Scores and Comments

19.c.pr.105.588

Museum of Lifestyle & Fashion History

Application Details

Proposal TypeSpecific Cultural Project - Discipline-Based
Request Amount
$25,000
Total Score553.000
Average Score79.000

Panelist Scores

Panelist Excellence Impact Management Accessibility Total
Clercx Byron 24 19 12 8 63
Dodds Jed 34 27 15 9 85
Harder Lee Ellen 31 26 17 10 84
Krivinchuk Jeremiah 33 25 16 8 82
Packard Lisa 30 21 20 10 81
Ryan Sara 31 23 15 8 77
Sanfilippo Amanda 31 20 20 10 81

Comments

Clercx Byron - Score: 63.000

Excellence:

  • Mission statement includes loose a timeline of various activities but it does not clearly state goals or provide measurable objectives or assessment criteria/methods
  • Partners are alluded to in the narrative (in general terms but hard to distinguish specific partners from academic or business entities involved in one-time activities (other than four sites noted in single sentence under “Partnerships” heading

Impact:

  • Descriptions lack specific information about event relevance, demand or cultural need
  • Impact assessment and assertions rely heavily on surveys and/or estimates and suppositions. Increased emphasis on data collection and use would add credibility and value to claims and make it easier for evaluators and event organizers to benchmark and recommend/make changes to increase the success and sustainability of the event
  • Does not fully demonstrate the economic impact of event or how it supports the mission. Further delineate specific ways The Taste History Culinary Tours enhances community livability, empathy for diversity, economic development, cultural tourism, etc. and use this in talking points and marketing and promotion materials to attract and retain more event sponsors, participating businesses, and attendees.
  • Consider emphasizing and/or expanding your organizations contributions to the creative economy by referencing the American’s for the Arts, Arts & Economic Prosperity 5 report which are embedded with compelling statistical data, testimonials, case studies and a useful economic prosperity calculator. Creative Placemaking by Markusen and Gadwa, and several white paper briefs from The National Governor’s Association: Center for Best Practices are also useful acknowledged sources that highlight the role of the arts in economic and cultural development.
  • Educational and Outreach components serve the target constituency and are appropriate for the program/project
  • Limited and/or minimally effective Marketing and Promotion activities. Therefore, the plan, if funded, was to devote some funds toward strategies to improve marketing and promotion since: more that 50% of the tour reservations are by word of mouth.

Management:

  • Multiple concerns about the organizations financial stability (stated concerns about MLFH forced to moved out of permanent home, and more than half of the total OE ($161.6K) is in-kind donations ($100K); which weakens confidence that MLFH can carry out the proposed activities during the grant cycle (and long-term sustainability).
  • Evaluation methods are not fully articulated or measurable. Consider adding quantitative and qualitative measures with specific goals (e.g., targets and stretch targets) and/or referencing Americans for the Arts: AEP5 Report (that furnishes the most comprehensive and current verified data, testimonials, and case studies for free.
  • Consider adding outside evaluators to help assess event success and viability

Accessibility:

  • Applicant has completed the Abbreviated Accessibility Checklist (but not the Section 504 Self Evaluation Workbook).
Dodds Jed - Score: 85.000
Obviously worthy, fun, and ambitious. But is this grant an appropriate support mechanism? Aspects of the budget are questionable - 2,000 audience, but just $20,000 admissions, when tix are $50? Still, appears to operate on a shoestring, overall. 
Harder Lee Ellen - Score: 84.000

-mission statement unclear

-not clear on how much the visual arts are impacted in this project, seems to be more about food

-outreach is not significant and overall impact did not include many details

Krivinchuk Jeremiah - Score: 82.000

The overall narrative was confusing and didn't provide a clear picture of the program and what the goal was of the grant request until the end.

Unclear on measurement tools and guidelines.

For accessibility, is there ADA information on marketing materials?

Packard Lisa - Score: 81.000

I suggest you highlight in the very beginning in a bigger way that this funding request is to support the additional bus trips.

Ryan Sara - Score: 77.000

Excellence: In reviewing the purpose of this funding request (gain additional financial support for expanding the Taste of History Culinary Tour to include Belle Grande), I noticed that a visual art component was not built into the tour. I am not sure this qualifies for funding from the visual-arts grant dollars. The continuation of the Three Senses Field Trip would qualify but that is not the main purpose of the grant proposal.

Impact: Use of an economic calculator would strengthen this section. Almost no detail in marketing section.

Management: Not sufficient information. Is this a successful source of income for the organization. What guidelines/principles do you follow in your budgeting process, what oversight protocols do you follow, does the organization have cash reserves, debt, long term liabilities?

Accessibility: Do you actively promote that you can make accommodations? How much does that tour cost per person?

Sanfilippo Amanda - Score: 81.000

There may be a more appropriate grant category to apply to  - seems like an interesting program but not a great fit for this grant 

Could use some help writing the grant