Scores and Comments

19.c.pr.105.707

National Art Exhibitions of the Mentally Ill, Inc.

Application Details

Proposal TypeSpecific Cultural Project - Discipline-Based
Request Amount
$22,000
Total Score624.000
Average Score89.143

Panelist Scores

Panelist Excellence Impact Management Accessibility Total
Clercx Byron 36 27 14 10 87
Dodds Jed 37 22 18 9 86
Harder Lee Ellen 37 25 19 10 91
Krivinchuk Jeremiah 34 27 19 10 90
Packard Lisa 33 22 20 10 85
Ryan Sara 36 28 17 10 91
Sanfilippo Amanda 35 29 20 10 94

Comments

Clercx Byron - Score: 87.000

Excellence:

  • NAEMI’s mission statement is clear, concise, and purposeful
  • Identifies clear goals and objectives, and activities that engender empathy and appreciation for differences and create opportunities for cross-cultural dialogue/exchange.
  • Educational outreach activity is appropriate, related to the mission, and includes (but is not be limited to): an exhibit, panel discussion, and bi-lingual publication
  • Partnerships and collaborations are clearly listed
  • Very confident in the organizations fiscal stability and ability to carry out the proposed activities during the grant cycle (considering NAEMI has maintained a balanced budget since its inception (29 consecutive years)

 

Impact:

  • NAEMI is unique (as the only organization of its kind in the state) and the proposed program provides a significant cultural service to the community because it activates a discursive space by asking makers and viewers to confront some themes, questions, and people they might otherwise avoid.
  • Consider adding source materials that celebrate and convey the powerful personal, social, cultural and the economic solutions, like: AFTA’s Arts & Economic Prosperity 5, or Creative Placemaking by Markusen and Gadwa.
  • Reasonable activities are proposed and these activities are achievable in the grant cycle
  • Marketing and educational outreach activities are very appropriate for the project

Management:

  • The evaluation, which consists of tracking attendance (guest book and surveys), event participation, media attention, and opportunities for artists and the organization) do not mention specific measurable (quantitative or qualitative) outcomes and are not clearly defined.
  • Very minimal concerns about sustainability of activities after the grant cycle

Accessibility:

  • Meets ADA accessibility criteria (504 Self Eval, compliance staff person, etc.)
Dodds Jed - Score: 86.000
Selection of artists and execution of programs appears strong. Wish there was more evidence of actual engagement with artists. 
Harder Lee Ellen - Score: 91.000
{No comments provided.}
Krivinchuk Jeremiah - Score: 90.000

Excellent partnerships on an international scale.

Impact numbers seem low for this type of exhibit.

Packard Lisa - Score: 85.000

My only comment includes consider asking for a minimum dollar or two to some of these free events. Also, are the the designers, writers and photographers that you want to hire "outsider" artists?

Ryan Sara - Score: 91.000

Excellence: Strong, clear mission statement. Publication contributors demonstrate excellence. Needs clearer connection between goals and objectives. Clarify which new arts and cultural organizations you would like to engage. Strong partnerships. 

Impact: Might not have highest numbers, but very focused and unique services. 

Management: 29 years of a balanced budget. Cash reserves, debt, long term liabilities? Will you track artwork sales?

Accessibility: Bilingual book/catalog, audio descriptions, provide service/economic opportunity for those with mental illness.  

Sanfilippo Amanda - Score: 94.000

Niche program, a lot of different things going on. Exhibition seems a bit prescribed...but that probably connects with demographic..ambitious program