FY2020 Applications: Support Period: July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020 “On Year” Artistic Categories submitting FULL GFO application. Deadline will be in Fall 2018 for: Arts Services Folk and Traditional Arts Large Organizations Multi-Discipline B Music B Theater A Theater B New applicants, those not funded for FY2019, grantees notified of one-year funding with FY2019 award notification “Off Year” Artistic Categories submitting Request for Funding (RFF) application. Deadline will be in December 2018. Application Process New Applicants Applicants are considered “new” if they did not apply for, or did not receive a Fiscal Year 2017 GFO grant award. All new applicants are required to complete and submit the Intent to Apply Form along with the required additional documents. () Intent to Apply Form - REQUIRED: Deadline September 21, 2016, 5pm The Intent to Apply form and additional documents will be reviewed by the appropriate GFO program director to determine eligibility to apply for a GFO grant. You may contact the appropriate program director if you have questions. A list of arts council program directors with contact information for each artistic category is available in . The Intent to Apply form must be submitted via New applicants who attempt to submit an application without first verifying their eligibility (detailed in ) by submitting an Intent to Apply form will be deemed ineligible. You will be notified of your eligibility. If the organization is deemed eligible for the GFO program, it must submit a FULL Application by October 27, 2016. See details below for the FULL application process. Returning Applicants – FULL Application FULL Application: Deadline October 27, 2016, 5pm If your organization is on an “on-year” or was designated as participating in the one-year cycle this year, you must complete a FULL application. Preparing Your FULL Application Please refer to the Review Criteria as you prepare your narrative and other required documents. All materials should tell the same story and represent your organization at its best. Panels look for evidence of your commitment to your mission and artistic excellence, as well as sound governance, management and operations, based on your strategic planning. Grant review panels look for evidence of your organization’s
Organization Name Mailing Address City State: MD Zip Code: (+Four) County Federal Taxpayer Identification Number* DUNS Number* Organization Phone Organization Fax Fiscal Year (month/day – month/day) Organization’s Founding Year Website and Social Media addresses: Organization Website YouTube Facebook Twitter Other
Artistic Excellent – Outstanding Clearly evident and artistic aesthetic achievement, artistic programming on a superior level and continues to evolve creatively. Artistic decisions are made by highly qualified personnel or invitees. Organization is a leader in its field in artistic excellence. Good – Very Good Clearly evident and artistic aesthetic achievement, artistic programming on a high level Satisfactory Adequate evidence of artistic aesthetic achievement, artistic programming remains consistent Marginal — Fair Implied but not specific evidence of artistic aesthetic Poor Hard to determine, no evidence provided Program Evaluation Excellent – Outstanding Excellent and effective evaluation techniques that are an ongoing part of the planning process and provide evidence the priorities are achieved. Model for the field in program evaluation and continued update of evaluation process Good – Very Good Effective evaluation techniques are part of the planning process and provide evidence priorities are achieved. Satisfactory Evaluation techniques are in place and provide evidence priorities are achieved. Marginal — Fair Outlined evaluation efforts, but leaves questions as to how the information is to be used Poor Fails to address how the organization will evaluate it programming How Arts Reflect Mission Excellent – Outstanding Articulate and clear explanation of how the programs and services fulfill the organization’s mission. Evident that the mission is regularly evaluated Good – Very Good Clear explanation of how the programs and services fulfill the organization’s mission. Satisfactory General statement on how the programs and services fulfill the organization’s mission, but lacks clarity Marginal — Fair Statement on how the programs and services fulfill the organization’s mission is not fully formed Poor Lacks an explanation of how the programs and services fulfill the organization’s mission articulated
Review Criteria #2 – Organizational Effectiveness Evaluation is based on evidence that the organization has and will successfully carry out its mission. Glossary definition of Organizational Effectiveness from FY2018 GFO Guidelines: The ability of an organization to develop and organize the operational means necessary to support current and planned activities, as measured by the organization’s prior record and the soundness of plans of action. Financial Information Excellent – Outstanding Accurate & realistic budget; development plans indicate good fiscal health with a variety of revenue sources. Applicant's budget reflects a broad base of revenue and support from earned, unearned and in-kind sources; Organization is financially stable or has plans for stability. If applicable, applicant has a viable plan to reduce any accumulated deficit. Finances are regularly reported to board and revised as necessary. Major variances from year to year are explained clearly. Model in the field. Good – Very Good Accurate and realistic budget reflecting a broad base of revenue and support from various sources. Appears to be financially stable. If applicable, applicant has a viable plan to reduce any accumulated deficit. Finances are regularly reported to board and revised as necessary. Major variances from year to year are explained clearly. Satisfactory Basic, itemized budget info appears realistic; revenue sources are specified, financial strength of the organization is not detailed. .Finances are regularly reported to board and revised as necessary. Major variances from year to year are explained clearly. Marginal — Fair Confusing and unrealistic budget; Development plans leave doubts about the fiscal health of the organization Poor Budget is incomplete and unacceptable Planning Excellent – Outstanding Thorough planning indicated, including a relevant and timely strategic plan including vision, mission, appropriateness of goals and strategies, evaluation plans, adaptability, centrality of the arts, and clarity. Good – Very Good Thorough planning is indicated included a relevant strategic plan including vision, mission, appropriateness of goals and strategies, evaluation plans. Satisfactory A plan is in place that includes strategic planning, mission and goals and strategies. Evaluation plans could be included or strengthened. Marginal — Fair Vague statements about process and does not address future needs of the organization Poor Absent or contradictory strategic planning to organization's stated mission
Plan is updated regularly to keep it current. Management and Structure Excellent – Outstanding Clear evidence that the skills and capacity of the board and professional staff are high; demonstrated personnel structure (paid or volunteer) to implement projects and programs on a high level; evidence of sound management and planning including regular reporting to board. Applicant's artistic, educational and cultural activities are strengthened by qualified personnel. Good – Very Good The skills and capacity of the board and professional staff are high, personnel structure allows implementation of activities on a good level; regular reporting to the board is evident. Personnel are qualified. Satisfactory The skills and capacity of the board and professional staff are adequate to allow implementation of activities on a satisfactory level. Regular reporting to the board is stated. Personnel are mostly qualified. Marginal — Fair The board and professional staff are not all adequate to meet the needs of the organization to produce activities on a satisfactory level. Poor Board and staff structure and composition is not explained. Review Criteria #3 – Service to Community Evaluation is based on evidence that the organization is committed to serving the community. Community is defined as the constituents served by the applicant, and can be based on artistic discipline, geography, or it can be culturally based. Glossary definition of Service to Community from FY2018 GFO Guidelines: The degree to which an organization’s operations and activities display an understanding of and responsiveness to the community, as the organization defines that community.
Description of Community Excellent – Outstanding Thorough description of constituents served by the applicant including artistically, geographically, or culturally based. Leader in the field. Good – Very Good Clear description of constituents served by the applicant including artistically, geographically, or culturally based. Satisfactory Basic description of constituents served by the applicant included. Marginal — Fair Unclear and confusing description of the constituents is provided. Poor Inadequate description of constituents. Community Engagement and Outreach Excellent – Outstanding Pro-active plan for attracting new audiences and audience development, including outreach programs and activities that go into the community. Evidence of understanding and responsiveness to the community. Clear plan and implementation of community engagement evaluation is in place. Leader in the field and model for community engagement. Good – Very Good Plan for attracting new audiences and audience development, including outreach programs and activities that go into the community. Evidence of understanding and responsiveness to the community. Plan for evaluation of efforts is in place. Satisfactory Open to new audiences, but not engaging new audiences proactively or reaching into the community. Basic audience and community engagement efforts need strengthening. Marginal — Fair Passive outreach to those that come to the organization’s activities. No plan for attracting new audiences or engaging current audiences or reaching into the community. Poor Does not address audience engagement or outreach Appendix L – Appeals Process