| Criterion | 4 Exemplary | 3 Adequate | 1 Needs Improvement | 0 Insufficient Evidence | Comments/Notes |
| Innovation | Project represents the implementation of new insight or idea within the region, with potential benefits clearly outlined. | Project represents local implementation of emerging innovation or trend, with potential benefits specified. | Project represents practice(s) commonplace within field, or an adoption of a change with well-established benefits. | No innovation described or specific potential improvement defined. | |
| Justification | Strong rationale and significance of proposed work. Addresses specific need(s) common among peer libraries. | Rationale or significance of project tends toward the too-specific or too- general, but overall argument holds. | Weak presentation of library or community need. | Unconvincing or no evidence of need presented, or grant proposal does not address stated need. | |
| Feasibility | Personnel, project activities timeline, and budget expenditures align with project description and outcomes. | Outcomes appear achievable but variables are present in personnel, project activities and/or budget expectations. | Weakness in personnel, project activities, timeline and budget plan. Outcomes unlikely to be achieved in project’s current form. | Insufficient information given about personnel, project activities and budget. | |
