The Scoring Process

Each judge responsible for scoring and commenting upon your application will use the same scoring tool, our TRAIT SCORING RUBRIC. We are providing a copy of that tool for you, so that you may consider the four traits that every completed application should address. From our pool of JUDGES, five credible authorities will be assigned to each team that meets the APPLICATION requirements. Each of those judges’ scores will be calculated using a normalization algorithm that ensures a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD for everyone. No matter which judges are assigned to you (whether they are typically hard or soft graders), everyone will be treated fairly. Please take time to consider how this scoring process has been designed.

JUDGING CRITERION #
1
:  
COLLABORATIVE
(0 - 5)
Does the team incorporate partners, either organizations and/or volunteers, who can help advance the proposed project, and does the team connect to other like-minded individuals who can support ongoing management of the proposed project?
DETACHED
Failed to offer a cohesive team with too little explanation of shared values and lacking substantive partners to carry out the project.Delivered only a loosely connected team without a shared vision or any common set of values and with weak partners.Connected by a team of affiliated members with a shared vision and the capacity to maintain substantive partnerships.Delivered a team of closely connected members, with a common vision and a coalition of other like-minded partners.Led by a team of inspirational members with a unified set of values and a compelling vision for building lasting coalitions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.1 - 0.9)
(1.1 - 1.9)
(2.1 - 2.9)
(3.1 - 3.9)
(4.1 - 4.9)
INCLUSIVE
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

JUDGING CRITERION #
2
:  
INTENTIONAL
(0 - 5)
Does the proposed solution offer the potential to improve the condition of target beneficiaries and articulate a meaningful connection to Jewish values?
TRIVIAL
Delivered marginal level of benefit that failed to consider local conditions and lacked understanding of big challenge; did not show connection to Jewish values.Attempted to meet basic needs, addressed some local conditions, but did not connect benefits to the big challenge; minor connection to Jewish values.Offered a plan to meet the needs of beneficiaries with an understanding of challenges and within project parameters; articulated a direct connection to Jewish values.Strived to overcome local conditions, recognized the big challenge, ensured the project improves conditions substantively, showed a strong connection to Jewish values.Reached ambitious but realistic level of impact that considered local conditions, addressed a big challenge, maximized benefits; demonstrated an inspirational connection to Jewish values.
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.1 - 0.9)
(1.1 - 1.9)
(2.1 - 2.9)
(3.1 - 3.9)
(4.1 - 4.9)
INSPIRED
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

JUDGING CRITERION #
3
:  
FEASIBLE
(0 - 5)
Does the team and the proposed project represent a plan that justifies the required investment, offers a realistic solution to the specific challenge, and accounts for key operational and tactical hurdles that can be overcome?
UNREALISTIC
Misguided by an optimistic understanding of obstacles; underestimated the effort required to deliver results. Addressed basic obstacles to the general strategic approach but not with specific or realistic solutions.Demonstrated a realistic and efficient plan with sufficient attention to detail.Addressed specific obstacles with plans tied to detailed, measurable and cost effective strategies for implementing the project.Guided by practical and concrete plans with detailed timing, funding, return on investment, and measured outcomes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.1 - 0.9)
(1.1 - 1.9)
(2.1 - 2.9)
(3.1 - 3.9)
(4.1 - 4.9)
WORTHWHILE
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

JUDGING CRITERION #
4
:  
SCALABLE
(0 - 5)
Is the proposed project positioned to grow over time, either by generating ongoing resources and/or by showcasing results that would warrant increased sponsorship, within the current project design and under the same management structure?
LIMITED
Limited by an inability to grow over time or to expand within the current project design and under the current management.Presented a case for expanding the current project; only realistic through significant changes in project design and management.Verified claims that the project will grow over time and replicate results within the current design and under the same management.Presented a case for meaningful expansion tied to concrete tactics within the current project design and under the same management.Managed by a team of seasoned leaders, capable of expanding the project dramatically, using innovative methods and returns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.1 - 0.9)
(1.1 - 1.9)
(2.1 - 2.9)
(3.1 - 3.9)
(4.1 - 4.9)
EXPANSIVE