| Criteria | Above Standards | Meets Standards | Below Standards |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relevance to the Grant Purpose (10 Points) | Proposal clearly articulates a complete and well-informed proposal, supported by extensive knowledge and strong evidence of understanding campus community needs, and connection to advancing the values of inclusive excellence. (10 Points) | Proposal demonstrates basic knowledge and emerging evidence of meeting a campus need, and/or a connection to promoting the values of inclusive excellence are observable. (5 Points) | Proposal is incomplete and not fully developed, with little to no evidence of meeting a campus need related to the values of inclusive excellence. (0 Points) |
| Alignment to Road Ahead Strategic Directions & Priorities (10 Points) | Proposal seamlessly aligns the proposal to at least two strategic directions and priorities of CSUN’s Road Ahead. (10 Points) | Proposal attempts to broadly align the proposal to CSUN’s Road Ahead Strategic Directions and Priorities. (5 Points) | Proposal does not align with at least one of the six CSUN’s Road Ahead Strategic Directions and Priorities. (0 Points) |
| Innovative (5 Points) | Innovative campus proposal that seamlessly leverages CSUN's vision to become a national model for advancing inclusive excellence and leverages innovation to enact equity-centered programming in innovative ways that do not currently exist on campus. (5 Points) | Proposal reasonably attempts to integrate the values of inclusive excellence and concepts of innovation or equity-centered frameworks to explain how programming is innovative. (3 Points) | Proposal fails to integrate the values of inclusive excellence and concepts of innovation or equity-centered frameworks and does not describe how programming is innovative. (0 Points) |
| Sustainability & Potential for Ongoing Impact (5 Points) | Proposal demonstrates evidence of potential sources of support, additional funding, institutionalization and/or sustainability. (5 Points) | Proposal demonstrates potential for ongoing impact, but the proposal does not include details about how to continue beyond the funding period. (3 Points) | Proposal demonstrates limited to no potential for ongoing impact. (0 Points) |
| Collaboration (5 Points) | Proposal demonstrates a broad collaborative institution-wide effort with other departments/divisions/schools or outside organizations. Collaborates with a diverse range of people. (5 Points) | Proposal demonstrates some effort to engage and outreach to others for broad participation in programming. (3 Points) | Proposal demonstrates little to no evidence of engagement or outreach to others. (0 Points) |
| Budget (5 Points) | Proposal presents a complete budget, and the details provided demonstrate strong support for the overall project designed to maximize project activities. Additional funding sources, if applicable, have been identified. (5 Points) | Proposal presents a limited budget and with some details to determine its reasonable to support the overall project or is vague about how funds will be utilized. (3 Points) | Proposal provides little to no details to infer connections between the budget request and the overall project. (0 Points) |
| Total Score | |||
| Comments: | |||
| Funding Recommendations | Fully Fund at Proposal Amount Requested | Partially Fund less than Proposal Amount Requested (I have reservations)_Insert Amount (OPTION QUESTION) | Do Not Fund |