Nominations will be evaluated by review committees using a rubric described in this document. All eligible nominations will receive recognition. Awards will not necessarily be given each year in each category.
Iowa Campus Compact uses three review committees to select awardees:
- Previous recipients of individual awards will review and select awardees which recognize faculty, staff, and alumni. This committee uses a double blind review process. This committee will review applications for the Civic Mission Leadership, Community Leadership, and Emerging Leadership awards.
- IACC’s Giving Voice committee will review and select awardees which recognize groups or projects. Committee members are asked to recuse themselves from scoring nominations where they have a prior relationship. This committee will review applications for the emerging Innovation and Community Partnership awards.
- Students from member campuses will review and select awardees which recognize students, student groups, and AmeriCorps members. This committee uses a double blind review process. This committee will review applications for the Student Leadership and National Service Member of the Year awards. This committee will select three finalists for the Network Choice award.
The Network Choice award is selected using an online voting system. The finalist with the most votes is selected as the awardee. The online voting system gives finalists the opportunity to build awareness and excitement for their group or project on campus and in the community.
Nominations are reviewed by each of the committees. Nominations are scored individually on a scale of 0 to 100. Scoring rubrics are listed below.
GENERAL NARRATIVES (60 POINTS)
Relevant accomplishments of the nominee. Narrative describing the nominee’s qualifications for the award including how they have demonstrated commitment to educating active citizens and building strong communities through civic and community engagement in higher education.
||0 – 10
||11 – 19
||20 – 24
||25 – 30
|Relevant and significant accomplishments
||Within the context of the community, accomplishments are not relevant or significant.
||Within the context of the community, accomplishments are somewhat relevant to needs and somewhat significant.
||Within the context of the community, accomplishments are relevant to needs and significant.
||Within the context of the community, accomplishments are relevant to pressing needs and very significant.
|Accomplishments are deep commitments and reciprocal to all stake holders
||Accomplishments are not deep or reciprocal.
||Accomplishments represent only some stakeholders and commitments lack depth.
||Accomplishments are reciprocal to all stakeholders and represent strong commitments.
||Accomplishments are clearly reciprocal to all stakeholders and represent deep and lasting commitments.
AWARD SPECIFIC NARRATIVE (40 POINTS)
A strong nomination will make a clear and compelling case that the nominee deserve recognition in the specific category chosen.
||0 – 9
||20 – 29
||30 – 40
|The nominee exemplifies the selected award category
||Nominee does not clearly fit within award category and there is little to no evidence that this nomination is deserving of high levels of recognition.
||Nominee somewhat fits the award category, but there is a lack of evidence that this nomination is deserving of high levels of recognition.
||Nominee fits the award category and a strong case is made that this nomination is deserving of high levels of recognition.
||Nominee epitomizes the award category and a very clear and compelling case is made that this nomination is deserving of the highest levels of recognition.