Wellness Fund Rubric

Revised October 4th, 2017





Intent and Spirit of the Wellness Referendum (does this address holistic health and wellness issues?)

Does not address a health or wellness issue

Addresses some aspect of a health or wellness issue

Addresses a clear health and wellness issue

Eligibility for Diversity Services Funds (does this serve an underserved population of students?)

Does not serve an underserved population of students

Does serve an underserved population of students


Large and Lasting Impact

Low impact (knowledge change)

Medium impact

(skill building change)

High impact  

(environmental change)

Reaches a large population of students

Low number of students (<1000)

Medium number of students (=1000)

High number of students (>1000)

Frequency of Use by Intended Population  

Not be used frequently:

Once a year

Would be used occasionally:

Couple of weeks to months

Would be used frequently:

Weekly or Daily

Uniqueness of Service (does this address a current gap?)

Not a unique service

Somewhat unique / modification of old project

Unique service that addresses a current gap

Population of Students Served

Serves either undergraduates or graduates

Serves both undergraduates and graduates


Process and Sustainability Values

Quality of project, program or service (how clearly researched is the proposed activity, and does it show promise of being successfully executed?)

Proposal lacks key details and offers little confidence that the planners will successfully execute the activity

Reviewers have many logistical questions about how the activity would be implemented, and some confidence that the planners will successfully execute

Most logistical details are addressed in the proposal, leading to great confidence in the planner's ability to execute

Collaborative Efforts (have the planners considered collaborating effectively with the appropriate departments & organizations on campus?)

Did not collaborate with appropriate groups

Are collaborating with appropriate groups


Consultation Efforts (have the planners consulted effectively with the intended student population or audience?)

Did not consult intended student population or audience

Have consulted intended student population or audience


Organizational Home (does it have a home where it has ownership and infrastructure of support)? 




Evaluation Methods (does it intend to use evaluation to improve program?)

Does not clearly indicate evaluation methods

Clear intention to use evaluation methods


Based on the funding caps (TBD), is this worth committee discussion?

No (not weighted)

Yes (not weighted)


Highest Score for Substantive Values: 12

Highest Score for Process and Sustainability Values: 6

Highest Total Score: 18