Museums Scoring Rubric

Resource/Project Significance

• Exemplary - 3
  Applicant clearly identifies the historical Applicant clearly identifies the historical resource and presents a strong evidence-based argument for why this historical resource has value to the people of Iowa. Applicant provides clear evidence to support their argument for historical significance. Reviewer has no questions about the significance of this historical resource.
• Adequate - 2
  Applicant identifies the historical resource and presents an adequate argument for why this historical resource has value to the people of Iowa. Applicant provides some evidence to support their argument for historical significance. Reviewer has some questions about the significance of this historical resource.
• Needs Improvement - 1
  Applicant insufficiently identifies the historical resource and/or presents an inadequate argument or evidence to support the claim of historical significance.
• Deficient/Missing - 0
  Applicant fails to identify the historical resource and/or fails to present an argument or evidence to support the claim of historical significance.

Historical Significance

• Exemplary - 3
  Applicant clearly explains how the historical resource has national or international significance or has a connection to national or international issues.
• Adequate - 2
  Applicant clearly explains how the historical resource has state or local significance or has a connection to state or local issues.
• Needs Improvement - 1
  Applicant insufficiently explains the historical resource’s international, national, state or local significance or its connection to international, national, state or local issues.
• Deficient/Missing - 0
  Applicant fails to make the case for the historical resource’s international, national, state or local significance or its connection to international, national, state or local issues.

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 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 specifics of the project, whether it is the right thing to do, whether appropriate professional standards will be followed, or if the project will be successfully implemented.
• Needs Improvement - 1
  Applicant provides insufficient information about the proposed scope of work There is limited explanation about how appropriate professional standards will be applied. Reviewer does not have confidence that professional standards will be followed or that the project will be successfully implemented.
• Deficient/Missing - 0
  Applicant does not explain and/or does not make a case for their implementation plan. There is no mention of appropriate professional standards. Reviewer does not have confidence that the project will be done according to appropriate professional standards nor will it be successfully implemented.

Project Timeline

• 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 most of the proposed work elements, but reviewer questions if certain work elements can be completed in the timeframe.
• Needs Improvement - 1
  The timeline may not be appropriate for some 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 most or all of the work elements, or the reviewer does not believe the project can be completed in the grant contract period.

Supporting Documents and Photos

• Exemplary - 3
  The relevant supporting material, including, but not limited to, photographs of the resources, letters of support, and descriptions of resources provided* in the application help the reviewer understand the need for all elements of 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.

Importance to Local Community

• 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.

Project Accessibility and Promotion

• 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 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 very limited basis, or not at all. 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.
• Deficient/Missing - 0
  The historical resource and relevant work products of this grant are not accessible to the public. The applicant offers no plan for how the resource will be shared in any format.

Access Permanence

• Exemplary - 3
  Applicant clearly explains how the resource is part of the public trust* or that public access will be permanent.
• Adequate - 2
  Applicant explains how the resource is part of the public trust* or the permanence of public access, but the reviewer has questions.
• Needs Improvement - 1
  Applicant provides little explanation to demonstrate how the resource is part of the public trust*, the reviewer questions the permanence of public access, or the resource is privately owned.
• Deficient/Missing - 0
  Applicant does not explain how the resource will be publicly accessed.

*Taken from the American Alliance of Museums Code of ethics, museums “... are organized as public trusts, holding their collections and information as a benefit for those they were established to serve.”

Budget Clarity and Breadth of Matching Support

• Exemplary - 3
  Project budget and intended use of requested funds are clear. Applicant identifies match beyond staff salaries and in-kind match.
• Adequate - 2
  Project budget and intended use of funds are adequately explained and budget is adequately itemized according to the scope of proposed work, but the applicant does not identify potential sources of match or they only include staff salaries and in-kind match.
• Needs Improvement - 1
  Project budget or intended use of requested funds is unclear or applicant does not identify potential sources of match.
• Deficient/Missing - 0
  Project budget in incomplete or inaccurate or does not meet HRDP grant program standards.

Budget Propriety

• Exemplary - 3
  Budget is appropriate for the type of work proposed and there is a clear connection between the scope of work and the budget items.

  Applicant provides strong evidence that budget numbers are reliable.

• Adequate - 2
  Budget is appropriate for most work items and budget is adequately itemized according to the scope of proposed work.

  Applicant provides adequate evidence that budget numbers are reliable for most work items.

• Needs Improvement - 1 
  Budget is not appropriate for most work items and/or there is a weak connection between the scope of work and budget items.

  Applicant provides insufficient evidence that budget numbers are reliable for most or all of the work items.

• Deficient/Missing - 0
  Budget is not appropriate for any work items and/or there is no connection between the scope of work and budget items.