Explore Scoring Rubric and Scoring Process
Need help? Visit our Help Center.
Scoring Process
Does the proposal address a critical issue affecting the Gulf Coast region? Will the proposal have a transformative and long-lasting impact that supports a safe and resilient future for those who call the region home?
INCONSEQUENTIAL
1 -> Proposal does not address a relevant issue, or the issue is minimally relevant to the future of the Gulf Coast region; outcomes are missing, unclear, and/or inconsequential.
2 -> Proposal addresses a relevant issue to the future of the Gulf Coast region, but the outcomes are unclear, insufficient, or inconsequential.
3 -> Proposal addresses an important issue impacting the Gulf Coast region; proposal describes clear long-term outcomes that will result in a more safe, resilient, future in the Gulf Coast region and those who call the region home.
4 -> Proposal thoroughly addresses a critical issue impacting the Gulf Coast region; proposal includes robust, measurable, long-term outcomes that will result in a more safe and resilient future in the Gulf Coast region and those who call the region home.
5 -> Proposal thoroughly addresses a systemic, critical issue impacting the Gulf Coast region; proposal is strongly supported by robust, measurable, and replicable, long-term strategies and outcomes that will significantly result in a safer and more resilient future in the Gulf region over time.
TRANSFORMATIVE
Does the proposal effectively bridge knowledge to action? Does the proposal apply, translate, or communicate sciences, engineering, or medical information in a way that will result in a safe, resilient, sustainable future for the Gulf and those who call the Gulf Region home?
NOT GROUNDED IN KNOWLEDGE
1 -> Proposal has no basis in the sciences, engineering, or medical knowledge and the proposal does not apply, translate, or communicate science, engineering, or medical knowledge in an actionable manner.
2 -> Proposal has little basis in the sciences, engineering, and/or medical knowledge or proposal does not apply, translate, or communicate sciences, engineering, or medical knowledge in an actionable manner.
3 -> Proposal applies, translates, or communicates knowledge in sciences, engineering, and/or medicine, but the application is a very limited component of the project or is not relevant for the future of the Gulf and those who call the region home.
4 -> Proposal bridges knowledge to action through demonstration, application, communication, and/or translation of sciences, medical, and/or engineering knowledge. With this knowledge bridged, intended communities are able to take some actions towards a more safe, resilient, and sustainable future for the Gulf and those who call the region home.
5 -> Proposal thoroughly and intentionally bridges knowledge to action through rigorous demonstration, application, communication, and/or translation of sciences, medical, and/or engineering knowledge. With this knowledge bridged, intended communities will be better able to anticipate, make decisions, and take actions leading to a more safe, resilient, and sustainable future for the Gulf and those who call the region home.
EFFECTIVELY BRIDGES KNOWLEDGE TO ACTION
Does the proposal offer a new strategy, approach, process, or partnership that will more effectively or efficiently support people in the Gulf Coast region to address, understand, anticipate, and/or adapt to current or future challenges?
CONVENTIONAL
1 -> Proposal is not novel. It replicates or repurposes existing strategies, approaches, processes, or partnerships to support people in the Gulf Coast region.
2 -> Proposal makes adaptations to existing strategies, approaches, processes, or partnerships that will better support people in the Gulf Coast region in addressing, understanding, anticipating, and/or adapting to current challenges.
3 -> Proposal offers an original strategy, approach, process, or partnership that will more efficiently or effectively support people in the Gulf Coast region in addressing, understanding, and/or adapting to current challenges.
4 -> Proposal offers a novel strategy, approach, process, or partnership that will more efficiently or effectively help the Gulf Coast region address, understand, anticipate, and/or adapt to current and future challenges.
5 -> Proposal offers a novel, breakthrough strategy, approach, process, or partnership that will significantly transform how efficiently and effectively the Gulf Coast region addresses, understands, anticipates, and/or adapts to current and future challenges.
GROUNDBREAKING
Does the proposal authentically represent, engage, and increase the participation of people, communities, sectors, and demographic groups in which it will work? Does the proposal demonstrate an understanding of historical context or the challenges it seeks to address? Will the proposal support meaningful, diverse, and mutually beneficial partnerships and collaborations?
SILOED
1 -> Proposal does not express awareness of the needs, aspirations, and historical context of the people, community, demographic groups, or sector it is meant to benefit and/or it presents no plans for meaningful new or enhanced partnerships or collaborations.
2 -> Proposal does not demonstrate an understanding of the needs, perspectives, and aspirations, or historical context of the people, community, demographic groups, or sector it is meant to benefit; Presents an insufficient or unfeasible plan for new or enhanced partnerships or collaborations.
3 -> Proposal demonstrates some understanding of perspectives of the people, community, or sector it is meant to benefit; Historical context is recognized; Team has plans to engage diverse partners or collaborators.
4 -> Proposal demonstrates perspectives of the people, community, demographic groups, or sectors it is meant to benefit and will be represented in design; Demonstrates recognition of historical context; Team has plans to engage mutually beneficial and diverse partners or collaborators.
5 -> Proposal provides ample evidence that the perspectives of the people, community, demographic groups, and sectors it is meant to benefit, will be represented both in design and future decision-making; Historical context is deeply understood and incorporated into the proposal; Team has plans to authentically engage or is composed of a lasting coalition of partners and collaborators, all mutually benefiting from the work.
COOPERATIVE
Reducing Bias in the Assessment Process
Lever for Change addresses possible biases in the evaluation process both on the front end, before the scoring begins, and on the back end, after the reviewers have submitted their scores.
On the front end, Lever for Change’s Participatory Review and Evaluation Panel Review webinars review the Challenge criteria and the scoring rubric and includes training on recognizing and addressing the biases that we all bring as we read and assess proposals.
Lever for Change also works to address unconscious bias inherent in the scoring process.
During both Participatory Review and Evaluation Panel Review, each reviewer only reviews a very small subsample of the entire set of applications. Therefore, each reviewer has a very different reference point by which to adjudicate each application. For example, a reviewer may only see very good applications. Because these applications are of similarly good quality, the reviewer may decide to score these applications lower than they deserve. By contrast, a reviewer that only sees poor applications may give better scores on average. Furthermore, reviewers may have intrinsic cognitive biases. Even under ideal conditions, reviewers are prone to making non-objective judgements about the applications they review, and so Lever for Change normalizes the raw scores provided by our evaluators to reduce the risk that bias in the assessment process eliminates a strong application from consideration.
Normalization relies on finding the mean score given for all applications and the mean score given by each reviewer. Reviewers whose mean score is higher than the global average will have their scores devalued to account for whatever biases led to inflated scores. Similarly, reviewers whose scores are lower than the global average will have their scores boosted to compensate for their tougher-than-average assessments.
The scoring process will be conducted at two points during the Challenge process: first, after the conclusion of Participatory Review and, later, after the conclusion of Evaluation Panel Review. A submission that ranks among the top applications, as determined by Participatory Review scores, will be eligible to advance to Evaluation Panel Review. A submission that ranks among the top applications, as determined by Evaluation Panel Review scores, will be reviewed by technical experts and may be considered for selection as a finalist.
As a further risk mitigation step, Lever for Change staff review reviewers’ scores and comments for every submission.
Find more technical information in our Help Center.