Authors: Syeda Malliha, Lauren Slone
A PDF version of the full Summary is available here.
Table of Contents
Should you wish to look at a specific section, please click on any of the headings below. They will take you directly to that particular topic/page.
Introduction
Have you previously applied to the MAP Fund?
Did you nominate anyone to be a 2019 MAP Fund reviewer?
Which resources did you use and/or reference while working on your application?
Which resources were you unaware of, if any?
Which resources were most helpful in creating your application?
Which resources were least helpful in creating your application?
Were any questions/components of the 2019 application particularly challenging or confusing?
Conclusion
Introduction
After the 2019 application cycle closed, we reached out to applicants asking that they participate in a brief survey about the 2019 application process. In a combined effort toward introspection and transparency, we would like to share some statistics from the survey below. We received a total of 272 responses–more than a quarter of the total applicant pool (1027). To learn more about the applicant pool, please have a look at this summary report.
While we are excited about the high response rate, we also recognize that not all voices are represented in this data. Components that worked well for some applicants may have given others trouble, and vice versa. In publishing this data, we hope constituents will track noteworthy changes alongside us as we grow and evolve to meet the shifting demands of artists and arts organizations. We invite comments and questions from all of MAP’s constituents as we continue thinking about ways to improve our program for every potential applicant.
Have you previously applied to the MAP Fund?
Did you nominate anyone to be a 2019 MAP Fund reviewer?
Which resources did you use and/or reference while working on your application?
Which resources were you unaware of, if any?
Many respondents wrote in that had they been aware, they would have participated in the reviewer nomination process.
Which resources were most helpful in creating your application?
Which resources were least helpful in creating your application?
Many respondents wrote in that had they been aware, they would have participated in the MAP staff review of project description drafts.
Were any questions/components of the 2019 application particularly challenging or confusing?
N/A, which the survey specified as meaning “no questions/components of the Round One application were challenging or confusing.”
Respondents offered more specificity in a few areas through written comments paraphrased below:
- Submittable budget template
- difficult to translate internal working budgets into the form
- Artist statement
- more clarity regarding what reviewers are looking for
- Work samples
- difficult to make choices on behalf of multiple collaborators
- Venue
- relationships were more complex than what could be conveyed
- Project description*
- desire for increased word count
- *An equivalent number of respondents noted that the section was exactly the “right” length to communicate their ideas.
- desire for increased word count
Conclusion
This information marks a meaningful starting point of deep introspection for MAP. As we continue to collect data through similar surveys in the following years, we will plan a long-term evolution of our grantmaking program that brings us closer to the goal of providing our applicants the best possible experience we can.
At MAP, systems building and re-building is one of our top priorities, and we know that the best systems are built through constant collaboration and a plethora of perspectives. As we expand this data we welcome any and all feedback. Please email mapinfo@mapfund.org to send us your thoughts.
