Skip to main content

Assessment Guidelines for services organisations

Partner Arts Organisations

These guidelines are designed to:

  • help applicants understand the sorts of things assessors may consider when assessing applications
  • serve as prompts for assessors to consider in assessing submissions against the criteria of quality and reach.

The prompts are provided only as examples of the things that assessors may consider. Applicants are not required to address all the prompts one by one in their submissions, but if they are relevant, consider how they are reflected in their applications.

It is very important to note that not all of the prompts will apply to each application and the prompts may vary slightly or be weighted differently between the different programs.

First stage

Criteria Indicator Peers may consider
Quality 100% Strength of service to the arts and opportunities for arts practitioners
  • How does the organisation support quality sector development in its artform/sector? How well does it do this?
  • Are the opportunities offered by the organisation relevant and beneficial to artists, arts organisations and/or audiences?
  • How does the organisation deliver quality services over the term of investment?

Progression – organisation and/or program development/consolidation fresh approaches, experimentation and risk
  • Does this organisation develop an area of practice or audiences or other industry sectors?
  • Does the organisation contribute to diverse artistic practice/sector development in the Tasmanian arts ecology?
  • How does this program show the organisation's progression?
  • Is there appropriate risk taking or experimentation that strengthens the organisation's contribution to the sector?

Rigour – the thoroughness of the rationale, creative development/consolidation and/or research
  • Is there a clear vision for the organisation?
  • Is there a clear rationale for the program?
  • How robust is the strategic planning over time?
  • Does the program demonstrate strategic sector development over the term of investment? How does the organisation deliver quality arts services over the term of investment?

Second stage

Criteria Indicator The panel may consider
Quality 60%

Second stage: same as first stage, plus additional indicator under quality:

Capacity – calibre of personnel, resource and financial management, planning

  • How viable is the program?
  • Are the timelines, planning, use of resources realistic and achievable?
  • Does the organisation demonstrate good governance?
  • Has the organisation met the requirements of the maximum percentage threshold?
  • Are other investors confirmed?
  • Is the budget realistic and accurate?
  • What is the calibre of the people involved? Why has the applicant chosen to work with them? What do they contribute to the program?
  • Is there a business plan? How strong is the business plan?
Reach 40% Audience – numbers, marketing strategy, diversity and connection
  • Is there a marketing plan? How strong is the plan – realistic, achievable, and strategic?
  • Is there a digital marketing strategy? Does the digital marketing strategy go beyond social media?
  • If the marketing plan includes social media, how strong is the organisation's social media presence? How many followers does it have? What is the quality of its online presence and engagement?
  • Does the program increase or diversify the organisation's audience? How well does it do this?
  • Does it satisfy an existing market demand? If so, how? If not, should it?
  • Is this the only organisation delivering to this audience or in this artform/sector?

Engagement – participation, access, involvement of the public and/or specific audience or market sectors
  •  Does the program demonstrate audience development or engagement? What is the depth/breadth of that engagement?
  • Does it increase or diversify opportunities for participation and access? e.g. is there an audience development target/strategy? Does the organisation have a Disability Action Plan?
  • Does it engage communities of interest and/or communities of practice? How does it demonstrate this? How effectively has it done this in the past?
  • How many opportunities are there for artists and arts workers to be involved and employed? What is the quality of these opportunities?
  • Is there a benefit to the community created by this program and/or this organisation?
  • Does the organisation contribute to building a robust, diverse, vibrant arts sector in Tasmania?
  • Does the organisation provide a quality, relevant, beneficial service to the arts sector?
  • What are the other outcomes of the program over the term of investment and what is their impact?