Announcing the Results of the Stronger Democracy Award: Meet the Awardees!

Peer-to-Peer Review

During Peer-to-Peer review, each applicant will score and comment on five other applications using the four criteria included in the scoring rubric: transformative, innovative, feasible, and scalable. This is the same scoring rubric that the Evaluation Panel will use in their review.

Scores will be calculated using an algorithm that ensures a level playing field for all applicants. In addition to scoring each application on the four criteria in the scoring rubric, Peer-to-Peer reviewers will also provide a final numerical score, ranging between 0-100, representing an overall impression of the entire application. We ask that each Peer-to-Peer reviewer carefully read the applications given to them and provide meaningful feedback. The Peer-to-Peer review will result in a rank order of all valid submissions. Based on the rank order of scores, a subset of top-scoring applications will move forward to the Evaluation Panel.

Evaluation Panel

Evaluation Panel judges will score and provide feedback on the applications assigned to them using the scoring rubric, and each valid application will receive five sets of reviews with scores that have been statistically normalized to ensure a level playing field. Informed by the resulting rank order of applications after Evaluation Panel review, up to five Finalists will be selected.

No items found.

Selection Committee

In partnership with Lever for Change, the Selection Committee will review the top-scoring submissions and select up to five Finalists based on considerations that may include, but are not limited to, Evaluation Panel resulting rank order, organizational capacity, geographic diversity, and feasibility. The Selection Committee will select up to five Finalists and the recipients of the two $10 million Stronger Democracy Awards while Cipora & Vlado Herman will select the Finalist recipient of the $2 million grant.