Operating Grants for Organizations
Guidance on Application Narrative
The Operating Grants for Organizations program is currently closed. Please note that the information and dates listed on this page are from the previous grant round (FY25) and are for reference only.
Operating Grants for Organizations will not be accepting applications in FY26 and instead will reopen for applications in FY27. Please check our current grant opportunities and/or join our email list .
How the Narrative Sections Will be Scored
The narrative sections of the Operating Grants for Organizations application are equally weighted and are founded on the vision and values in Mass Cultural Council’s strategic plan .
Seventy-five percent of the application score will be based on the narrative sections of the application.
None of the narrative sections determine eligibility requirements for applying to this program – i.e. applicants can still apply regardless of whether they fulfill the following review criteria or not. However, the organizations that are most aligned with the Agency’s values will score higher on these review criteria.
Please review the program guidelines and FAQs for more information on the program.
The following rubric — in a grant review process, a “rubric” refers to a detailed set of criteria used to evaluate grant proposals, outlining specific aspects of the application that reviewers will assess and the scoring system for each element, ensuring consistency and fairness in the evaluation process across all applications — will be used when scoring Operating Grants for Organizations applications.
Review Criteria Outlined in this Rubric:
Demonstrate Equitable Practices (required)
Support Massachusetts’ Artists, Humanists, and Scientists (required)
And a choice of either:
Advance the Cultural Sector
Engage the Community Deeply and Authentically
Review Criteria #1 - Demonstrate Equitable Practices Close Open In this section, there are three narrative questions.
Reviewers are looking for how an organization demonstrates that they have a thorough understanding of diversity, equity, inclusion, and access, and actively incorporates these equitable practices throughout their governance and programming, commensurate with their staff size and resources.
The highest score (5) will reflect:
An organization that has demonstrated a thorough understanding of diversity, equity, inclusion, and access through their organization’s goals and vision.
AND
Examples provided of the specific policies, programs, and practices that the organization has integrated into their activities, both internally (governance & administration) and externally (programming & communications).
A mid-range score (4-2) will reflect:
An organization that has not demonstrated a thorough understanding of diversity, equity, inclusion, and access and/or does not have a vision and goals for what this means for their organization.
AND/OR
Has fewer examples or has not currently implemented practices to express this vision through their ongoing practices.
The lowest score (1) will reflect:
An organization that has not demonstrated an understanding or does not appear to value diversity, equity, inclusion, and access in their statement of vision and goals.
AND
Does not provide examples, or the examples provided are not relevant to the intentional efforts to ensure equitable practices internally or externally.
Review Criteria #2 - Support Massachusetts’ Artists, Humanists, and/or Scientists Close Open In this section, there is one narrative question and one drop down question.
Reviewers are looking for how an organization demonstrates that it is intentionally engaging and benefiting artists, culture bearers, creative practitioners, humanists, and/or scientists who live in Massachusetts.
The highest score (5) will reflect:
An organization that has provided relevant examples and explanations that demonstrate the organization’s intentional efforts to benefit individuals doing work in the arts, humanities, and/or sciences.
AND
All or a significant percentage (90-100%) of the individuals benefited live in Massachusetts.
A mid-range score (4-2) will reflect:
An organization that does not demonstrate intentional work to engage and benefit individuals doing work in the arts, humanities, and sciences and/or the examples provided describe efforts that benefit audiences, visitors, and/or K-12 students, rather than those individuals.
AND/OR
Some percentage (25-89%) of the individuals benefited live in Massachusetts.
The lowest score (1) will reflect:
An organization that has not provided relevant examples and/or explanations that demonstrate the organization’s intentional efforts to benefit individuals doing work in the arts, humanities, and sciences.
AND
A lower percentage (0-24%) of the individuals benefited live in Massachusetts.
Review Criteria #3 - Advance the Cultural Sector OR Engage the Community Deeply and Authentically Close Open (Select one set of questions to answer)
ADVANCE THE CULTURAL SECTOR
In this section, there are two narrative questions.
Reviewers are looking for how an organization intentionally expands and transforms the cultural sector, which can be through your own programs, projects, initiatives and services, or through partnerships and collaborations.
The highest score (5) will reflect:
An organization that has demonstrated how they intentionally expand and transform the cultural sector through their vision and description of the impact and change they are intending to achieve through their work.
AND
Examples describe work that has been successfully implemented, and show the change or impact described.
A mid-range score (4-2) will reflect:
Articulates vision for advancing sector, but programs/projects do not demonstrate progress towards that intended change or impact.
AND/OR
Examples show plans for change or impact, but impact is a future goal rather than a current accomplishment, or it is a side benefit rather than intentional impact.
The lowest score (1) will reflect:
Stated vision does not demonstrate that the organization is intentionally expanding or transforming the cultural sector.
AND
No examples are provided, or the examples provided are not relevant and/or do not support the organization’s vision.
ORENGAGE THE COMMUNITY DEEPLY AND AUTHENTICALLY
In this section, there are two narrative questions.
Reviewers are looking for your organization to have a clear understanding of the community that you serve and to demonstrate how you are responsive to the needs, voices, and identities of those communities.
The highest score (5) will reflect:
An organization that demonstrates deep or specific understanding of the community that is being served, including an explanation of how the organization gathers input and stays informed about the community.
AND
Examples provided demonstrate that the organization is responsive to the needs, voices, and identities of the community(ies) served and engaged.
A mid-range score (4-2) will reflect:
An organization that provides a description of the community they are serving in a broad sense that does not show an understanding of
AND/OR
Examples provided do not specifically respond to the needs, voices, and identities of the community(ies) served and engaged.
The lowest score (1) will reflect:
An organization that is not able to define or show understanding of the community that they serve and how they stay informed about that community.
AND
No examples are provided, or the examples provided do not reflect the needs, voices, and identities of the community(ies).
