Arts, Humanities & Historic Preservation Grant Evaluation Panel - ARTS

Date: March 24, 2009

Panel - ARTS
Minutes of the Special Meeting

Panel Members Present: Pat Yanke, Mark Tully, Judy Spring, Kay Taylor, Marilyn Kharbush

UWEX Staff Present: Jenny Erickson

• Call to Order
  • The meeting was called to order at 10:30 AM by Erickson
• Certification of Open Meeting Notice
  • Requirements of the Open Meeting Law were met.
• Approval of Agenda
  • Motion made by Yanke, second by Spring to approve the agenda. Motion carried.
• Introductions
• Review of Process Procedure
  • Erickson gave a summary of the changes to the UW-Extension, Arts and Culture Committee. She also 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 Yanke, second by Spring that Tully serve as chair of the panel for the meeting. Motion carried.
• Consideration of grant awards and development of recommendations
  • The panel reviewed all 15 grants and discussed the pros and cons of each application.
    The following are the funding recommendations and comments for each application:
    1. Aldo Leopold Foundation requested $3300 and the panel recommended fully funding this project.
       • Pros:
         • The direct artist involvement. Looking to double the number of artists involved.
         • The broad cross-section of artist involved.
         • They are building on the success of the 2008 program.
       • Cons:
         • It is unclear how they will attract new audiences to the event.
         • The County is the only source of revenue and there was no effort to find other sources of funds
    2. American Players Theater requested $3000 and the panel recommended fully funding this project.
       • Pros:
         • Very well written grant
         • The organization has a history of success including 17 years of profit.
         • Great student involvement (800 Sauk County kids)
         • Link to Wisconsin curriculum standards
         • Good evaluation plan.
       • Cons:
         • None
    3. Boys and Girls Club of Baraboo/Sauk County requested $5000 and the panel recommended not funding this project.
       • Pros:
         • Well intentioned project
         • They should reapply next cycle with a stronger grant application.
       • Cons:
         • The goals and the timeline were not clear – it left many questions.
         • Need more specifics/definition
         • The budget for supplies did not correspond with project.
         • No solid plan
         • Not concrete
    4. CAL Center Presents requested $2300 and the panel recommended $1000 in funding for this project.
       • Pros:
         • Liked the opportunity to get families to the theater.
       • Cons:
         • More entertainment than artistic except for the study guide.
         • Need to do a better job of describing in kind contributions.
         • An educational component would have strengthened this application.
    5. Circus World Museum requested $5000 and the panel recommended fully funding this project.
       • Pros:
         • Innovative way to boost attendance at Circus World.
         • Good photos
         • Good grant
         • Highly interactive with lots of kids involved
         • Lots of professionals helping with this project.
       • Cons:
         • $8000 seems like too much money for publicity. How will this money be used?
         • Don’t know how many kids actually participate. Only gate numbers are listed.
         • Include a separate budget for this event, not just Circus World budget.
       • Emphasize theatrical/artistic value of this project in the summary.
         
    6. Fall Art Tour requested $5000 and the panel recommended fully funding this project if there are funds available. If no funds are available do not fund this project.
       • Pros:
         • Love the Fall Art Tour
         • Student produced video
         • Tapping into new technologies
       • Cons:
         • This is all about marketing.
         • The timeline is too short.
         • No evidence of cooperation from UW-Baraboo/Sauk County club director (letter of support)
         • It is not clear how the $1500 will be used to reach new audiences.
         • The club director’s qualifications are unclear.
    7. Reedsburg Area Chamber of Commerce requested $1500 and the panel recommended fully funding this project. The funding amount could be reduced if necessary.
       • Pros:
         • This organization has a long, good track record for success.
         • This project has had very good participation in the past.
         • There is a good variety of music.
       • Cons:
         • There could be more detail about the music groups (type of music etc.)
         • There are no goals listed.
    8. River Arts Inc requested $5000 and the panel recommended fully funding this project.
       • Pros:
         • Well written grant with a strong summary.
         • Good testimonials of past successes.
         • Although there were two parts to the application it was easy to follow.
         • Well planned programs.
         • Good documentation.
         • Good in-kind valuation.
       • Cons:
         • None
    9. Sauk County Area Music Honors Program requested $2250 and the panel recommended partial funding of $1000 for this project.
       • Pros:
         • Liked the cooperative versus competition approach.
         • Wonderful idea
         • 110 kids from multiple communities
       • Cons:
         • What criteria are used to select conductors and directors?
         • There is a lack of local sponsors.
         • The budget is unclear.
         • More detail is needed about in-kind contributions.
         • Should include testimonials/proof of successful past programs.
    10. Spring Green Area Arts Coalition requested $1600 and the panel recommended fully funding this project.
        • Pros:
          • Good partnership with the library.
          • Strong four year track record of success
          • Good evaluation plan and timeline.
        • Cons:
          • It was unclear how often the project met.
          • Should include documentation (ie photos) of past successes.
            
    11. Summerset Theater requested $3500 and the panel recommended fully funding this project.
        • Pros:
          • Good, realistic timeline.
          • Evaluation component was strong (surveys)
          • Liked the senior night discount.
          • Like the collaboration with UW-Baraboo/Sauk County
          • Strong narrative including the 5 years of growth.
          • Great board of directors
          • Fundraising from multiple events (well balanced funding)
        • Cons:
          • Could include more about why live theater is important.
            
    12. The Reedsburg Players requested $1000 and the panel recommended fully funding this project.
        • Pros:
          • Liked the “grow your own staff” component.
          • Good youth mentorship/leadership and community ownership.
          • Aimed at Middle School.
          • Good evaluation process.
          • Lots of community involvement.
          • Cost effective
          • Specific focus
        • Cons:
          • Could add more documentation (i.e. testimonials) from past successful performances.
            
    13. UW- Baraboo/Sauk County, Campus Culture & Community Committee requested $1000 and the panel recommended NOT funding this project.
        • Pros:
          • Liked the audience feedback survey
          • Good idea.
          • Apply next cycle with a stronger grant application.
        • Cons:
          • Weakly written grant. It lacked details and substance.
          • Weak impact statement
          • Why are the lectures important?
          • How is this linked to campus courses and other programs?
          • How is climate change connected to art?
          • No evidence of partnerships (i.e. letters of support).
          • In-kind contributions are not fully reflected in budget.
    14. Village of Sauk City requested $5000 and the panel recommended NOT funding this project.
        • Pros:
          • Strong application
          • Strong letters of support
          • Audience is increasing
          • Well planned (rain date, walkable etc)
        • Cons:
          • The budget does not make sense.
          • The grants funds are not needed based on the budget presented.
            
    15. Wormfarm Institute requested $4200 and the panel recommended fully funding this project.
        • Pros:
          • Broad range of artist involved.
          • Most creative and innovative grant application.
          • Unique idea (arts versus curiosities)
          • Great pictures and documentation.
          • Great location.
          • Great letter of support from the Sauk County Development Corporation.
          • Many experienced, professionals involved in this project.
          • Good budget including in-kind valuation.
        • Cons:
          • What changes in the community are occurring as a result of this program?
• The total amount of funding recommended by the Arts Panel is $35,100.
• Panel Member's Questions
  • The panel members asked that the UW-Extension Arts and Culture Committee review the following items and perhaps provide guidance for future grant cycles:
  • The panelist scoring and comment sheet include a section on evaluation (question four), however the application doesn't specifically ask applicants to outline an evaluation process.
  • Many applicants apply for funding to re-offer projects/programs that have been conducted in the past. Should these applicants be required to include documentation about the success of the past project/program?
    
• Panel Process Evaluation
• Adjourn
  • Motion made by Taylor, second by Yanke to adjourn at 12:20pm. Motion carried.

Submitted by: Jenny Erickson, Sauk County UW Extension Community Development Educator