Northampton Arts Council Grant Scoring Criteria

The Northampton Arts Council prioritizes addressing systemic inequities that have disproportionately affected individuals who hold historically marginalized identities. As such, we have modified our grant criteria by adding Accessibility & Inclusion and now Emergence as part of our ongoing work to operationalize our Equity Statement.

Grant Categories & Max Scores:

• Artistic Merit (0–6)
  
  

• Accessibility & Inclusion (0–4)
  
  

• Community Impact (0–4)
  
  

• Project Feasibility (0–3)
  
  

• Emergence (0–3)
  
  

Total Max Score = 20

Artistic Merit (0–6)

Guiding Questions:

• Is it art?
  
  

• Does the proposed project demonstrate a high standard of technique within its genre or similar work in our community?
  
  

• Does the project offer a unique perspective or a fresh approach?
  
  

• How does this project reflect or enhance the cultural vibrancy of Northampton and the region?
  
  

• Does the proposed project excite you?
  
  

• Is the format of work engaging?
  
  

• Do you think residents/visitors/audience members will enjoy, benefit, and/or learn from this project?
  
  

Scoring Range:

• 0: Nil to Marginal
  The project shows little to no artistic merit. It lacks clarity, originality, or artistic merit and does not demonstrate cultural or creative value.
  
  

• 1–2: Limited
  The project demonstrates minimal artistic merit. Technique or execution may be weak, or the proposal lacks a compelling artistic vision. Limited potential to excite or engage audiences.
  
  

• 3–4: Fair to Satisfactory
  The project demonstrates moderate artistic merit with some strengths in originality, engagement, or cultural vibrancy. There is potential for growth, but aspects of execution or vision are underdeveloped.
  
  

• 5: Good to Very Good
  The project shows strong artistic quality, originality, and engagement. It meaningfully enhances cultural vibrancy, demonstrates clear creative vision, and supports artistic growth.
  
  

• 6: Excellent
  The project demonstrates exceptional artistic integrity, originality, and execution. It is highly compelling, culturally enriching, and deeply engaging, with strong potential for transformative artistic or community impact.

Accessibility & Inclusion (0–4)

Guiding Questions:

• Is the venue or platform accessible (physical access, transportation, gender-inclusive restrooms, translation services, captioning)?
  
  

• Is participation affordable for a broad audience (sliding scale/reduced tickets/free access for low-income people)?
  
  

• Does the project center the voices of people and communities who hold historically excluded identities?

• Does the project center on BIPOC perspectives?
  
  

• Does the project provide opportunities for diverse community participation and input (artists, audience, volunteers, collaborators, supporters)?
  
  

• Is the project caregiver-friendly and family-friendly?
  
  

Scoring Range:

• 0: Nil to Marginal
  The project does not address accessibility or inclusion, or only minimally acknowledges these priorities. Barriers to participation remain unaddressed.
  
  

• 1: Limited Accessibility & Inclusion
  Some attention is given to accessibility or affordability, but efforts are limited in scope. Minimal engagement of historically excluded voices or diverse participants.
  
  

• 2: Fair to Satisfactory
  The project addresses several accessibility or inclusion priorities (affordability, diverse participation, accessibility measures) but with gaps in depth or reach. Impact may be modest but present.
  
  

• 3: Good to Very Good
  The project demonstrates strong commitment to accessibility and inclusion. It meaningfully reduces barriers, centers historically excluded voices, and provides clear opportunities for broad participation.
  
  

• 4: Excellent
  Accessibility and inclusion are central to the project. It is intentionally designed to reduce barriers, ensure affordability, center historically excluded voices, and engage diverse participants. Clear, thoughtful strategies maximize participation for all community members.

Community Impact (0–4)

Guiding Questions:

• Does this project fill a need in our community?
  
  

• Is it educational?
  
  

• Does it bring art from outside of our community into it?
  
  

• Does this project promote learning, growth, or dismantling systemic racism and inequality?
  
  

• Is it a professional development opportunity for an artist or group of artists?
  
  

• Who is the intended audience?
  
  

• Would the proposed project have a long-term effect or is it more ephemeral?
  
  

• Does this project connect people of all identities with art and one another?
  
  

Scoring Range:

• 0: Nil to Marginal
  The project does not demonstrate meaningful community impact. It appears insular, does not address community needs, and shows little or no potential for connection, growth, or relevance.
  
  

• 1: Limited Impact
  The project offers minimal community benefit or engagement. It may have a small audience, little educational value, or limited reach. Connections to dismantling inequities or fostering inclusivity are weak or absent.
  
  

• 2: Fair to Satisfactory
  The project addresses some community needs and offers moderate opportunities for education, professional development, or audience engagement. The impact is present but not fully developed or far-reaching.
  
  

• 3: Good to Very Good
  The project demonstrates clear community benefit. It is educational or developmental for artists and audiences, engages diverse participants, and promotes connection across identities. Shows potential for lasting value.
  
  

• 4: Excellent
  The project has significant and broad community impact. It meaningfully addresses community needs, promotes inclusivity, fosters growth and dismantling of inequities, and provides long-term value. It engages diverse audiences and connects people across communities in powerful ways.
  
  

Project Feasibility (0–3)

Guiding Questions:

• Do the budget and project narrative convey a well-planned project? Does it seem like this project will happen?
  
  

• What is the applicant’s plan to make up for any financial shortfalls?
  
  

• Does the budget include multiple funding sources (including in-kind donations)?
  
  

• Are listed collaborators confirmed or “potential”?
  
  

• Does the applicant or their collaborators have transferable skills needed to execute the project?
  
  

• Is the venue confirmed, and is there a project date?
  
  

• Does the applicant have a marketing plan and access to the intended audience?
  
  

• Is there a pandemic/crisis backup plan?
  
  

Scoring Range:

• 0: Nil to Marginal
  The proposal does not demonstrate a viable plan. The budget is incomplete or unrealistic, collaborators are unconfirmed, and there is little or no evidence the project can realistically take place.
  
  

• 1: Fair to Satisfactory
  The proposal shows some planning, but key details are missing or underdeveloped. The budget may be thin, collaborators uncertain, or the venue/project date unconfirmed. The project could happen, but feasibility is questionable.
  
  

• 2: Good to Very Good
  The project appears generally well-planned and realistic. The budget is clear with multiple funding sources, collaborators are mostly confirmed, and the venue/project date is likely secured. Some details may be incomplete, but overall feasibility is strong.
  
  

• 3: Excellent
  The proposal conveys a clear, detailed, and achievable plan. The budget is realistic and diversified, collaborators are confirmed, logistics (venue/date) are in place, and there is a thoughtful marketing and crisis plan. High likelihood of successful completion.
  
  
  

Emergence (0–3)

Definition:

Emergence prioritizes new projects and up-and-coming artists who have not previously received support from the Northampton Arts Council. It highlights work that introduces fresh voices, first-time applicants, or creative practices that are just beginning to develop, ensuring space for the next generation of artists and ideas.

Questions to Consider:

• Is this a project that the Northampton Arts Council has not previously funded?

• Does the applicant represent an emerging or up-and-coming artist?

• Does the project introduce fresh cultural perspectives, voices, or practices to our community? 

• Does the project represent a kind of artistic production that is under-represented in Northampton (have we never seen this before)?

• Does it expand opportunities for artists at an early or transitional stage in their career?

• Is this a new production (as opposed to a re-run or staple)?

• Does this project cultivate the potential for artistic growth? Does it help further the careers of emerging artists in our community?
  
  

Scoring Range:

• 0: No evidence of newness or emerging voices
  
  

• 1: Limited emergence; some new elements but largely established
  
  

• 2: Good emergence; clear presence of new work or an emerging artist
  
  

• 3: Strong emergence; a new project, a powerful new artistic voice, or would be a first-time grantee.