Scores and Comments

19.c.ps.105.162

Lighthouse ArtCenter, Inc.

Application Details

Proposal TypeGeneral Program Support - Discipline-Based
Request Amount
$120,000
Total Score660.000
Average Score94.286

Panelist Scores

Panelist Excellence Impact Management Accessibility Total
Clercx Byron 38 29 17 10 94
Dodds Jed 38 28 18 9 93
Harder Lee Ellen 39 29 19 10 97
Krivinchuk Jeremiah 38 26 19 10 93
Packard Lisa 40 30 20 10 100
Ryan Sara 37 28 17 9 91
Sanfilippo Amanda 36 26 20 10 92

Comments

Clercx Byron - Score: 94.000

Excellence: 

  • The mission statement is clear with programs/activities that fully support the mission
  • There are ample descriptions of ArtReach (disabled seniors, nursing home residents, special needs populations and low-income schools without art programs); Summer Camp, Teen Internships, Light House ArtCenter Gallery, and Light House ArtCenter’s 6th Annual Plein Air Festival
  • Goals were clearly stated followed by bulleted outlines that did not differentiate between objectives and activities. Some were more measurable than others.
  • A good example was under Goal #1: Increase Revenue, 4. Increase foundation grant revenue 5% during 2018-2019 program year. While the preceding three were fine (as are many others in this section) the example above was perfectly clear and easily measurable.
  • Confident in the ability of the organization to carry out the proposal
  • Extensive list of partners but without relational context

Impact:

  • The applicant provides a significant cultural service to the community.
  •  Lighthouse ArtCenter demonstrates an array of significant ways they contribute to the local creative economy. They are also urged to (use more than the economic prosperity calculator) referencing the American’s for the Arts, Arts & Economic Prosperity 5 report which is filled with compelling statistical data, testimonials, case studies and a useful charts, graphs, and affiliated comparisons.
  • The Marketing and Promotion plan is very appropriate and effective
  • Educational and Outreach components serve a very appropriate number and range of individuals  

Management:

  • Evaluation methods are reasonably but some budget lines could use more granular delineation (like explaining how the amount needed for instructor's fees was set (i.e., number of instructors needed and how they are paid: flat rate or hourly?).
  • Very minimal concerns about the organizations fiscal stability and ability to carry out the proposed activities given the OE, grant budget request, etc.

Accessibility:

  • Appears to meet ADA accessibility criteria (504 Self Eval, compliance staff person, etc.)
Dodds Jed - Score: 93.000
Well written grant with solid sense of purpose as well as choice specifics. Impressive openness to growth, feedback and new ideas, especially for a more established organization. 
Harder Lee Ellen - Score: 97.000
{No comments provided.}
Krivinchuk Jeremiah - Score: 93.000
Clear outline of goals and objectives.  Great measurement tools.
Packard Lisa - Score: 100.000

The breadth of this application and the organization's activities is most impressive. I really cannot find any fault with it or the budgeting.

Ryan Sara - Score: 91.000

Excellence: Does a great job of rooting the organization geographically. Very strong summary of 2015-2016 service. More concise listing of activities would have strengthened application. Under goal 3, elaborate on how you will build partnerships with teens, 20-somethings, parents, and young families. Clarify goal 4. Is the purpose to fill introductory classes at the same rate as the advanced? Extensive partnerships and timeline. Not sure what the Annual Best of the Clubs list is. Needs context. 

Impact: Strong economic impact. Can stop after first paragraph. The remaining information is addressed elsewhere or is unnecessary. Strong education and outreach including Special Needs Saturday Program. Unsure how The Back Alley Music Festival fits into marketing plan.

Management: Good to see student, member, and visitor growth, but also want to know about cash reserves, budget growth, debts, long term liabilities. Would have liked to have seen evaluation plan tied back into original goals.

Accessibility: Strong physical and programmatic accommodations/services. Be careful how you list groups that you serve. They should not be defined by their disability (special needs individuals should be listed as individuals with special needs).

Sanfilippo Amanda - Score: 92.000

 

program is good but a bit general