IMPORTANT: Proposals will be evaluated on a scale from 0 to 100 points and classified according to their final score. The minimum threshold is set at 75/100 points.
| Criteria | Definition | Maximum weighting | |
| 1. | Pertinence of the project | This criterion assesses both the pertinence of the project to the objectives of the call for proposals as well as the internal consistency and overall logic of the project description (structure and feasibility). In particular, this criterion evaluates: a) The extent to which the proposal improves the accessibility, recognition and promotion of artists and their works; b) The degree of project impact on the target beneficiaries (including vulnerable groups: women, children and youth, minorities, migrants, discriminated groups, etc.); c) Potential synergies with existing initiatives or organisations and professional sectors in culture and others; d) Engagement of independent local actors, community groups, etc.; e) The extent to which the proposal contributes to creating employment; f) Increased training of the persons or groups involved, including in the field of visual image education; g) The degree of specificity, internal consistency, project viability, qualitative and time feasibility, as well as the capacity for evaluation and self-evaluation; h) Innovative aspect(s), including technological innovation; i) Strategies proposed to ensure project sustainability and/or scaling-up its impact, including the sustainability of the enterprise; j) The sustainability and perpetuation of the action and/or its impacts. | 30 |
| 2. | Quality of the financial offer | This criterion evaluates the project budget with particular regard to: a) the activities adequately set out in the budget; b) the accuracy and consistency of estimated costs with regard to local practices; c) the feasibility of the estimated outcomes in relation to the estimated costs. Furthermore, a clear funding strategy setting out evidence of confirmed or potential additional funding sources (co-financing of applicants) will be positively evaluated. | 20 |
| 3. | Communication strategy | This criterion evaluates the communication strategy of the project, its potential to reach differing target groups and audiences, and to forge synergies, networks and collaborations with other projects and operators. It also evaluates the awareness-raising capacity of the project. | 20 |
| 4. | Potential of the project team | This criterion evaluates the quality and structure of the project team and partners. It also takes into consideration whether the project has a clear added value in terms of: a) transregional cooperation; b) youth and gender equality, particularly within the project team. | 20 |
| 5. | Experience | This criterion evaluates the technical expertise of the lead partner and co-applicants in the field(s) related to the project to ensure good quality outcomes. | 10 |