• Describe the problem that your club addressed, the locale in which the problem existed, and the people who were experiencing the problem.
• Use descriptive words and provide the evidence used to determine that the problem needed to be addressed.
• The evidence may include photos, direct observations, results of interviews or focus groups, results of surveys, concise explanation of relevant research regarding the problem, map of geographical area where the problem existed, and other types of evidence.

• Describe the project that was carried out to address the problem.
• Mention who was involved (e.g., number of Rotarians, non-Rotarians, and Rotary clubs that participated in carrying out the project) and describe what they did. 
• Also specify any materials/equipment that were obtained to address the problem.

• Describe how the people who were impacted by the problem and the locale where the problem existed benefited from the implementation of the project.
• May include a description of how the people and locale are now different as a result of the implementation of the project. 
• If applicable, describe any follow-up action, initiative, or new partnership(s) that resulted from the implementation of the project.
• Support your response with relevant evidence (e.g., photos, testimonials, report of direct observation, videos, etc.)

• Explain how the club obtained the financial resources used to implement the project.
• Include an explanation of how a portion of the funds were obtained from The Rotary Foundation (e.g., district grant, international district grant, global grant, scholarship, other funding alternatives).

• Describe the club’s actions to inform a wider audience of the project’s significance and impact through different means (e.g., social, electronic, and/or print media, television, etc.)
• Provide evidence to support your response.

• After reflecting on the success of this project, provide a message that you would like to share with others explaining why it is important to support The Rotary Foundation.

• 5 (Clearly Acceptable);
• 4 (Acceptable);
• 3 (Marginal);
• 2 (Unacceptable);
• 1 (Clearly Unacceptable);  
• 0 (No Credit). 

• 5 (Clearly Acceptable): The response clearly and directly addresses the required criteria corresponding to the award component.  When evidence is required by the award component, two or more relevant examples are provided to support the responses provided.
• 4 (Acceptable):  The response addresses the required criteria corresponding to the award component.  When evidence is required by the award component, only one relevant example is provided  to support the response provided.    
• 3 (Marginal):  The response addresses the required criteria for the award component.  However, when evidence is required by the award component, no relevant examples are provided to support the response
• 2 (Unacceptable):  The response partially addresses the required criteria for the award component.  When evidence is required by an award component, no relevant examples are provided to support the response.  
• 1 (Clearly Unacceptable): The response does not address the required criteria for the award component.
• 0 (No Credit):  No response is provided to address the required criteria for the award component.

A committee from the District Rotary Foundation Team will review and evaluate the nominations submitted using the rubric mentioned above.  Committee members will refer to the Award description, components, and corresponding criteria to evaluate each nomination.