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.