EDI Funding Scoring Criteria
An outline of scoring criteria which provides a structured framework for evaluating applications for EDI Services funding.
The rubric is divided into five core categories: Identified Need, Project Aims & Alignment, Project Plan & Feasibility, Success Measures & Impact, and Budget and Time.
Each of these categories is scored on a 1 to 5 scale, where a 5 indicates an 'Excellent' response and a 1 indicates a 'Poor' or unaddressed criterion. By scoring each of the five sections, panelists will arrive at a maximum possible score of 25 points, ensuring every assessment is grounded in the defined standards for a fair and objective selection process.
1. Identified need (Max 5 points)
• Is there clear evidence that the initiative addresses a real need?
• Is the target audience, community, or beneficiaries clearly identified?
2. Project aims (Max 5 points)
• Are the aims clearly described and relevant to the issues the initiative seeks to
address?
• Is the initiative well aligned with one or more of the EDI Core Plan objectives,
charters, or related frameworks?
3. Project plan (Max 5 points)
• Is the approach to delivering the initiative realistic and well thought out?
• Are the necessary resources and skills identified and sufficient?
• Are potential challenges or risks acknowledged with appropriate plans to
manage them?
4. Success measures (Max 5 points)
• Are clear, measurable key performance indicators (KPIs) provided?
• Are plans for collecting data, including baselines and targets, realistic and
suitable?
• Is there a plausible expectation of meaningful change or impact?
5. Budget and timing (Max 5 points)
• Are the proposed costs reasonable and justified based on the expected
outcomes?
• Does the budget align with the project’s timeframe?#
| Score | Descriptor | Rationle |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Excellent | Exceptional clarity, comprehensive, and highly persuasive. No significant gaps. |
| 4 | Good | Clear and well-addressed, meeting the criteria effectively. Minor areas for refinement. |
| 3 | Satisfactory | The criterion is addressed, but with some lack of detail, clarity, or minor weaknesses. |
| 2 | Needs Improvement | The criterion is weakly addressed, confusing, or significant details are missing. |
| 1 | Poor | The criterion is not adequately addressed or the response is entirely unconvincing/irrelevant. |