Cultural Advisory Board Agenda and Packet 2025 03 12

Home Browse Search

Ability to Execute Criterion: Does the application demonstrate that the applicant will be able to successfully execute the program? Ability to Execute Scale: • 5 — Excellent: The applicant has a clear, well -detailed plan, the necessary skills, experience, and resources, and a high probability of success. All aspects of the project are well thought out. • 4 — Good: The applicant has a strong plan, experience and the capacity to execute, with minor areas of uncertainty or areas that could be more fully developed. • 3 — Satisfactory: The application shows the project is feasible but lacks some critical details or clear plans in areas like experience, logistics, resources. • 2 — Fair: There are significant gaps in the plan, and the applicant lacks critical resources or experience. The project may still be possible, but it's unlikely to succeed without further development. • 1— Poor: The application does not provide enough evidence to suggest the project can be successfully executed. Major details are missing or unrealistic. This scale assesses the applicant's preparedness, capability, and resources to execute the program successfully. It considers how well the applicant has planned for implementation, their experience or expertise. Impact of Funding Criterion: Will the project fully utilize the funding and/or the use of City venues available through this grant program? Will this grant make a significant impact? Impact of Funding Scale: • 5 — Excellent: The grant will have a significant impact, substantially advancing the project's goals and expanding its reach. The project fully leverages the funding. The applicant demonstrates a clear understanding of how the funding will be utilized. • 4 — Good: The grant will have a positive and meaningful impact on the project, enhancing its scope and quality. The applicant clearly outlines how the funds will be used, but the impact may be limited. The project makes good use of the funding. • 3 — Satisfactory: The project uses the funding, but the impact is modest or uncertain. The connection between the funding and long-term results is not completely clear. • 2 — Fair: The applicant provides minimal justification for how the grant will be used or the impact of the grant. The project's success is likely to be modest or constrained. • 1— Poor: The applicant fails to demonstrate how the funding will make a meaningful impact. The grant is unlikely to have any significant impact on the program or the community. This scale evaluates how well the funding is utilized and the impact it has on the project's success and the local community. It takes into account the scope, reach, and effectiveness of the project in utilizing available resources to create significant project in Louisville.