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 the relevance of the project to the objectives of the call for proposals as well as its coherence (structure and feasibility), and in particular: a) the extent to which it improves accessibility, recognition and enhancement of artists and their works ; b) the impact on the target beneficiaries (including vulnerable groups: women, children and young people, minorities, migrants, discriminated groups, etc.) ; c) potential synergies with existing initiatives or organizations and the different professional sectors of culture and beyond ; d) engagement of independent local actors, community groups, etc. ; (e) the extent to which it promotes job creation ; f) increased training of the people or groups involved, including in the field of image education ; g) the level of concreteness, internal consistency, viability and qualitative and temporary feasibility, as well as the capacity for evaluation and self-evaluation ; h) the innovative aspect or aspects, including from the point of view of technological innovation ; i) the strategy proposed to ensure its sustainability and/or intensify its impact. | 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. A clear funding strategy providing evidence of confirmed or potential additional sources of funding (co-financing from applicants) will be positively assessed. | 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 capacity to raise awareness among its target groups. | 20 |
| 4. | Potential of the team project | 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-applicant(s) in the field(s) related to the project to ensure good quality outcomes. | 10 |