TIAA Innovation Award
Rubric
| Award Pathway Options (5 - exceptionally successful, 1 - does not meet expectations) |
| Scalable | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Proposals should demonstrate how this approach would harness scalability. This ensures that the impact of the award extends beyond the immediate term and benefits a larger number of first-generation students. | The proposal strongly demonstrates how their approach harnesses scalability. The applicant ensures that the impact of the award extends beyond the immediate term and benefits a larger number of first-generation students. | The proposal adequately demonstrated how the approach would harness scalability. Clear strategies were provided to ensure the impact extends beyond the immediate term and benefits a larger number of first-generation students. | The proposal somewhat demonstrated how the approach would harness scalability. Some strategies were included, but they lacked detail or clarity regarding long-term impact and broader benefits. | The proposal minimally addressed scalability. Strategies were mentioned but were vague or insufficiently detailed to show how the impact would extend beyond the immediate term or benefit more first-generation students. | The proposal does not demonstrate how their approach would harness scalability. The impact of the award would not extend beyond the immediate term or have any benefits to a large number of first-generation students. |
| Creative | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Proposals should demonstrate creative approaches to enhancing first-generation student success. This includes the use of new methodologies, technologies, or practices that have the potential to make a significant impact. | The proposal thoroughly demonstrated creative approaches. It included comprehensive and detailed examples of new methodologies, technologies, or practices that have the potential to make a significant impact on first-generation student success. | The proposal adequately demonstrated creative approaches to enhancing first-generation student success. It provided clear examples of new methodologies, technologies, or practices with the potential to make a significant impact. | The proposal somewhat demonstrated creative approaches. It included some new methodologies, technologies, or practices, but these elements lacked detail or clarity regarding their potential impact. | The proposal minimally demonstrated creative approaches. It mentioned new methodologies, technologies, or practices, but they were vague or insufficiently detailed to show potential for significant impact. | The proposal did not demonstrate any creative approaches to enhancing first-generation student success. It lacked new methodologies, technologies, or practices that could make a significant impact. |
| Award Proposal Rubric Topics (5 - exceptionally successful, 1 - does not meet expectations) |
| Impact on Historically Excluded Identities | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| The proposals addressed how the program, service, or initiative will support students from historically excluded identities. This may include strategies to ensure inclusivity, equity, and access for all first-generation students, particularly those from historically excluded groups. | The proposals thoroughly addressed how the program, service, or initiative will support students from historically excluded identities. Comprehensive and detailed strategies to ensure inclusivity, equity, and access for all first-generation students, particularly those from historically excluded groups, were included. | The proposals adequately addressed how the program, service, or initiative will support students from historically excluded identities. Clear strategies for inclusivity, equity, and access for first-generation students were provided. | The proposals somewhat addressed support for students from historically excluded identities. Some strategies for inclusivity, equity, and access for firstgeneration students were mentioned, but they lacked detail or clarity. | The proposals minimally addressed support for students from historically excluded identities. Strategies for inclusivity, equity, and access for firstgeneration students were vague or insufficient. | The proposals did not address how the program, service, or initiative will support students from historically excluded identities. There were no strategies mentioned to ensure inclusivity, equity, and access for first-generation students from these groups. |
| Collaborative Efforts Across Campus | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| The proposal articulates collaborative efforts across different departments, offices, and campus or community stakeholders. This may include partnerships with faculty, staff, student organizations, and other campus entities to create a holistic support system for firstgeneration students. | The proposal thoroughly addressed collaborative efforts across different departments, offices, and campus/community stakeholders. Comprehensive and detailed partnerships with faculty, staff, student organizations, and other campus entities were included to create a holistic support system for firstgeneration students. | The proposal adequately addressed collaborative efforts across different departments, offices, and campus/community stakeholders. Clear partnerships with faculty, staff, student organizations, and other campus entities were provided to support first-generation students. | The proposal somewhat addressed collaborative efforts. Some partnerships with faculty, staff, student organizations, or other campus entities were mentioned, but they lacked detail or clarity. | The proposal minimally mentioned collaborative efforts. Partnerships with faculty, staff, student organizations, or other campus entities were vague or insufficiently detailed. | The proposal did not mention any collaborative efforts across different departments, offices, or campus/community stakeholders. There were no partnerships with faculty, staff, student organizations, or other campus entities to support first-generation students. |
| Community Engagement | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| This proposal included plans for engaging with the broader community, including local organizations, businesses, and alumni. This may lead to engaging a supportive network for first-generation students and provide opportunities for post-completion experiences and mentorship. | The proposal thoroughly included plans for engaging with the broader community, encompassing local organizations, businesses, and alumni. Comprehensive and detailed strategies were provided to build a supportive network and offer extensive post-completion opportunities and mentorship for first-generation students. | The proposal adequately included plans for engaging with the broader community, including local organizations, businesses, and alumni. Clear strategies were provided to create a supportive network and offer post-completion experiences and mentorship for first-generation students. | The proposal somewhat addressed plans for engaging with the broader community. Some strategies involving local organizations, businesses, or alumni were mentioned, but they lacked detail or clarity regarding support networks and postcompletion opportunities. | The proposal minimally mentioned plans for community engagement. Strategies involving local organizations, businesses, or alumni were vague or insufficiently detailed, with limited focus on creating a supportive network or post-completion opportunities. | The proposal minimally mentioned plans for community engagement. Strategies involving local organizations, businesses, or alumni were vague or insufficiently detailed, with limited focus on creating a supportive network or post-completion opportunities. |
| Intersectional Approach | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| This proposal harnesses an intersectional approach, considering the multiple and overlapping identities of first-generation students. This may include addressing the unique challenges faced by students who may also identify as low-income, LGBTQ+, students of color, or other intersecting identities. | The proposal thoroughly leveraged an intersectional approach. It comprehensively considered the multiple and overlapping identities of firstgeneration students and included detailed strategies to address the unique challenges faced by students who may also identify as low-income, LGBTQ+, students of color, or other intersecting identities. | The proposal adequately leveraged an intersectional approach. It considered the multiple and overlapping identities of firstgeneration students and provided clear strategies to address the unique challenges faced by students who may also identify as low-income, LGBTQ+, students of color, or other intersecting identities. | The proposal somewhat leveraged an intersectional approach. It acknowledged the multiple and overlapping identities of first-generation students, but the strategies to address their unique challenges lacked detail or clarity | The proposal minimally considered an intersectional approach. It mentioned the multiple identities of first-generation students but provided vague or insufficient strategies to address the unique challenges faced by students with intersecting identities. | The proposal did not leverage an intersectional approach. It failed to consider the multiple and overlapping identities of first-generation students, and did not address the unique challenges faced by students who may also identify as low-income, LGBTQ+, students of color, or other intersecting identities. |
| Feasibility | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| This proposal articulate a detailed and realistic plan. | The proposal thoroughly articulated a clear and realistic plan for implementation. | The proposal adequately articulated a clear and realistic plan for implementation. | The proposal somewhat articulated a plan for implementation. | The proposal minimally addressed the plan for implementation. | The proposal did not articulate a clear or realistic plan for implementation. |
| Intended Outcomes | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| The proposal defined the intended outcomes and articulated how they will contribute to the success of first-generation students. | The proposal excellently defined the intended outcomes and thoroughly articulated how they would contribute to the success of first-generation students. | The proposal clearly defined the intended outcomes and effectively articulated how they would contribute to the success of first-generation students. | The proposal adequately defined the intended outcomes and moderately articulated how they would contribute to the success of first-generation students. | The proposal somewhat defined the intended outcomes but did not effectively articulate how they would contribute to the success of first-generation students. | The proposal did not define the intended outcomes clearly and failed to articulate how they would contribute to the success of first-generation students. |
| Indicators of Success | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| The proposal clearly defined the indicators of success including but not limited to academic performance, retention rates, graduation, and student engagement among first-generation students. | The proposal excellently defined the indicators of success, thoroughly detailing how academic performance, retention rates, graduation, and student engagement among first-generation students would be measured. | The proposal clearly defined the indicators of success, effectively detailing how academic performance, retention rates, graduation, and student engagement among first-generation students would be measured. | The proposal adequately defined the indicators of success, including academic performance, retention rates, graduation, and student engagement among firstgeneration students. | The proposal somewhat defined the indicators of success but lacked clarity on how academic performance, retention rates, graduation, and student engagement among first-generation students would be measured. | The proposal did not clearly define the indicators of success, including academic performance, retention rates, graduation, and student engagement among firstgeneration students. |
| Budgetary Information (5 - exceptionally successful, 1 - does not meet expectations) |
| Budget | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| The proposal clearly defined the indicators of success including but not limited to academic performance, retention rates, graduation, and student engagement among first-generation students. | The proposal is exceptionally clear and detailed, fully comprehensive. It defines, measures, and details goals. Expected outcomes are realistic, detailed, and well articulated. Innovative approaches are exceptionally well-explained and feasible. The impact on current or new programs is exceptionally significant and detailed. | The proposal is detailed and clear with minor gaps. It clearly defines and measures goals, and articulates realistic expected outcomes. Innovative approaches are well-explained and feasible. The impact on current or new programs is significant with minor gaps. | The proposal is clear and provides adequate details. It outlines specific goals and expected outcomes but may lack some detail. Some innovative approaches are included but may need more feasibility. The impact on current or new programs is clear but could be more detailed. | The proposal includes some details but lacks clarity and completeness. It mentions goals and expected outcomes but they are not clearly defined or measurable. Innovative approaches are mentioned but not well explained or feasible. The impact on programs is minimal. | The proposal is vague and lacks specifics. It does not clearly outline how the funds will be used, with no specific goals, expected outcomes, or innovative approaches mentioned. The impact on current or new programs is not evident. |
TIAA Innovation Award
Open to accredited 2- and 4-year higher education institutions, the Innovation Award will award up to $10,000 of unrestricted funds to creative or scalable solutions to advance the success of first-gen students.
