Public Copy of Rubric for PP
 Share
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser.Dismiss

View only
 
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
1
Needs work (1-3)Acceptable (4-7)Good (8-10)
2
How good an overview of the area does the report give?Report would not make sense unless the reader knows about this area of fundraising alreadyReport is clear for a beginner but provides only a shallow overview of some of the important aspects of this areaReport clear and also summarises all major aspects of this type of fundraising
3
How deep/well researched is the report, and how many different sources/citations/different perspectives are captured by report?Feels like a quick 10 minute Google search would turn up all this info, 1-2 different sources usedSome in depth research from blogs or other sources but only a few (3-5) different sources used. Basic information provided to a sufficient extent that no one in the field would feel that major areas are missing.Many different and deep sources of evidence used (e.g. many different websites, contacting people in the field with questions). High level of depth acquired to the point where even someone with experience in the field would learn something from reading report.
4
Does this report specifically cater to Charity Science as an organization or just provide generic information?Report feels generic, could be copy pasted from another organization's websiteReport has some customized information but also large amounts of generic information, attempts to customize feel shallowReport contains a lot of specific and customized information and suggestions throughout (e.g. given Charity Science's size X should be considered)
5
Clear use of numbers and expected fundraising returnsTerms are relatively vague and no numbers are givenSome numbers given for important metrics, if no numbers could be found then this is stated in the documentMany numbers given, if numbers and returns are hard or impossible to find estimates are given with disclaimers clearly stating they are estimates. Ranges given for uncertain numbers.
6
Measuring/looking at the right metrics
high amounts of focus on metrics that do not connect strongly or at all with money movedSome focus on less useful metrics, but some focus on metrics more directly connected to money movedAll metrics ethier directly connected to money moved or have strong reasoning why they will correlate/are important to look at
7
How well does the report reflect both positive and negative evidence for this type of fundraising?Report is clearly biased for or against the fundraising strategy, evidence is mainly given for one side with little reflection on the otherReport has some overview of both the negatives and positives but does not compare them Report clearly lays out both positive and negatives as well as comparing them to each other and considering them in regards to Charity Science specifically
8
How clear/organized is the report?Report uses technical jargon, is disorganized or does not have clear titles and sectionsReport is organized but not in the same way as other reports so it's hard to compare. Report is in a Google Doc.Report is clear as well as organized in a similar way to other reports which makes them easy to compare. Report is in a Google Doc.
9
Would this be a good area for Charity Science to experiment in?Short yes or no type answer, no estimates as to how long it would take or how much moneydetailed answer with larger explanationestimates for how long and how much money it would take to run an experiment as well as written explanation, has breakdown of $/time costs
10
Best way to experiment with this idea in a small scale wayno best way suggestedmany ways suggested with few specifics as to which one would be best to tryPossible ways to experiment suggested with strong reasoning and numbers based estimates for how many funds should be expected from these methods in a given time frame
11
Best way to gain more information/move forwardno best way suggesteda best way to move forward suggested but little or no justification givenA best way to proceed suggested with strong justification and specific possible next steps
12
Total score#REF!#REF!
13
14
15
16
17
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
Loading...