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 the government in the form of co-designing, implementing and/or scaling up the initiative? Alternatively was the initiative catalyzed by government action?
LOW
Shows no involvement of government; Use of government held data in the initiative is not clear Nature of government involvement is unclear and cannot be attributed to the initiative Initiative was catalyzed by government action; letter of validation is weak Indirect but meaningful involvement of government; letter of validation is strong Defined a new relationship between government and civil society; letter of validation is strong
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 :   STRENGTH AND INNOVATION IN DESIGN (0 - 5)
Does the initiative clearly articulate a goal, target population and intended impact? Are the strategies sound relative to the challenges and opportunities posed by the local context?
LOW
Describes clear goals but strength of design is unclear as there is no mention of contextual challenges and opportunities Identifies clear goals and target population but strategies and intended impact are not compelling relative to the local context Clearly articulated goals and strategies but the intended impact on target population is unambitious Intends to solve a pressing problem; strategies are relevant to the local context; but scale of impact seems modest Employs an innovative approach to solving a problem; strategies are well-thought out; intended impact is ambitious but realistic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 IMPACT (0 - 5)
To what extent was the initiative able to demonstrate that transparency in open government data/information led to one or more of examples of impact stated in the application?
LOW
Shows little evidence of having any impact; target population has barely been reached Describes initial outcomes but the evidence does not point towards achieving any of the four stated impacts Demonstrates achieving one or more of the impacts, but the scale of the impact is limited Uses clear indicators to prove that one or more of the impacts were achieved; the initiative has reached more than half of the target population Achieved two or more of the impacts for a majority of the target population; set new standards for the relationship between government and citizens
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

JUDGING CRITERION # 5 :   SPECIAL RECOGNITION (0 - 5)
If this initiative is led by individuals under the age of 30, will you nominate it for a special recognition award?
NO
Select this range for No Do Not Select Do Not Select Do Not Select Select this range for Yes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
YES