COMPETITIVE GRANT PROPOSAL SCORING RUBRIC
| 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. | |
| Need | Strong need. Proposal addresses specific need(s) common among peer libraries. | Need is somewhat evident in the proposal and the 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. |
| Criterion | 4 Exemplary | 3 Adequate | 1 Needs Improvement | 0 Insufficient Evidence | Comments/Notes |
| Assessment | Clear picture of how data will be collected and used to demonstrate degree to which outcomes are met. | Good understanding of anticipated specific results or success, but plan lacks some details about data or methods. | Success difficult to ascertain, inappropriate methods, or lack | Evaluation plans missing or unusable. | |
| Sustainability | Evidence presented that project or its impact can be sustained locally beyond grant period, if results warrant. | Project is complete, designed to end when grant ends. | Plans for future are stated as assumptions without supporting arguments or evidence. | No meaningful plans for future beyond funding term appear in proposal. | |
| Prior Funding | Library has never applied for nor received competitive grant funds. | Library has applied but never received competitive grant funding. | Library received competitive grant funding several years ago. | Library received competitive grant funding last year. |
| Total Score | |||||||
| Recommend Funding? Yes Partial $ ________ Not at this time | |||||||
| Additional Comments |