ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZAAAB
1
Scoring card for maximum Impact Judges
Rating scale: rating should be on a scale of 0 to 5.
Where: 5 = "perfectly done" , 1 = "poorly done", and 0 = missing
2
Criteria
Sub-criteria
Guiding questions + descripitonWeightsReport 1Report 2Report 3Report 4Report 5Report 6Report 7Report 8
3
ratingweighted scoreratingweighted scoreratingweighted scoreratingweighted scoreratingweighted scoreratingweighted scoreratingweighted scoreratingweighted score
4
Cost-effectivenessHow well-founded is their Theory of Change? (a priori, with disregard to the empirical findings)How convincing is the case for the intervention to realize its potential impact on beneficiaries? Does the logical process of the TOC seem rational to you? Is there a reason to believe there exists a casual connection between the activity and the outcomes?50000000000000000
5
Level of cost-effectiveness (and general level of effectivenes)How cost-effective is the intervention? (How much impact is there per $1 donation?). In case the NPOs did not calculate the effect per $ directly, try to judge based on the level of effect If there is a group of ratios (in the case of many outcomes), try to score the criteria based on all of them.300000000000000000
6
Outcomes prioritizationHow beneficial are the shown outcomes to the total social welfare of the society? methodology speaking, we will prefer standard measures such as QALYs\DALYs, Household Income, subjective well-being, or CO2 omissions as well-founded. However some non-profits might have specific case metrics that indicate their impact better such as conflict resolution potential to de-escalate a war.50000000000000000
7
Strength of evidenceResearch method and experiment qualityWhat is the level of the research design, and how well is the execution? Assuming it was conducted at a proficient level, the research method can be ranked in the following order (from best design to the worst): 1. (well executed) RCTs 2. real life controlled trials without randomization (i.e., quasi-experimental) 3. cohort study or treated-control comparison 4. average effect on treated (without pre-trend) or evidence from systematic reviews of descriptive and qualitative studies (meta-synthesis).7.50000000000000000
8
Quality of the analysis (causal identification, empirical specification, proper use of data) Does the experiment scenario identify actual causal interference appropriately? Do the empirical findings support the conclusions of the reports? Even if the analysis is not enough to prove a causal connection, did you find it convincing?7.50000000000000000
9
Quality of costs breakdownHow well is the cost breakdown compared to the standard? A high-quality cost breakdown should be detailed, including the cost of alternative use of the money when it's relevant (the monetary value of volunteers, if exists, etc.). 50000000000000000
10
Data qualityAre there enough observations to ensure an adequate sample size for statistical analysis? Depending on the class of data: In the case of survey or observational data - Is the survey form stand in academic standard? Are there any bias concerns due to the observer or the survey design? In case of administrative data - Is the data collected by a professional source? 7.50000000000000000
11
Report Quality
(How well written is the report, does it meet academic standards, are the final outcomes clear and drive action)		Intervention and problem description The problem affected by the intervention is clearly indicated, the intervention is clear to an outside reader.2.50000000000000000
12
Theoretical background (Including literature review)Should include: well-written theory of change, high-level academic resources, facts should be cited and linked50000000000000000
13
Methodology (Including data sources, population, and research method description)Including: well-described data sources,well-segmented population (clearly defined control and treatment groups), research method well-described and a econometric model equation well defined (in case its needed).2.50000000000000000
14
Main findingsIs there a well-detailed description of the main findings of the research?
should include: Descriptive statistics, regression results (if relevant) and descriptive analysis of the main results		2.50000000000000000
15
Discussion and limitationsShould include: discussion about the conclusions supported by the main results, using the theory and existing literture properly. Stating the main limitations of the research (specifically the research design). Stating if there is a chance of bias in the results, and if there is one - to which direction is it biased and why? 50000000000000000
16
Room for fundingHow will the additional money resources impact the program's effectiveness?How will future donations affect the program? What about the capacity for additional $ - Is the Nonprofit not "too rich"? Do you expect the intervention to have increasing\decreasing\constant returns to scale, impact wise? Is future strategic planning seems promising?150000000000000000
17
Totals10000000000
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100