Scores and Comments

19.c.ps.170.587

Application Details
Proposal Type	General Program Support - Discipline-Based
Request Amount	$150,000
Total Score	651.000
Average Score	93.000

Panelist	Excellence	Impact	Management	Accessibility	Total
Esler Jennifer	38	28	20	8	94
Gelman Elizabeth	36	30	20	10	96
Hughes Michael	38	29	19	8	94
Joseph Samuel	37	28	19	9	93
Norton Heather	36	28	20	8	92
Overton Robert	37	27	19	9	92
Wolfe Bell Erin	37	27	18	8	90

Comments
Esler Jennifer - Score: 94.000
A very focused mission and set of goals, objectives and activities. High visitation and good economic impact figures. I might have expected more programming, though. Evaluation methods fully explained and financial situation is healthy. had to score accessibility low due to completion date of self-evaluation.
Gelman Elizabeth - Score: 96.000
{No comments provided.}
Hughes Michael - Score: 94.000
The mission statement is weak versus the level of activity the organization realizes. Great attendance and a place clearly enjoyed and valued by the community.
Joseph Samuel - Score: 93.000
The reviewer needed more budget details to address some issues in the submitted budget. It is important that applicants submit letters of support from their stakeholders, partners, and/or constituents to show outside commitment for their work.
Norton Heather - Score: 92.000
Clear goals and detail about the programs and efforts of the institution to further their goals. The objectives could have included measurable targets to increase effectiveness. For example objectives 1-2 state increase visitation of new, repeat, tourists. By how much? What is the current benchmark that this objective will be held to? Partnerships also seemed light. Points deducted from Accessibility due to 504 Self Evaluation completed more than 5 years ago (3/31/12)
Overton Robert - Score: 92.000
{No comments provided.}
Wolfe Bell Erin - Score: 90.000
{No comments provided.}