The Scoring Process

Each judge responsible for scoring and commenting on your application will use the same scoring tool, our Trait Scoring Rubric. This is available to 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 and how you should develop a strategy that will appeal to our judges.

JUDGING CRITERION #
1
:  
COMPELLING
(0 - 5)
Does the Strategy offer a fresh, forward-looking, and groundbreaking approach that will lead to greater awareness about water scarcity facts and needs in the targeted community?
BORING
Promoted style over substance or lacked new and original ideas or methods with no clear strategic plan or approach.Employed novel and interesting messages and/or methods but failed to create a cohesive engagement strategy. Presented appealing and original messages and methods with a satisfactory engagement strategy.Delivered intriguing and stimulating messages and methods with a sophisticated engagement strategy. Introduced irresistible and ground-breaking messages and methods with an exceptional and inspirational strategy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.1 - 0.9)
(1.1 - 1.9)
(2.1 - 2.9)
(3.1 - 3.9)
(4.1 - 4.9)
PROVOCATIVE
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

JUDGING CRITERION #
2
:  
ACCURATE
(0 - 5)
Does the Strategy correctly describe the facts and related data that best represent the challenges of water scarcity in the targeted community?
UNRELIABLE
Failed to take into consideration data available in target community; messages were incorrect.Paid basic attention to data available in target community but messages were unclear.Recognized valid facts and statistics in target community; messages responsibly represented situation. Paid attention to specific details and focused on targeted issues; messages skillfully delivered.Grounded by a precise understanding of the data; messages authentically conveyed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.1 - 0.9)
(1.1 - 1.9)
(2.1 - 2.9)
(3.1 - 3.9)
(4.1 - 4.9)
CREDIBLE
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

JUDGING CRITERION #
3
:  
COMPREHENSIVE
(0 - 5)
Does the Strategy include a plan for reaching a broad number of residents in the target community and in a meaningful and lasting way?
TRIVIAL
Showed that only a limited number of residents in target community may become familiar with the intended message at all. Presented a plan to inform a moderate number of residents about the issues in a way that only offers marginal lasting influence. Indicated that an acceptable number of residents will understand the message in a substantive way. Presented a plan that significantly reaches a large number of residents in target community and educates them in a meaningful way. Illustrated that a prevalent number of residents will be inspired and that the issues are illuminated in a lasting and powerful way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.1 - 0.9)
(1.1 - 1.9)
(2.1 - 2.9)
(3.1 - 3.9)
(4.1 - 4.9)
WIDESPREAD
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

JUDGING CRITERION #
4
:  
FEASIBLE
(0 - 5)
Does the Strategy include 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 general recommendations but not with specific or realistic tasks.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 engaging the public.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)
PRACTICAL
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

An initiative of the Arizona Community Foundation, Republic Media, and Morrison Institute for Public Policy to create the Arizona of tomorrow. Made possible through the support of the Tashman Fund and the Lodestar Foundation.