(GFO) FY2019 Application Deadlines: September 21, 2017: Intent to Apply Form - REQUIRED - for New GFO Applicants and those that did not receive funding for FY2018 October 26, 2017: Full Application – for organizations designated on the one-year application cycle for the Fiscal Year 2019 grant cycle. Also for those deemed eligible to apply after MSAC review of Intent to Apply form December 7, 2017: Request for Funding (RFF) Application – for organizations designated on the three-year application cycle for the Fiscal Year 2019 grant cycle GFO Informational Sessions and Webinar GFO Informational Sessions provide information and assist you with your application for funding in the Maryland State Arts Council GFO program. See for details and registration information. Individuals who do not use conventional print may contact the Maryland State Arts Council to obtain this publication in an alternate format. 410-767-6555 or For individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. TTY: Maryland Relay 1-800-735-2258 or 711 Maryland State Arts Council |175 W. Ostend Street, Suite E, Baltimore, MD 21230 Voice: 410-767-6555, Fax: 410-333-1062, Email: Office Hours: Monday-Friday, 8:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. MARYLAND STATE ARTS COUNCIL 5 (GFO) 6 6 GFO 6 7 8 ORGANIZATIONS GRANTS ORGANIZATIONS PROGRAM OF
General Organization Information: 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
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
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