---
title: Staff Application Evaluation Rubric
---

## 1. Purpose and Scope

This document establishes the standardized evaluation criteria for volunteer staff applications submitted to NHCarrigan. All application reviewers shall utilize this rubric to ensure consistent and objective assessment of candidates.

## 2. Evaluation Methodology

### 2.1 Scoring System
Each evaluation criterion shall be assessed using a five-point scale:
- **Score of 5**: Exceptional performance meeting or exceeding all requirements
- **Score of 3**: Adequate performance meeting minimum acceptable standards  
- **Score of 1**: Inadequate performance failing to meet basic requirements

### 2.2 Assessment Principles
Reviewers shall:
1. Evaluate applications holistically while maintaining scoring consistency
2. Prioritize quality and depth of responses over length
3. Document specific rationale for scores assigned

## 3. Evaluation Criteria

### 3.1 Personal Information and Character Assessment
**Objective**: Assess completeness of personal details, professional presentation, cultural alignment, and personal integrity.

**Performance Standards**:
- **Exceptional (5)**: Complete responses demonstrating authentic personality, clear self-awareness, relevant professional links, and comprehensive disclosure of potential conflicts
- **Adequate (3)**: Sufficient responses with limited personal insight, optional information may be omitted, basic professional presentation maintained
- **Inadequate (1)**: Incomplete responses, evasive answers, unprofessional presentation, or undisclosed conflicts of interest

### 3.2 Availability and Legal Compliance
**Objective**: Verify time commitments, legal eligibility, and agreement to organizational requirements.

**Performance Standards**:
- **Exceptional (5)**: Specific weekly time commitments provided, confirms legal volunteer status, agrees to all required documentation, demonstrates thorough understanding of organizational policies
- **Adequate (3)**: General availability indicated, acknowledges volunteer requirements, basic policy comprehension demonstrated
- **Inadequate (1)**: Vague or unrealistic time commitments, refuses required agreements, fails to meet age/legal requirements, or demonstrates insufficient policy understanding

### 3.3 Mission and Values Alignment
**Objective**: Evaluate alignment with organizational mission, commitment to inclusivity, and accessibility awareness.

**Performance Standards**:
- **Exceptional (5)**: Demonstrates deep understanding of organizational mission, articulates strong commitment to inclusivity and accessibility, identifies potential challenges with proposed solutions
- **Adequate (3)**: Shows general mission understanding, acknowledges inclusivity and accessibility importance without detailed insight
- **Inadequate (1)**: Limited mission comprehension, dismissive of inclusivity/accessibility requirements, or values conflicts identified

### 3.4 Collaboration and Accountability Standards
**Objective**: Assess teamwork capabilities, personal accountability, and feedback management skills.

**Performance Standards**:
- **Exceptional (5)**: Provides specific examples of successful collaboration and accountability, demonstrates balanced approach to feedback exchange, outlines clear organizational strategies
- **Adequate (3)**: Describes teamwork experience in general terms, shows basic feedback understanding, minimal concrete examples provided
- **Inadequate (1)**: Indicates collaboration difficulties, resistance to feedback, or absence of accountability mechanisms

### 3.5 Technical Competency Evaluation
**Objective**: Verify technical skills, project experience, and professional workflow capabilities.

**Performance Standards**:
- **Exceptional (5)**: Demonstrates advanced technical proficiency with specific examples, shows collaborative project experience, provides detailed problem-solving examples, outlines clear escalation procedures
- **Adequate (3)**: Lists relevant technical skills with limited context, shows basic project experience, minimal detail provided
- **Inadequate (1)**: Insufficient technical background, lacks concrete examples, or provides unverifiable claims

### 3.6 Leadership and Community Management
**Objective**: Assess leadership experience, conflict resolution abilities, and community development skills.

**Performance Standards**:
- **Exceptional (5)**: Provides specific leadership examples, demonstrates effective conflict resolution experience, shows empathetic approach to community violations beyond punitive measures
- **Adequate (3)**: Shows some leadership or moderation experience with abstract examples, basic conflict resolution awareness
- **Inadequate (1)**: No demonstrable leadership experience, unwillingness to develop skills, or exclusively punitive approach to violations

### 3.7 Risk Assessment and Boundary Management
**Objective**: Evaluate professional boundaries, crisis management capabilities, and self-awareness.

**Performance Standards**:
- **Exceptional (5)**: Articulates clear professional boundaries, provides thoughtful de-escalation examples, demonstrates ability to separate personal bias from enforcement decisions, shows strong self-awareness of growth areas
- **Adequate (3)**: Shows basic boundary awareness, minimal de-escalation insight, general growth acknowledgment
- **Inadequate (1)**: Fails to establish boundaries, cannot articulate risk management strategies, or shows potential bias interference

### 3.8 Professional Development and Resilience
**Objective**: Assess growth mindset, stress management capabilities, and professional development goals.

**Performance Standards**:
- **Exceptional (5)**: Articulates clear professional development vision, demonstrates thoughtful stress and burnout management strategies, provides meaningful additional qualifications
- **Adequate (3)**: Shows basic development interest and stress awareness with limited depth
- **Inadequate (1)**: No meaningful development goals, inability to handle criticism or stress, or inadequate closing responses

## 4. Final Assessment Standards

### 4.1 Scoring Ranges
- **36-40 points**: Highly recommended candidate with exceptional organizational alignment
- **28-35 points**: Recommended candidate with strong potential and identified growth areas
- **20-27 points**: Not recommended due to insufficient qualifications
- **Below 20 points**: Rejected application

### 4.2 Documentation Requirements
All reviewers shall maintain detailed scoring justification and provide specific feedback for scores below adequate performance standards.

---

**Effective Date**: 30 September 2025 
**Review Schedule**: Annual or as needed based on organizational requirements