PED Grant Selection Rubric
| Criteria | Far Above Standards (4) | Above Standards (3) | Meets Standards (2) | Below Standards (1) | Far Below Standards (0) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| University’s Mission and EDI (Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion) Initiatives | The proposed project supports the University’s mission to prepare students and the campus community for meaningful dialogue about topics of equity, diversity, and inclusion and includes one or more EDI Strategic Plan Goal(s) for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion. | The proposed project supports the College’s mission to prepare students and the campus community for meaningful dialogue about topics of equity, diversity, and inclusion. | The proposed project encourages members of our college community to engage in meaningful dialogue about one aspect but does not promise to expand further. |
The proposed project leaves out meaningful dialogue about topics of equity, diversity, and inclusion; project does not address a campus need for equity, diversity, and inclusion. |
The proposed project does not provide any content regarding the need on campus for equity, diversity, and inclusion. |
| Impact on Campus Community | The proposal describes the project’s impact on and how it would benefit the Brockport community. The proposal confirms an assessment plan including the standard PED (Promoting Excellence in Diversity) (Promoting Excellence in Diversity) evaluation form designed to clearly measure its impact on participants. | The proposal describes the project’s impact on and how it would benefit the Brockport community | The proposal has potential for ongoing impact, but does not include details about the potential ongoing impact on the Brockport community. | The proposed project has limited impact on the Brockport community. | There is no potential impact, or it is not addressed in the proposal. |
| Inclusive Programming | The proposal provides guidelines and a roadmap to advance inclusive programming (example: inclusive food options, planning for accessibility). | The proposal sufficiently addresses guidelines and a roadmap for inclusive programming. | The proposal provides guidelines for inclusive programming but additional details are needed to determine if event is an inclusive program. | The inclusive programming guidelines are vague and should be clarified. | The proposal fails to address the guidelines for inclusive programming. |
| Budget | The budget follows the OEDI/PED budget guidelines. The sample budget guidelines are followed. Additional sources of funding have both been identified. The amount requested is stated clearly. | The budget follows the OEDI/PED grant guidelines and the amount requested is stated clearly. |
The amount requested is stated clearly but fails to identify additional resources. |
The budget plan lacks clarity and the amount requested is not stated clearly. | The budget fails to follow the OEDI/PED budget guidelines. |
| Clarity of Proposal | Applicant followed grant guidelines, described event in detail; written in clear language, easy to understand. | Applicant described the event in detail and sufficiently addressed the guidelines. | Applicant followed the grant guidelines and presents ideas clearly but lacks sufficient detail. | Applicant followed some grant guidelines; includes vague statements. | Applicant did not follow grant guidelines; difficult to follow; vague ideas presented. |
Please note that the rubric is adopted by the following source:
The Commission on Diversity & Inclusion at California State University, Northridge. (n.d.). Grant Rubric 2020-2021. https://www.csun.edu/commission-on-diversity/grant-2020%E2%80%932021-grant-rubric%5C