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
:  
STRENGTH AND INNOVATION IN OPEN GOVERNMENT APPROACHES
(0 - 5)
Does the initiative make a compelling case of using open government approaches [e.g. increasing access to information, civic participation, public accountability and/or technology for transparency] to improve public service delivery?
LOW
Exhibits a centralized, top-down approach to improving public services rather than public-facing approach; Target population largely have a passive role Somewhat articulates the importance of using open government approaches but these are sporadic, not well-thought out; Needs of the target population is unclear Makes a convincing case of the need to use open government approaches and addresses a need of the target population for improved public services Establishes strong rationale for using open government approaches which are somewhat innovative; targets a large number of the population and clearly identifies a need Employs innovative open government approaches given the country context; targets an ambitious number of the population and is responding to a real need or demand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
Is there any evidence of the initiative achieving the four initiative outcomes listed in the application and/or concrete improvements in public services or access to services?
LOW
Shows little evidence of achieving any of the outcomes or of an improvement in public services; target population has barely been reached Shows some signs of achieving outcomes but the evidence is unconvincing; change in public service is incremental and has reached some of the target population Demonstrates achieving one or more of the outcomes, but it is unclear whether the quality of the public service or access to the service has improved Uses clear indicators to prove that one or more of the outcomes were achieved; initiative has widened access or improved the quality of a public service for more than half of the target population Achieved two or more of the outcomes to ultimately expand access or improve service quality 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 committment 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)
Does this open government initiative demonstrate that it successfully improved service delivery access and/or outcomes for a vulnerable population (e.g. poor, elderly, minorities, women), thereby promoting more inclusive development? *Please note that this criterion will not be used in the overall score.
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