Evaluation Criteria

The criteria below are used by the Grant Review Committee to assess the quality of the proposed project. Each item is evaluated on a scale of 1 to 3 (1 is lowest and 3 is highest) with a space for additional comments.

 
• This project translates or develops the student’s scholarly and/or pedagogical work by bringing it to a public audience and/or community context.

 

• The project demonstrates collaborative practice and an equitable distribution of labor. Good collaborative practice includes outlining clear lines of communication, suitable distribution of responsibility, and articulating mutual benefit(s) to all parties of to the collaboration.

 

• Quality and salience of the project’s benefits to the student(s) beyond advancing their dissertation research.

 

• Quality and salience of the project’s benefits to the community partner(s), including the extent to which the project addresses a community-identified need.
• Will the project result in the creation of a new public cultural good or service?

Public good is evaluated according to:

 
• Plan for sustainability beyond the life of the grant

 

• Plan for engaging the widest possible public (e.g., how you will advertise, engage stakeholders and disseminate impact)

 

• Reflection on potential contributions to public/community policy or influence upon professional practice

 

• Models that enrich the artistic and cultural life of the community

 

• Clear evaluation plan with commitments from partners and/or peers to assess the significance of the public good generated by the project?

Is the budget feasible and reasonable? Guidelines for expenses are as follows:

 
• Student stipends can be requested up to $18 per hour

 

• Community partner honorariums for organizational costs

 

• Transportation, research material, supplies, documentation, publication, production of public good(s) such as performances or exhibitions, etc.