The Scoring Process


A panel of qualified judges will score and comment on each completed application for the Open Government Awards. Every applicant who complies with the application requirements will receive both scores and detailed feedback from each of five judges at the end of the process. Please take a moment to MEET OUR JUDGES and learn about how we ensure a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD for all of our applicants.

The Scoring Rubric

The judges will use a rubric to assign a numerical score to your application based on four criteria. Below is the tool that each judge will use to score each application.


JUDGING CRITERION #
1
:  
CREDIBILITY OF PARTNERSHIPS
(0 - 5)
Did the applicant provide sufficient evidence of partnering with other non-government organizations in either nominating, validating and/or jointly implementing the initiative?
LOW
Showed no consultation in nominating an initiative; may have been jointly implemented but shows very weak validation of claims Some effort in consulting with other partners in nominating an initiative; initiative was not jointly implemented but provided minimal validation of claims Provided sufficient evidence of consulting with other partners to nominate an initiative, was jointly implemented and presented somewhat convincing validation of claims Demonstrated compelling mechanisms for consulting others in nominating an initiative; was not jointly implemented but shows convincing validation of claims Shows strong evidence of consulting others in nominating an initiative; jointly implemented with a partner agency and strong validation of claims
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0
(0.1 - 0.9)
1
(1.1 - 1.9)
2
(2.1 - 2.9)
3
(3.1 - 3.9)
4
(4.1 - 4.9)
5
HIGH
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

JUDGING CRITERION #
2
:  
DEPTH OF ENGAGEMENT
(0 - 5)
Does the initiative provide incentives for the participation of citizens and offer direct, innovative channels for citizens to engage with government?
LOW
Offered no incentives for participation; provides basic information to citizens but no avenues for real engagement to influence policy/service design or implementation; doesn't define a target population Provided few incentives for participation; obtained basic feedback from some of its target population; however, did not indicate how feedback would be used Demonstrated sufficient incentives for participation; created indirect ways to solicit citizens’ aspirations; strived to exceed the intended level of engagement of its target population Created reliable ways to incentivize participation; used direct and innovative ways to get citizen feedback; secured participation of at least half of target population Employed compelling measures to incentivize participation; used direct and innovative methods to partner with citizens in decision-making; reached an ambitious level of engagement with its target population
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0
(0.1 - 0.9)
1
(1.1 - 1.9)
2
(2.1 - 2.9)
3
(3.1 - 3.9)
4
(4.1 - 4.9)
5
HIGH
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

JUDGING CRITERION #
3
:  
EVIDENCE OF RESULTS
(0 - 5)
Did citizen engagement influence the design or delivery of government policy and services? Is there any evidence of concrete benefits to citizens and the government as a result?
LOW
Shows that citizens may be informed but provided little to no evidence of change in public policy or service Nominally influenced a public policy or service; and shows some benefits to citizens as a result Sufficiently changed a public policy or service; and demonstrated reliable benefits to citizens as a result Significantly influenced a public policy or service; resulted in compelling benefits to citizens and the government Transformed a public policy or service; set new standards for the relationship between government and citizens; resulted in concrete benefits for both
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0
(0.1 - 0.9)
1
(1.1 - 1.9)
2
(2.1 - 2.9)
3
(3.1 - 3.9)
4
(4.1 - 4.9)
5
HIGH
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

JUDGING CRITERION #
4
:  
SUSTAINABILITY
(0 - 5)
Does the applicant make a compelling case that the initiative will be institutionalized or scaled-up over time?
LOW
Demonstrates few plans in moving the initiative beyond the pilot stage; does not address any potential threats or challenges to the initiative Shows some commitment to institutionalizing the initiative; but presents unrealistic ways of managing challenges faced by the initiative Lists activities to institutionalize the initiative; but only somewhat addresses how challenges will be addressed Outlines a clear path to either institutionalize or scale-up the initiative; makes a good case on how potential challenges will be addressed Presents a durable model that can be institutionalized and/or scaled-up; makes a compelling case for how challenges will be managed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0
(0.1 - 0.9)
1
(1.1 - 1.9)
2
(2.1 - 2.9)
3
(3.1 - 3.9)
4
(4.1 - 4.9)
5
HIGH