UW Extension, Arts & Culture Grant Evaluation Panel - ARTS

Arts, Humanities & Historic Preservation Grant Evaluation Panel - ARTS

Minutes of the Special Meeting

February 8, 2016

 

Panel Members Present:  Dale Loomis, Pat Yanke, Judy Spring, Holly Waterman, Joyce Ihde

UWEX Staff Present:  Morgan McArthur
UWEX Arts and Culture Members Present: Judy Ashford, Donna Stehling

 

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 12:06 PM by McArthur and the requirements of the Open Meeting Law were met.

 

Approval of Agenda

Motion made by Spring, second by Yanke to approve the agenda.  Motion carried.

 

Introductions

Guests: Karen Goeschko, WI Arts Board; Grace Hucek, student intern at WI Arts Board; Joann Muendth Douglas, Reedsburg ArtsLink

          

Review of Process Procedure

McArthur presented an overview of the roles and responsibilities of the staff, panel members and UW-Extension, Arts and Culture Committee members.

 

Election of Chairperson

Motion made by Spring, second by Loomis to elect Pat Yanke to serve as chair of the panel for the meeting.  Motion carried.

 

General Comments

 

Consideration of grant awards and development of recommendations

            The panel reviewed and ranked eleven (11) grants and discussed the pros and cons of each application.  

            Points from the panelist scoring sheets were summed and divided by the number of panelists evaluating

            each application. One panelist was recused from each of two applications. The following are the funding

            recommendations and comments for each application:

 

 

 

1.) 6:8 Inc. requested $5,000 for Fire on the River and the panel was split, 3 members recommending Full, and 2 Partial funding for this project.  

The panel awarded this project an average of 56.6 points (62 = high)based on the grant evaluation criteria.
 

PROS:

• Major event, draws from all around area
• Citywide effort
• High economic impact far beyond city limits
• Community benefit
• Existing structure
• Expenses are high; no documentation
• Flimsy grant-writing, especially given the $ize of the event

 

CONS:

• May have missed expense sheet for supplies/materials
• Are they financially sustainable without this grant?
• Would like to see a short video of the event – impactful?
• Are we donating for art-related materials or subsidizing kids to go on mission trips?
   

2.) American Players Theatre requested $3,000 and the panel panel was split, 2 Full, 3 Partial funding for this project. The panel awarded this project an average of 56.8 points (62=high) based on the grant evaluation criteria.
 

PROS:

• Ongoing program, historically have done a good job reaching out to the schools
• Not dependent on AHHP
• David Day = actor/leader is very experienced
• Benefits schools and benefits APT
• Helps schools with curriculum

CONS:

• Look for areas of growth. How to grow the reach to students? Matinees?
• Outreach is limited to English classes
• Not a lot of collaboration or impact
   

COMMENTS:

• Add technology to invigorate, like video and YouTube

 

3.) Baraboo Area Chamber of Commerce requested $5,000 for the Baraboo Big Top and the panel recommended full funding for this project. 

The panel awarded this project an average of 61.4 points (62 = top) based on the grant evaluation criteria.

 

PROS: 

• Creates significant impact for Baraboo area
• Links to core history – Baraboo Circus
• Big media coverage – est. 25K visitors
• Lots of in-kind donations, well-documented
• Impressive results with a short history, lots of participation
• Big draw within/outside of Sauk Co.

CONS:

• How to engage more rural contact with the parade?
   

 

3. Boys and Girls Club of West-Central Wisconsin requested $5,000 and the panel recommended partial funding for this project.      

The panel awarded this project an average of 51.4 points (62 = high) based on the grant evaluation criteria.

 

PROS:

• This program still functions without our money
• Director is paid – that is reasonable

 

CONS:

• More information wanted – do they need the money?
• Baraboo-centric
• Baraboo High School students have to join Boys/Girls Club to participate
• Budget seems weighted on costumes/makeup
• Program is a continuation of last year
• Very energetic about traveling outside the county – what about competitions with Reedsburg/Sauk?
   

COMMENTS:

• One reader noted losing interest in the grant application halfway through its reading. Wanted some video support showing the kids in action.

 

5.) CAL Center Presents, Inc. requested $3,100 and the panel split its funding recommendation – 3 Partial, 2 No - for this project.        

 

PROS: 

• None noted

CONS:

• Why can’t our kids put together a program like this instead of hiring from outside the county (New Orleans)?
• Poorly written application – should tighten up grant-writing and re-apply next year
• One sponsor only – need more community sponsors
• What is the performance?
• Conservative on attendance numbers – could have bumped up patron numbers

COMMENTS:

• Lowest rated application

6.) Creative Alliance of Baraboo (CAB) Theatre requested $5,000 and the panel voted 4 full and 1 partial funding recommendations for this project.             

The panel awarded this project an average of 54.2 points (62 = high) based on the grant evaluation criteria.

PROS: 

• Good initiative – have secured 501 (c) 3 status
• Creative approach to engaging with a difficult teen theme – social justice
• Acting & writing are a positive way of educating about the message
• Committed people
• Original, written & directed locally
• Geared toward teens but will reach adults too
• More serious approach with this program than past ones
• Well laid-out
• Addresses important issue – Sauk County has tough teen issues

CONS:

• Could be more performances
• No indication of integrating with other schools
• One time only? Could there be more performances?
• Fiscal side is geared toward honoraria – committee likes to see money directed toward art
• Video would be good as a social media marketing tool and as support for application
• Evaluation strategy in place?
• Where are ticket sales numbers?

7.) Reedsburg ArtsLink requested $2,145 and the panel voted for funding at 4 Full and 1 Partial levels for this project. 

The panel awarded this project an average of 51.4 points (62 = tops) based on the grant evaluation criteria.

PROS: 

• Good documentation
• Comes off of last year’s pilot project and the grant will help make this event possible
• Reaching W Sauk County
• Affiliated with Wormfarm Institute – benefits from brand association/implied quality
• Built into existing event
• People like to see art but they don’t buy much of it
• Uses ‘passport’ to drive people to explore the project
• Art Crawls can be exciting
• Collaboration with Reedsburg Revitalization
• Reminiscent of fiberglass cows in Chicago – points of interest in the downtown area

CONS:

• Could keep artwork on site for longer period of time – perhaps offer it for sale
• Longevity of displays is unclear
• How will they pull this off? The timeline is very tight. Is a project plan in place?
• Grant is for personnel costs; committee would rather spend money on art than people

8.) Reedsburg Public Library requested $2,000 and the panel recommended full funding for this project.   The panel awarded this project an average of 53.4 points (62 = high) based on the grant evaluation criteria. 

PROS:

• Ongoing project with a history of many requests
• Low-cost project
• Vibrant popular program with a new twist – adults at play
• Family-oriented
• Includes outreach to Loganville
• Diverse topics
• Libraries are more than a book warehouse

CONS:

• No income reported; goodwill donation could be requested
• No collaboration noted – don’t work in silos; find partners to work with
• Not financially sustainable (ie, grant is vital funding partner)
• Where are the friends of the library?
• No Sauk County presenters?

9.) River Arts, Inc. requested $1,450 and the panel recommended full funding for this project.

The panel awarded this project an average of 57.25 points based on the grant evaluation criteria.  Pat Yanke recused herself from the discussion.

PROS: 

• Well-focused
• Collaborate with college kids = hands-on
• Local history is vital
• Good public reception
• Well-written
• Good education element – eye-opening for kids

CONS:

• Would like to see more collaboration
• Sustainable program?
• Cited 9% poverty level in grant application – some school systems have 30-50% poverty
• Can you charge for attendance? Would you make exceptions for poorer students?
• What do you wish to accomplish?

10.) Sauk Prairie Theatre Guild requested $4,000 and the panel recommended partial funding for this project.          

            The panel awarded this project an average of 51.4 points (62 = high) based on the grant evaluation criteria.

PROS: 

• Children and adults involvement. Show has adolescents dealing with contemporary issues
• Pre-show workshop or post-show talkback could be good outreach strategy
• Encouraging drama in the curriculum
• Follow-up by school counselors could be good reinforcement
• Good production

CONS:

• Personnel-heavy; committee wants to support more arts, less people
• Small collaboration
• Grant poorly written and hard to read
• Sustainable?

11.) Wormfarm Institute requested $5,000 and the panel recommended full funding for this project. 

The panel awarded this project a (top) average score of 62 points based on the grant evaluation criteria.  Joyce Ihde recused herself from the discussion.

PROS: 

• High scoring, high-visibility program
• Touches many people, inside/outside Sauk County
• Hands-on for kids and adults
• Creative collaborations
• Economic impact! Can it be tracked?
• Shining star program for Reedsburg and the county
• AHHP is well-recognized for support
• Good expansion to other areas of Sauk County
• DTour has grown well and competently – very well organized

 

CONS: 

• Given the diverse funding for this event, is the AHHP grant necessary? Is it fair to recognize success by reducing funding? Hard to see $5K going to a successful program
• Lacking documentation of in-kind support
• Despite its success, it’s remarkable that there are many locals who don’t know anything about the event
• Personnel costs are high
• Could expand awareness of program through school field trips

 

Panel Members’ Questions and General Comments

• Phenomenal that Sauk County is one of three counties in WI that supports the arts in this process.
• Karen Goeschko, asst director, WI Arts Board: many granting organizations now require ‘work samples’ via Dropbox to supplement applications. This committee made several references to how video or still photographs would help them in evaluating applications.

 

• Comments on the Panelist Process Evaluation:
  • Receive packets sooner if possible (we were a month ahead in 2016)
  • (comment from 2015 session: Add final report if they receive funding in previous year)

Adjourn

Motion by Wakeman, second by Loomis to adjourn the meeting.  Meeting adjourned at 1:45 PM.

 

Submitted by,

Morgan McArthur

Sauk County UW Extension Community Development Educator  

The Panel ranked the grant applications in the following order:

1. Wormfarm Institute
2. Baraboo Area Chamber of Commerce
3. River Arts, Inc.
4. American Players Theatre
5. 6:8 Inc
6. Creative Alliance of Baraboo (CAB) Theatre
7. Reedsburg Public Library
8. Reedsburg ArtsLink, Inc.
9. Boys & Girls Clkub of W Central WI
10. Sauk Prairie Theatre Guild
11. CAL Center Presents, Inc.