We know that applications take time and energy, and we really value the care artists put into them. As a small organisation with an open application process, we’re currently only able to offer individual feedback to artists who are interviewed. But we’re very conscious of the imbalance this creates between artists and organisations. As a result, we aim to write up our learnings on the application process and reflect on the patterns we noticed in the applications we shortlisted and took on to our programmes vs those which we didn’t take forward this time around.
Here, we’ll talk briefly about the application process as a whole, then about programmes in general. We’ll then talk about each individual programme.
Application Process
This year, we built on our friendly application process – and we had excellent feedback on it:
- “could i just say that this is the most FUNCTIONAL and sensible application process I have possibly EVER seen”
- “Thank you too for creating such a care-driven and clearly articulated application process!”
- “Thank you for making the application process so accessible. It genuinely did feel friendly to fill in. Whatever the outcome, it’s a great opportunity and it’s helped me articulate my thoughts clearer by applying.”
This has been really heartening for us, because we’ve been working on how to make an accessible process when we can’t fund 1:1 support and access workers within the budget we have to deliver our programmes. The feedback we received on our process was overwhelmingly positive, though we also know there were people our process didn’t work for.
As an organisation, we really benefited from the feedback people gave via the question at the end of each application about whether they had struggled with any parts of the application form or didn’t understand what was expected of them. The answers were very varied, but gave us some suggestions to implement going forward.
For next year, we would like to have mock answers available for all questions, so applicants can really see exactly what we’re looking for. We hope this will help applicants give good, clear answers, and support neurodivergent applicants in particular in understanding the meaning of the question and the type of answer we are hoping to receive.
We also had a few people mention that the word counts on our Google Forms were incorrect, so we’ll be ensuring we double check these for next year.
On our Reach application, we’ll review the phrasing in our question on “how do you want to tell the story”, to make it clearer what we mean.
We also want to review all questions to make sure that they correlate with how we’re scoring applications – making it as easy as possible for applicants to give us what we want on each question, and for each question to line up 1:1 with our scoring matrix.
Alongside this, we want to publish our scoring matrix, so applicants can see exactly what their application will be evaluated on.
Programmes
We were very impressed by both the quantity and the quality of the applications across all of our programmes. We had some fantastic ideas brought to us, and were excited by far more than we could possibly have taken forward.
Before I talk about the individual programmes, reflect on them, and discuss what can help make an application successful, I’ll talk about applications overall.
Applications were of a very high quality, with applicants usually answering the questions and giving us the information we needed from them. This suggests that our form and questions have worked to support applicants in answering the questions in-line with what we were hoping people would answer.
A lot of applicants focused on describing their disability and diagnosis when asked why they wanted to be part of the development programme, or asked to describe themselves and their practice as artists. Of course, people are welcome to do this if they want to, but we also want to make it clear that this isn’t necessary and that the word count can be saved for something else. If you’re disabled (see our definition of disabled here), then you’re welcome to apply and don’t need to ‘make a case’ for yourself.
We said that we were particularly excited by work that was not focused on individual disability narratives, and that remains true. We want a diversity of work on our programmes, and this meant that we weren’t likely to take multiple individual disability narratives – or multiples of any other type of work – simply to get a balance. The sheer number of applications for work around individual disability narratives we received meant that there was far stiffer competition if you applied to Reach or Launchpad with a solo piece about your experience of impairment and disability. A lot of the applications were for pieces about this and we were only really likely to select a piece that has a really fresh spin on it, or a unique way of telling this story.
When we asked questions about why people wanted to apply to one of our programmes, or why CRIPtic was the right fit, a lot of applicants answered talking about the fact that they’re disabled and therefore CRIPtic was the right fit, or how CRIPtic as a disabled-led organisation was aligned with their ethos. This is very true, but didn’t stand out, as the desire to work with a disabled-led organisation was common to many applicants. What we would’ve liked to to see here was a reflection on what the specific programme and we as an organisation have to offer you in particular, and why that’s the case right now.
Overall, we had far more good applicants than we had places, and a lot of it came down to balancing different types of work to construct programmes that would work together, rather than just individual excellence. This meant that a lot of fantastic applications weren’t taken onto the programme.
Reach
We got a lot of strong applications for Reach. There was a far wider range of narratives and topics than we’ve seen in previous years, and this was very exciting in terms of work that told stories beyond just the personal narratives we’re often made to feel are all we’re “allowed” to tell as disabled artists. However, there were also a number of applicants who had very strong applications but for solo shows about individual disability narratives – as mentioned, we couldn’t take many of these because we wanted a balanced group, which meant some strong applications didn’t ultimately translate to places on the programme.
We also found quite a few applications where the proposal was very similar to work that’s already out there – and that’s fine, not everyone knows all the theatre being made! – but it meant that when we were thinking of the future a piece of work would have in the industry, it was sometimes harder to see that with these pieces.
Similarly, with some applications, the proposal for the piece that the writer wanted to create wasn’t clear. As per our friendly application process, if we were otherwise thinking of putting a piece through but had questions giving us hesitation, we would go back to the applicant (and we did this where necessary), but telling us exactly what the piece being created was proved to be a notable gap for quite a few applicants.
Applications we shortlisted & took through for Reach:
- Were from a writer at the correct career stage – having written prose or some short plays, perhaps, but never a full-length script
- Articulated a clear vision for what the script would contain and what would happen, and perhaps some ideas about structure
- Had pieces that weren’t yet at the draft stage or, in some cases, a draft that was at a very early stage and needed reviewing and polishing
- Would be staging an excerpt needing three or fewer performers
- Explained why this programme was the right next stage for their career and had clearly engaged with and reflected on what Reach had to offer them
- Had an idea that felt fresh, unique and that wasn’t something we’d seen on stage already, but that felt marketable and like it had a future
Launchpad
Our reflections for Launchpad are very similar to Reach, with many of the same challenges around work that was very similar to existing work, and proposals where we weren’t entirely clear after reading the proposal what the writer was proposing to create.
One of the complicating factors for Launchpad is that we weren’t just investing in work, as in Reach, but in work that would be shown together in a showcase directed by Jamie Hale, which meant considering how the different pieces and applications could be brought together, and how they fit into CRIPtic’s overall vision and Jamie’s style as a director. The final, selected pieces had to fit into a show together (which doesn’t mean they had to be very similar, or even completely different, but that there had to be something of a thread running through them), and had to be pieces that Jamie felt confident about shaping and directing.
We were also conscious that Launchpad is a very script-based process, and while we were very open to musical pieces, movement-focused pieces, etc. (and have taken pieces that were heavy in movement or music before), we needed pieces to be ready to enter a largely script-focused process.
For pieces that relied on a lot of audience interaction and unscripted dialogue, we were sometimes concerned that they wouldn’t fit with how we caption work, as our creative captions are programmed in advance, and don’t have room for spontaneity. These realisations have meant that we’ll be rethinking how we deliver Launchpad, and deciding in advance what work we can and can’t support as part of it, so we can more clearly communicate this with applicants.
As with Reach, we were delighted by the range of topics, narratives, and artforms represented in people’s applications, but again we found that there were a lot of strong proposals that fell into the “individual disability narrative” category, and due to our desire to have a diversity of work, this meant competition was especially stiff for those.
Another area that influenced our decision not to take an application through was the scope of the world artists were interested in creating. As Launchpad is a programme that builds towards a showcase of 20-minute excerpts of new work, we were aware that 20 minutes simply couldn’t offer enough room to build and enter a really complex dystopia or magical universe, nor to explain the rules of how it operates.
More than with any other programme, selected applications were based on the quality of performance (if relevant) and the examples of work submitted. Those really drove our decision-making.
Shortlisted & selected applicants were able to explain what show we would expect to see, and also why they want to be part of Launchpad. Because it involves in-person and/or online workshops and R&Ds, we wanted to understand why people wanted to bring their work to Launchpad, and what they would get from those elements of the process, as well as how it would drive their careers forward.
Applications we shortlisted & took through for Launchpad:
- Were from creatives at the correct career stage, having created full-length work before and being ready for that step up to larger-scale venues
- Articulated a clear vision for what the piece would look like and the concept behind it
- Had pieces that were partially developed/at the draft stage and ready for further dramaturgy and polish
- Would be staging an excerpt needing three or fewer performers
- Explained why this programme was the right next stage for their career and had clearly engaged with and reflected on what Launchpad had to offer them
- Had an idea that felt fresh, unique and that wasn’t something we’d seen on stage already, but that felt marketable and like it had a future
Incubate
Incubate is a very different programme to any of the others, because it’s a peer-facilitated mentorship programme. This means all four organisations and/or cultural leaders on the programme need to be in a place where they could give to, and benefit from, each other – and not in radically different stages of development.
Where applications didn’t make it through to shortlisting or selection, we found that it was because of one of a few reasons:
- The application didn’t clearly explain to us what the organisation or leadership project practice would be, and what the organisation or leader would do
- The goals were too ambitious compared to the experience of the founders
- The financial plan seemed unrealistic compared to the funding market available
- The organisation was so much further along in its development that we felt it would not necessarily benefit from Incubate, and would be hard to fit together with earlier stage organisations
- The market for the organisation proposed was already saturated with organisations and we couldn’t see how it would break through
Applications we shortlisted & took through for Incubate:
- Clearly addressed what the organisation was and what benefit it would bring to disabled people and the wider cultural sector
- Showed us there was a clear market for their work
- Detailed organisational goals which were practical and feasible, and which the organisation had enough experience to deliver
- Articulated what the organisation had to offer to Incubate, as well as what they had to learn
- Expressed a real interest in working and learning in a peer-facilitated way
Breakthrough
Breakthrough had a far higher applicant-to-award ratio than any other programme, and presented us with some very tricky decisions – we certainly wished we had multiple awards to offer, and multiple artists we would have liked to be able to make an offer to.
With applications that weren’t selected, for many it was because they didn’t demonstrate being at the right career point – and were too early career (from their answers to the questions) for a Breakthrough commission, which is designed for people who’ve reached the top in a marginalised sector (e.g. disability arts), and can’t break the disableist glass ceiling into then mainstream. Commissions for people at this point in their career are rare – so many things are either for people who are not ready or for people who have had that success, whereas this one is to get people there.
We also found that a number of applications were presenting something that either felt more like an Arts Council England Develop Your Creative Practice project – for example in returning to making art, or learning new methods to make art, or an Arts Council England Project Grant, where they were trying to design and deliver a full project.
Another common observation is where people were trying to do far more with the money (e.g. release an album) when this project is about doing something small with the money. With many projects, the budgets were very unrealistic, and while if we wanted to progress someone’s application we wouldn’t let this stop us (we’d just go back to the artist to discuss it), a lot of the time there wasn’t anywhere near enough money allocated for the use of experts to ensure that the product would be of exceptional quality and small – while in other projects people hadn’t budgeted to pay themselves. We know that not everybody can earn money dependent on their benefits situation, so wouldn’t mandate this, but would encourage it where possible.
Another area was where there wasn’t enough focus on the industry reception and using the project to achieve that breakthrough. A lot of applications stopped at talking about what the project they would create would be, and didn’t focus enough on how the impact on their career would translate to mainstream success and what was involved in doing that.
We were also keen to see why people were interested in CRIPtic as a partner. A lot of applications talked about working with a disabled-led organisation as a disabled person, but that’s true for a lot of our applicants – we were looking for reflections on what CRIPtic could offer that was specific
Breakthrough applications that were shortlisted or came very close came from people at the right career point – at the very top of a segment of the sector (e.g. disability arts), and yet struggling to break the disableist glass ceiling to mainstream success.
Applications we shortlisted & took through for Breakthrough:
- Came from people working at the right career point – at the very top of a segment of the sector (e.g. disability arts), and yet struggling to break the disableist glass ceiling to mainstream success
- Contained a clear narrative that demonstrated the existing success of the applicant
- Expressed the self-contained nature of what they wanted to do
- Talked about the way the applicant wanted to use that product to break the barriers they were facing
- Showed a clear relationship between the product, the barriers, and how it would be used to break those disableist barriers
- Included an explanation of the mainstream success they were looking for and how this product would give them that mainstream success
- Demonstrated a clear understanding of how CRIPtic would fit into that process and where they saw our support leading
Closing thoughts
We felt very lucky to have so many excellent applications to draw from our programmes – and very pleased by how smoothly our friendly application process went in the first year. We’ve definitely come away from this round of applications with some key learnings around:
- Checking how clear our questions are, and making them clearer where necessary
- Ensuring we have published accurate character counts for each question
- Publishing mock answers for questions where possible
- Matching our questions up with how we’re scoring applications
- Working on how we describe programmes and making sure that we’re describing them accurately for the work we’re most likely to be in a place to take
- Making it clearer that people don’t need to go into details about their diagnoses/disabilities when applying, while retaining a clear ask for specific access requirements
To everyone who applied, thank you so much! While we can’t take every application through, we are really happy to have connected with so many people, and we always encourage you to come back next year. We hope that this is just the start!
