Documentary Collections Scoring Rubric

Project Overview

Exemplary - 3
Applicant clearly describes the proposed scope of work. Applicant references appropriate professional standards, professionals providing technical assistance, and how the standards and expertise will be applied to this project. Reviewer has confidence that the project has been well-planned, will be done according to appropriate professional standards, and will be successfully implemented.
Adequate - 2
Applicant describes the proposed scope of work, but leaves the reviewer with questions about some of the following: the project specifics, whether it is the right thing to do, how much planning has been done, or whether the right expertise is part of the project, or if the project will be successfully implemented.
Needs Improvement - 1
Applicant provides insufficient information about the proposed scope of work. There is limited evidence of planning, and/or limited explanation about how appropriate professional standards will be applied.
Deficient/Missing - 0
Applicant provides no explanation about what they will do or how it will be done, and/or the work proposed does not meet appropriate professional standards. Reviewer does not have confidence that professional standards will be followed, or that the project will be successfully implemented.

Exemplary - 3
The timeline is appropriate and realistic for all proposed work elements. The reviewer has no question that the project will be completed in the grant contract time period.
Adequate - 2
The timeline is appropriate for some proposed work elements, but reviewer questions if certain work elements can be completed in the proposed time frame.
Needs Improvement - 1
The timeline is not appropriate for most of the work elements or reviewer questions if the entire project can be completed in the grant contract period.
Deficient/Missing - 0
The timeline is either not provided, not appropriate for all of the work elements, or the reviewer does not believe the project can be completed in the grant contract period.

Exemplary - 3
The relevant supporting material, such as photographs of the resource, letters of support, and descriptions of resources provided*, clearly help the reviewer understand the need for all elements in the proposed scope of work.
*Applicant does not need to provide all listed items, only those relevant to the project.
Adequate - 2
The applicant provides adequate supporting material to help the reviewer understand the need for most work items in the proposed scope of work.
Needs Improvement - 1
The applicant provides some helpful supporting material but the body of material is incomplete for the reviewer to understand the need for the proposed scope of work.
Deficient/Missing - 0
The supporting material provided is unclear and does not help the reviewer understand the need for the proposed scope of work, or the supporting material is not provided.

Exemplary - 3
Applicant clearly identifies the local community or audience and makes an evidence-based argument for how this project will have an impact on the local community or audience. The applicant clearly describes how they will measure the project’s impact.
Adequate - 2
Applicant adequately identifies the local community or audience and makes an evidence-based argument for how this project will have an impact on the local community or audience. The applicant adequately describes how they will measure the project’s impact.
Needs Improvement - 1
Applicant insufficiently identifies the local community or audience and/or makes an unconvincing argument for how this project will impact the local community or audience. Reviewer has questions about the potential for impact or how the project’s impact will be measured.
Deficient/Missing - 0
Applicant does not identify the local community or audience and does not make an argument for this project’s impact. Alternatively, this project has no impact on the local community or audience.

Exemplary - 3
The historical resource and relevant work products of this grant are or will be regularly accessible to the public. The applicant identifies a strong plan for how the resource and work products will be shared on site and across multiple platforms including web sites, and social and traditional media.
Adequate - 2
The historical resource and relevant work products are accessible to the public, but the reviewer has questions about the applicant’s plan for facilitating access and communication. Alternatively, the applicant identifies a strong plan for facilitating access and communication, but public access to the historical resource will be on a limited basis.
Needs Improvement - 1
The historical resource and relevant work products are accessible to the public on a limited basis. The applicant describes a weak plan for facilitating access and communication.
Deficient/Missing - 0
The historical resource and relevant work products are not accessible to the public. The applicant does not identify a plan for how the resource will be shared on site or across multiple platforms including web sites, and social and traditional media.

Exemplary - 3
Applicant clearly explains how the resource and the benefits of the project will be sustained into the future. The applicant makes a compelling case that there is a critical need for the project.
Adequate - 2
Applicant adequately explains how the resource and the benefits of the project will be sustained into the future. The applicant makes an adequate case that there is a critical need for the project. The reviewer has some questions about either sustainability or critical need.
Needs Improvement - 1
Applicant provides a weak explanation for how the resource and the benefits of the project will be sustained into the future. The applicant makes a weak case that there is a critical need for the project.
Deficient/Missing - 0
Applicant does not explain how the resource and the benefits of the project will be sustained into the future. The applicant does not make a case that there is a critical need for the project.