impact of projects/programs relate to the organization's mission

Describes very minimal impact of programs/projects, and is not measureable

Extensive activities are proposed to reach the organization's defined audience and these activities are achievable within the grant period

Reasonable activities are proposed to reach most of the organization's defined audience and these activities are achievable within the grant period

Limited activities are proposed that do not reach more enough of the organization's defined audience and/or concerns about the achievability of the activities within the grant period

Very minimal activities are proposed for the organization's defined audiences and/or there are 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 appropriate for the program(s) or project(s)

Very minimal educational and outreach components do not fully serve the constituency and are not appropriate for the program(s) or project(s)

Score:

Program Management (Up to 20 points)

Panelists will consider the following application information when evaluating an application for Program Management: The applicant's compliance history and current compliance status, Operating Budget and Proposal Budget, Evaluation Plan, and the Narrative responses to Applicant History, Sustainability, and Fiscal Stability. The Collection Summary is only for museums.

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 measureable. These methods are employed to help the organization achieve its mission and proposed programs.

Measureable evaluation methods help the organization achieve its mission and proposed programs

Evaluation methods are described and are not fully measureable

Evaluation methods are not clear and/or measureable

Very confident in the administrative ability of the organization to carry out the proposal

Very minimal concerns about the administrative ability of the organization to carry out the proposal

Concerns about the administrative ability of the organization to carry out the proposal

Multiple concerns about the administrative ability of the organization to carry out the proposal

Excellent compliance history

Very minimal concerns about the applicant's compliance history

Concerns about the applicant's compliance history

Multiple concerns about the applicant's compliance history

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:

Accessibility (Up to 10 points)

Points will be awarded based on efforts towards making the proposal inclusive for all participants. Panelists will consider responses to the Americans with Disabilities Act questions as well as the Accessibility narrative response.

Excellent
10 points		 Good
8 - 9 points		 Fair
7 points		 Weak
0 - 6 points

Has completed ADA self evaluation in the past 3 years

Has completed ADA self evaluation in the last 7 years

Has completed ADA self evaluation more than 7 years ago

Has not completed ADA self evaluation

Has accessibility policy

Has accessibility policy

Has accessibility policy

Does not have accessibility policy

Has dedicated personnel for accessibility complaints and issues

Has dedicated personnel for accessibility complaints and issues

Has dedicated personnel for accessibility complaints and issues

Does not have dedicated personnel for accessibility complaints and issues

Organization's programming, facilities, related materials, and communications are fully accessible

Some of the organization's programming, facilities, related materials, and communications are accessible. Plans are made to continue to improve accessibility.

Plans are made for making programming, facilities, related materials, and communications accessible

No effort is made towards making programming, facilities, related materials, and communications accessible

Score:

This information is available in alternate formats by contacting Jennifer Hoesing at 850.245.6462 or jshoesing@dos.state.fl.us