ABCDEFGHIJ
1
2
MetricScore Meaning
3
12345
4
Data Quality*Description of Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) methods is unclear or missing. This includes applications that:

Only report outputs (and not outcomes).
OR
Don't include citations to program-informing research.
OR
Report they will have impact data or will complete study in coming years but do not have data yet.		Description of M&E methods is not strong enough. Reports outcomes, but:

Provided citations to program-informing research do not suggest causality between program and intended impact due to important methodological limitations (e.g., statistical validity issues not properly considered, study lacked strong control or comparison group, etc.).
OR
Don't use data to inform decisions.
OR
Not enough methodological/team information to instill confidence in accuracy of reported impact.		Description of M&E methods doesn't dispel all key questions, but instills some confidence.
AND
Statistical validity issues are considered and addressed.
AND
The org has a strong evaluation team, and relies on external evaluators/academics when appropriate.
AND
Research citations are included, but there may be significant follow-up questions or gaps in understanding.		Description of M&E methods is strong. Data is of nearly highest quality.
AND
The org has a strong evaluation team, and relies on external evaluators/academics when appropriate. The organization both consumes and contributes to peer-reviewed research where appropriate.
AND
Programs are based on best research available and regular internal evaluation is also completed. Rigorous data and evaluation seems to be part of organization's culture.		Description of M&E methods is extremely high quality. Data is of the highest quality and is made available to stakeholders and participants.
AND
All items from #4.
AND
There is a mature body of top quality research on the applicant's issue area, and the program model is well-considered given the findings.		*Data Quality and Cost/Impact: These two metrics have been combined into just one IMPACT metric.
5
Cost/Impact*There is not enough information about cost per impact.
OR
Key program indicator effect sizes are not shared.
OR
The cost/impact or SROI is not competitive, nor is it likely to be at greater programmatic scale.
OR
There are significant methodological issues with the cost/impact calcuation.
OR
The application doesn't sufficiently demonstrate the program makes a profound positive impact in the lives of participants who are vulnerable, underserved, or disenfranchised. In this way, the applicant is poorly aligned with RTNF's mission.		Description of cost per impact is not strong enough.

Cost per impact is relatively uncompetitive compared to other known solutions.
OR
Application doesn't sufficiently demonstrate that cost/impact or SROI is appropriately calculated/considered. There seem to be too many unstated assumptions in regards to SROI calcuations.

Note: If above M&E score is 1-2, then the highest score possible is a 2 on Cost/Impact.		Description of cost per impact is strong or likely to be strong at scale. Cost per impact:

Is fairly competitive (or is likely to be at scale) compared to other known solutions
AND
Is reasonable considering the substantive significance of reported outcomes (that is, a meaningful, positive impact is shown in the lives of vulnerable, marginalized, or disenfranchised population)
AND
Assumptions are stated and there is clearly some critical thought expended on the calculation.		Description of cost per impact is strong. Cost per impact:

Is quite strong compared to other known solutions
AND
Is strong considering the substantive significance of reported outcomes (that is, a meaningful, positive impact is shown in the lives of vulnerable, marginalized, or disenfranchised population).
AND
Assumptions are stated and there is clearly some critical thought expended on the calculation.		Description of cost per impact is very strong. Cost per impact:

Is extremely competitive compared to other known solutions for the populations served.
AND
Is strong considering the substantive significance of reported outcomes (that is, a meaningful, positive impact is shown in the lives of vulnerable, marginalized, or disenfranchised population).
AND
Serving the last mile and most vulnerable and marginalized groups
AND
Assumptions are stated and cost per impact is very carefully calculated.
6
Strategic PlanDescription of Strategic Plan is unclear, insufficient, or not included.
OR
RTNF and this organization are not sufficiently aligned strategically.		Description of Strategic Plan is not quite strong enough.

Seems aspirational/is not practical enough. That is, plan may include ambitous goals, but plan steps are unclear, impractical, or perhaps unattainable.
OR
May seem focused on "growth for growth's sake". That is, plan does not mention organizational and impact improvement plans.
OR
May lack detail in key areas.		Description of Strategic Plan is acceptable.

Goals seem ambitious, but steps toward goals are well-conceived.
AND
Plan instills some confidence and includes outcomes and organizational improvement goals.
AND
Significant, relevant questions remain, but follow-up could be warranted and key interests seem likely to be aligned.
Description of Strategic Plan is strong.

Goals seem ambitious, but strategic plan is well-conceived and possibly attainable.
AND
Instills confidence and includes key steps to goal attainment and exhibits strong alignment with RTNF's mission.		Description of Strategic Plan is very strong.

Is well-conceived, attainable, and inspiring.
AND
Could be a "game changer", "move the needle", or alter a system.
AND
Includes SMART goals or specific key steps toward goal attainment.
7
Leadership and RepresentationToo little is known about leadership/no information is provided, especially related to particular individuals who will lead on the project.
OR
Organization shows signs of lacking serious consideration of paternalism or representation issues.
OR
Based on information provided, RTNF lacks a strong sense of confidence in leadership because of potential lack of professionalism, skill, or transparent communication.		Leaders/description of leaders is insufficient or doesn't show that they are leaders/experts in their respective fields.
OR
Organization may acknowledge issues related to paternalism and representation, but is not meaningfully addressing these issues in practice.
OR
Outstanding concerns that communication (either from leaders or in application) is not direct or transparent enough. 		Leaders/description of leaders is thorough.
AND
Leaders are qualified experts for the positions they hold. Background and qualifications of key leaders instill confidence.
AND
Organization appears to consider and address issues of paternalism and representation at a basic level.
AND
Communication from leadership/application is direct and transparent.		Leaders/description of leaders is strong.
AND
Leaders are qualified and demonstrate that they are particularly professional, capable, and expert. Leaders/organizations may be earlier stage than those scoring a 5.
AND
Organization exemplifies RTNF's principles of self-determination fairly well and prioritizes active improvement.
AND
Communication from leadership/application is direct and transparent.		Leaders are qualified and demonstrate in particular that they are extremely professional. Leaders also demonstrate they are regional or global leaders in their fields, brilliant, inspiring. They are polished and ready to hit the ground running.
AND
Organization exemplifies RTNF's principles of self-determination. Leadership at all levels includes meaningful representation from those closest to the issue area in geographies where they serve.
AND
Leaders prioritize ongoing improvement and learning. Solid feedback channels are in place and valued.
AND
Communication from leadership/application is direct and transparent.
8
SustainabilityOrganization does not demonstrate financial sustainability or resiliency and seems very likely to become reliant on RTNF. Not enough information is provided to demonstrate financial resilience and sustainability. There are questions or concerns about 2 or more of the of the following areas: (1) sufficiency of development staff, (2) diversification of funding sources, (3) funding opportunities, (4) % of multiyear commitments or unrestricted funding. Organization or application points to superficial measures of sustainability and financial resilience. Organization does not demonstrate financial sustainability or resiliency and seems somewhat likely to become reliant on RTNF. Not enough information is provided to demonstrate financial resilience and sustainability. There are questions or concerns about 1 of the of the following areas: (1) sufficiency of development staff, (2) diversification of funding sources, (3) funding opportunities, (4) % of multiyear commitments or unrestricted funding. Organization or application points to superficial measures of sustainability and financial resilience. Organization seems financially resilient based on high level description provided and is unlikely to become overly reliant on continued support from RTNF.

Organization has diversified funding, adequate development team, adequate funder exposure, and realistic projections.
AND
Meaningful sustainability considerations are discussed.

A score of 3 is quite strong for this criterion. Rarely do organizations score higher.		Organization shows evidence of being quite sustainable or seems very unlikely to need continued funding from RTNF due to great funder exposure, strong development team, professionalism, and diversified funding. It seems they have critically evaluated sustainability plans. Might also include some earned revenue or government support.With the help of our grant, the organization/program presents reasonable goal to be 100% sustainable by the end of the proposed grant period.
9
10