Panel Prep

flexible support logo with orange arrows

Reviewer Information

Thank you so much for serving our community by being a grant reviewer!

Contacts

Please email our engagement manager Aimee Kuiper at aimee@mrac.org with any questions.

Submittable Login

Start Reviewing on Submittable

Orientation Materials

Watch this recording of the orientation to review explanations of grant criteria, key deadlines, and a Submittable walkthrough.

Video available April 6, 2026.

Orientation Slides PDF

  • Flexible Support Review Panel Orientation (pdf)

Resources

Application Scoring Guide

Panelist Quick Reference Guide

Guidelines

Stipends & Reimbursements

Upon completion of panel participation, panelists will receive a stipend. Panelists can also request caregiver expense reimbursement.

To receive your stipend via ACH electronic direct deposit, contact Aimee at aimee@mrac.org for an authorization form.

To receive your stipend by mailed check, please fill out this form.

Additionally, send any care reimbursement receipts to aimee@mrac.org

For those who qualify for reimbursement, Aimee will ask for a receipt at the end of the month documenting who you paid for childcare/PA care, how much time was paid for, the date when you paid them, and the amount paid.

Conflicts of Interest

Be aware of conflicts of interest. A reviewer is considered to have a conflict of interest related to a specific application if they or a direct family member:

  • Would receive direct financial benefit from the applicant or the project.
  • Served with or without payment as a consultant, assistant, or advisor to an applicant or collaborator.
  • Have a familial relationship with an applicant or their collaborators mentioned in the narrative.
  • Have recently received free tickets or other benefits from an applicant which, in so doing, may impair your impartial judgment.
  • Or if there may be an appearance of a conflict, even if you feel you can review objectively.
  • Have a bias towards the application, applicant, or art form that will result in a prejudicial review.

Evaluation Tips

  • Use the entire 1–6 rating scale.
  • Score for content, not style, grammar, or spelling, etc.
  • Please keep all information confidential and do not share applications.
  • Evaluate the applications based on information provided. Do not do research outside of the application and do not compare applications.
  • Consider bias when evaluating, for example, resist the urge to favor more established applicants.
  • Summary comments should logically reflect your overall score.

Examples of Logical Summary Comments

Each scoring criteria requires two summary comments. Your summary comment numbers should logically reflect the overall score you gave for the criteria. They are meant to provide clarification for the applicant as to why they received the overall score for that criteria.

Here are some examples of how your overall scores and summary comments might appear:

  • All numbers may be the same
    • criteria score = 5
    • comment #1 = 5
    • comment #2 = 5
  • Overall score may be the average of summary comment scores
    • criteria score = 5
    • comment #1 = 4
    • comment #2 = 6
  • Another example of averaged summary comment numbers
    • criteria score = 4
    • comment #1 = 2
    • comment #2 = 6
  • This is an example of a set of numbers that is not logical
    • section score = 5
    • comment #1 = 5
    • comment #2 = 2

Examples of Additional Comments

For each of the scoring criteria, reviewers will provide their own comments. These comments are included when applicants ask to see their scores.

Here are some examples of comments that are helpful to applicants.

  • “The proposed activities would expand arts activities to Minnesotans, especially the individual events at the River Room. However, the communities the applicant hopes to reach are generally defined and more specificity would benefit this proposal.”
  • “The applicant effectively demonstrates community demand, as evidenced by a waitlist for their Blue Wave Puppet classes. This indicates strong public interest and potential impact. The proposal could be strengthened by naming the general regions or facilities where the classes will occur instead of broad terms “vulnerable Environmental Justice Areas” and “greater Minnesota YES sites”. Explaining why these particular sites were chosen would also show intentionality in reaching specific communities. The access goals; free shows; culturally representative characters, and participatory STEAM activities support access, equity, and inclusion priorities.”
  • “Excellent focus on community engagement and feedback. Impressive use of different media platforms.”
  • “This applicant is clearly very experienced and has strong partnerships. The proposal is part of a strong overall plan. However, I think it could be more “artist-centered” in the budget as some other items aren’t explained more fully. I would like to know more about how partnerships, supplies, and rent directly impact this specific project.”