JUDGING METHODOLOGY & SCORING RUBRIC FOR 2024
To provide additional guidance to both our entrants and judges, SPRF implemented a new scoring methodology in 2022. The new system within Openwater utilizes a rubric providing opportunity for both objective and subjective evaluation, replacing the wholly subjective process from previous years. 

For each tier, up to 64 points will be awarded in rubric scoring. If an entry satisfies these basic criteria, it will be close to the minimum 70-point threshold for an award. The remaining 36 points in each tier are discretionary points allocated for each of the four sections plus creativity. These points are awarded based on the competency the entrant demonstrates in each of those five areas and will determine the final ranking of an entry. 

In the previous process, final assessments could vary wildly depending on what a judge valued in an entry. The issue was compounded as more than 20 individual judges subjectively scored 10 to 15 entries during each year. While one judge might deduct a few points for a missing objective, another judge might deduct significantly more. The new rubric provides a baseline for standard criteria expected in a project profile within the RPIE process and creates a framework instructing entrants on what judges will be looking for while simultaneously setting evaluation standards for judges.   

The new methodology may address one of the main criticisms leveled at the judging process -- that judges don't provide enough direction and commentary to improve an entrant's work. The rubric allows judges and entrants to quickly and effectively identify missing items or sections requiring improvement. The rubric will streamline the judging process, eliminating time spent identifying the most common errors means more opportunity to comment on other aspects of the program or project. 

Essentially, the rubric is a checklist of criteria pulled from the pages of the Accreditation in Public Relations study guide. Most entrants won't see much of a difference as award-winning work already meets and exceeds these levels of evaluation.

SCORING OVERVIEW
Campaigns will be scored slightly differently than Projects/Tactics entries. Campaigns will be measured with an emphasis on planning and evaluation. Projects/Tactics and all student entries will be weighted more on implementation and creativity. Items marked in RED below mark the differences between Tiers1&2 and Tier3/Student scoring. 

TIERS 1&2/Long- and Short-Term Campaigns
Research - 20 points
Planning - 30 points
Implementation - 20 points
Evaluation - 20 points
Creativity - 10 points

TIER 3/Tactical Materials/Projects & all Student Entries
Research - 20 points
Planning - 20 points
Implementation - 30 points
Evaluation - 10 points
Creativity - 20 points

We expect this new hybrid methodology to effectively recognize and reward the art and science required to craft top-tier campaigns and projects and look forward to hearing your thoughts on the new approach. 

--------------------------

FULL JUDGING RUBRIC AND CRITERIA
The following are the instructions and scoring options copied directly from OpenWater. It is recommended entrants use these directives as a guide to ensure their entry meets the necessary requirements and maximizes their score.

JUDGING CRITERIA - RESEARCH

RESEARCH (500 words) / 20 points awarded (Tiers 1-3/Student)
Research is the systematic gathering of information to describe and understand a situation, check assumptions about publics and perceptions, and check the public relations consequences. Research is the foundation for effective strategic public relations planning.

Each project profile should include enough background information on the company and project to give judges a sense of the situation and purpose. CLICK HERE FOR FULL JUDGING CRITERIA AND A RPIE CHEAT SHEET

SCORING RUBRIC - RESEARCH

RESEARCH – Background
Does the entrant provide a background of the client/organization/situation to give an understanding of the project?

• No background provided (0 points)
• Background provides a partial understanding of the organization or situation (1 point)
• Information included gives a full understanding of the organization AND situation (2 points)

RESEARCH – Purpose
Does the entrant state the purpose of this project or provide a problem statement?

• Purpose for the project is NOT stated (0 points)
• Purpose for the project is clearly stated (2 points)

RESEARCH – Types
Does the entrant state the type of research used?
Listed research should be tagged as Primary/Secondary, Formal/Informal, Qualitative/Quantitative

• Research types are not mentioned (0 points)
• Research types used are mentioned, but NOT properly identified (2 points)
• Research types used are mentioned AND properly identified (4 points)

RESEARCH – Methods
Does the entrant use multiple types of research methodologies to analyze the situation?

• Less than two methods of research were used (0 points)
• Two or more methods of research were used (2 points)

RESEARCH – Impact
Does the entrant describe how the research was used to shape the project objectives, strategies, and tactics?

• No impact stated (0 points)
• Entry illustrates how the research impacted the setting of the project's objectives, strategies, and tactics (2 points)

RESEARCH – Overall
What is your overall rating of how the entrant completed this section and the quality of their PR process? How competent is this entrant's product and performance? 

• Unimpressive, undocumented, incomplete (0-2 points)
• Competent but ordinary, typical for category, fully acceptable (3-4 points)
• Exhibits above-average craftsmanship -- detailed and insightful (5-6 points)
• Exceptional, innovative, highly creative, meets highest standards (7-8 points)

RESEARCH – Judge's Comments
We consider your judge's comments the most critical part of this process The feedback you provide offering advice, suggestions, and improvements are more important than the final score, giving our entrants valuable information and knowledge they can apply in their job and future endeavors. What was notable about this section? Or, why were points deducted?

JUDGING CRITERIA - PLANNING

PLANNING (500 words) / 30 points awarded (Tiers 1&2); 20 points (Tier 3/Student)
Successful public relations programs require proactive, strategic planning. Planning includes measurable objectives grounded in research and evaluated for return.

SCORING RUBRIC - PLANNING

PLANNING – Goal 
Goals are longer-term, broad, global, and future statements of “being.” Goals may include how an organization is uniquely distinguished in the minds of its key publics. Example: To become the recognized leader in our industry and foster continuing public support.

• No goal is stated (0 points)
• Goal is stated, but is not effective or is an objective/strategy/tactic/etc (1 point)
• Stated goal is appropriate and effective (3 points) (2 points)

PLANNING – Objectives
Does the entrant provide defined objectives for the program or project?
Objectives lay out the measurable results that must be achieved with each public to reach the program goal.

• Objectives for the project are NOT stated (0 points)
• Objectives for the project are clearly stated (3 points) (2 points)

PLANNING – Smart Objectives (Tiers 1&2)
Do the objectives listed include SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-specific) criteria?
Objectives should do the following:
1. Address desired result in terms of knowledge change, opinion change and/or behavioral outcome, not in terms of communication output.
2. Designate the public or publics that should show the knowledge, opinion, or behavior changes.
3. Specify the expected level of accomplishment (knowledge, opinion, or behavior change).
4. Identify the time frame for these accomplishments to occur.

Example: To increase ridership of public transportation in the Los Angeles metropolitan area by 8 percent among workers earning less than $25,000 per year within the first six months of the communication program.

• Each stated objective includes 1 or less of the SMART criteria (0 points)
• Each stated objective includes at least 2 of the SMART criteria (3 points)
• Each stated objective includes at least 3 of the SMART criteria (6 points)
• Each stated objective includes at least 4 of the SMART criteria (9 points

PLANNING – Smart Objectives (Tier 3/Student)

• Each stated objective includes 1 or less of the SMART criteria (0 points)
• Each stated objective includes 2-3 of the SMART criteria (2 points)
• Each stated objective includes 4 or more of the SMART criteria (4 points)

PLANNING – Strategies (Tiers 1&2)
Does the entrant provide clear strategies for the program or project?
Strategies provide the overall concept, approach, or general plan for a program designed to achieve objectives. Strategies indicate how someone will accomplish an objective.

Example: Use communication vehicles that can be understood by a public with limited education to demonstrate that riding public transportation to work is an attractive alternative to driving.

• No strategies are listed (0 points)
• At least one strategy is listed, but it does NOT contain how to achieve objectives (2 points)
• Two or more strategies are listed advance the overall concept, approach, or general plan for a program designed to achieve objectives (4 points)

PLANNING – Strategies (Tier 3/Student)

• No strategies are listed (0 points)
• At least one strategy is listed, but it does NOT contain how to achieve objectives (1 point)
• Listed strategies advance the overall concept, approach, or general plan for a program designed to achieve objectives (2 points)

PLANNING – Publics
Does the entrant identify the publics this program or project will target?

• No public is stated (0 points)
• Public(s) stated but are incomplete (1 point)
• Target public(s) are clearly identified and appropriate (3 points) (2 points)

PLANNING – Overall
What is your overall rating of how the entrant completed this section and the quality of their PR process? How competent is this entrant's product and performance? 

• Unimpressive, undocumented, incomplete (0-2 points)
• Competent but ordinary, typical for category, fully acceptable (3-4 points)
• Exhibits above-average craftsmanship -- detailed and insightful (5-6 points)
• Exceptional, innovative, highly creative, meets highest standards (7-8 points)

PLANNING – Judge's Comments
We consider your judge's comments the most critical part of this process The feedback you provide offering advice, suggestions, and improvements are more important than the final score, giving our entrants valuable information and knowledge they can apply in their job and future endeavors. What was notable about this section? Or, why were points deducted?

JUDGING CRITERIA - IMPLEMENTATION

IMPLEMENTATION (500 words) / 20 points awarded (Tiers 1&2); 30 points (Tier 3/Student)This section documents how the plan was executed and communicated to the targeted audience or publics. A timeline, budget, and list of tactics should be included. The entrant should tell the story of actions taken, messages sent, and resources utilized. CLICK HERE FOR FULL JUDGING CRITERIA AND A RPIE CHEAT SHEET.

SCORING RUBRIC - IMPLEMENTATION

IMPLEMENTATION – Tactics (Tiers 1&2)
Does the entrant state what tactics will be utilized to use resources and carry out strategies to advance and meet the objectives of this program?

Tactics are the exact activities, methods, and resources used at the operational level to implement a strategy and reach an objective.

Example: Conduct a “Why I’d rather be riding” essay contest.

• No tactics are referenced (0 points)
• Tactics are referenced but are inadequate for the project (1 point)
• Tactics are described and properly utilized, but more could be done (2 points)
• Outstanding use of tactics to move toward objective. No more could be done.(4 points)

IMPLEMENTATION – Process (Tier 3/Student)
Does the entrant effectively describe the process that led to the output of this tactical material or project and how it would work toward meeting the stated strategies, objectives, and goal? Does the entrant detail what research or choices led to specific designs, avenues, or outputs?

• Implementation of this project is unclear or undocumented (0 points)
• Some sense of direction and process is stated but is incomplete or inadequate (3 points)
• Most of the process is documented and choices illustrated, but more could be done (6 points)
• Entire process is described in detail and outstanding in its implementation (9 points)

IMPLEMENTATION – Timeline
Does the entrant include a timeline or Gantt chart indicating the steps taken in this project?

• No timeline included (0 points)
• Timeline is incomplete (1 point)
• Timeline with clear starting point, intermediate steps, and end date included (2 points)

IMPLEMENTATION – Budget
Does the entrant include a budget?
The budget may include staff time, volunteer energy, and out-of-pocket costs (expenses for transportation, images, materials, and fabrication). Every project costs something. 

• No budget referenced (0 points)
• Budget is incomplete (1 point)
• Budget including a breakdown of expenses and resources utilized to work toward objectives is provided (2 points)

IMPLEMENTATION – Resources (Tier 1&2)
Does the entrant specify how resources were utilized to create tactics used to carry out the strategy and work toward objectives?

• No explanation of resources used (0 points)
• Some mention of resources used to create tactics but are inconclusive, incomplete, or inadequate (2 points)
• Significant resources are utilized and clearly stated, explained, and appropriate for the activities (4 points)

IMPLEMENTATION – Resources (Tier 3/Student)

• No explanation of resources used (0 points)
• Some mention of resources used to create tactics but are inconclusive, incomplete or inadequate (3 points)
• Resources are utilized and clearly stated and explained, but more could be done (6 points)
• Outstanding use of resources, thorough and/or creatively implemented (9 points)

IMPLEMENTATION – Overall
What is your overall rating of how the entrant completed this section and the quality of their PR process? How competent is this entrant's product and performance? 

• Unimpressive, undocumented, incomplete (0-2 points)
• Competent but ordinary, typical for category, fully acceptable (3-4 points)
• Exhibits above-average craftsmanship -- detailed and insightful (5-6 points)
• Exceptional, innovative, highly creative, meets highest standards (7-8 points)

IMPLEMENTATION – Judge's Comments
We consider your judge's comments the most critical part of this process The feedback you provide offering advice, suggestions, and improvements are more important than the final score, giving our entrants valuable information and knowledge they can apply in their job and future endeavors. What was notable about this section? Or, why were points deducted?

JUDGING CRITERIA - EVALUATION

EVALUATION (500 words) / 20 points awarded (Tiers 1&2); 10 points (Tier 3/Student)

Evaluation measures the effectiveness of the program or tactic against the stated objectives.

1. Verifies that public relations efforts were effective (because they met objectives)
2. Demonstrates return on public relations investment
3. Provides information for refining future public relations strategies

 CLICK HERE FOR FULL JUDGING CRITERIA AND A RPIE CHEAT SHEET.

SCORING RUBRIC - EVALUATION

EVALUATION – Methods
Does the entrant list or describe the specific method of measurement utilized to evaluate the outcomes?
Examples of measurement methods include phone interviews, surveys (phone, online, mail, intercept), content analysis, media analysis, tracking (calls, purchases, investments, etc.), focus groups, analytics, and anecdotes.

• No methods are listed or described (0 points)
• Methods are listed, but not adequate for the objective(s) (2 points) (1 point)
• Specific methods of measurement are listed and appropriate for the objectives(s) (4 points) (2 points)

EVALUATION – Evidence
Does the entrant provide evidence evaluating outcomes and response to this project?

• No evidence is presented (0 points)
• Evidence is presented, but does support stated objectives (2 points) (1 point)
• Evidence is presented for most objectives, but is incomplete (4 points) (2 points)
• Clear and compelling evidence is provided for all stated objectives (6 points) (3 points) 

EVALUATION – Lessons
Does the entrant reflect on how this program or project can be improved in the future if it were to be repeated? Or, does this entrant provide specific reasons why an objective or objectives were not met?

• No lessons learned or stated (0 points)
• Entrant states reasons for shortcomings or improvements for future iterations (2 points) (1 point)

EVALUATION – Overall
What is your overall rating of how the entrant completed this section and the quality of their PR process? How competent is this entrant's product and performance? 

• Unimpressive, undocumented, incomplete (0-2 points) (0-1 points)
• Competent but ordinary, typical for category, fully acceptable (3-4 points) (2 points)
• Exhibits above-average craftsmanship -- detailed and insightful (5-6 points) (3 points)
• Exceptional, innovative, highly creative, meets highest standards (7-8 points) (4 points)

EVALUATION – Judge's Comments
We consider your judge's comments the most critical part of this process The feedback you provide offering advice, suggestions, and improvements are more important than the final score, giving our entrants valuable information and knowledge they can apply in their job and future endeavors. What was notable about this section? Or, why were points deducted?

JUDGING CRITERIA - CREATIVITY

CREATIVITY / 10 points awarded (Tiers 1&2); 20 points (Tier 3/Student)
Measures this project’s overall uniqueness. How creative was this entrant’s approach to the project? Did the entry surpass expectations or approach an issue from a new perspective? How engaging was it in its presentation and use?

SCORING RUBRIC - CREATIVITY

CREATIVITY – Design
How well did the entrant demonstrate artistic and technical ability in their design, writing, or production of this project?

• The composition, design, or output is lacking (0 points)
• The output or design is fairly typical (0 points) (2 points)
• The quality of the output and design is outstanding (2 points) (4 points)

CREATIVITY – Writing
Does the entrant demonstrate adherence to proper grammar, punctuation, and AP style throughout the composition, producing text that is understandable and consistent with writing standards? (This includes this project profile as well)

• Significant errors are evident throughout project or profile (0 points)
• Writing is MOSTLY correct throughout (2 points)
• Writing output is outstanding (4 points)

CREATIVITY – Content
How well does the entrant address the specified target audience or publics?

• Text or art does not target specified audience (0 points)
• The text or art engages the specified audience (2 points)
• The content addressed the audience in a new or unique way (4 points)

CREATIVITY – Overall
What is your overall rating of how the entrant completed this section and the quality of their PR process? How competent is this entrant's product and performance? 

• Unimpressive, undocumented, incomplete (0-1 points) (0-2 points)
• Competent but ordinary, typical for category, fully acceptable (2 points) (3-4 points)
• Exhibits above-average craftsmanship -- detailed and insightful (3 points) (5-6 points)
• Exceptional, innovative, highly creative, meets highest standards (4 points) (7-8 points)

CREATIVITY – Judge's Comments
We consider your judge's comments the most critical part of this process The feedback you provide offering advice, suggestions, and improvements are more important than the final score, giving our entrants valuable information and knowledge they can apply in their job and future endeavors. What was notable about this section? Or, why were points deducted?

OVERALL ENTRY – Judge's Comments
We consider your judge's comments the most critical part of this process The feedback you provide offering advice, suggestions, and improvements are more important than the final score, giving our entrants valuable information and knowledge they can apply in their job and future endeavors. What can this entrant improve to move this entry to the next award level? OR, What is makes this a notable entry?

BEST OF TIER - Additional Recognition
Should this entry be considered for BEST OF TIER? (Yes/No)

The material in this rubric is based on information from the Public Relations Society of America Study Guide for the Examination for Accreditation in Public Relations, Sixth Edition, ©2021 by the Universal Accreditation Board. www.praccreditation.org