2023 AHEPPP Awards Scoring Rubric

Awards will be scored by reviewers using the following rubrics for each AHEPPP value on an online form. Points will be awarded for each submission based on the information provided in their application demonstrating how each nominee exemplifies the required AHEPPP values. Points may also be awarded for examples of additional, non-required AHEPPP values that are considered outstanding (2 points) or exceeding expectations (1 point).

Supporting a collaborative environment

AHEPPP values collaborative environments where members and partners work together to engage different types of families in higher education with the common purpose of supporting student success.

• Outstanding (5 points) - Nominator/applicant provided specific and measurable examples of how this person, program, initiative, or research supported a collaborative environment within the past 2 years that exceeded the criteria consistently.
• Exceeds Expectation (4 points) - Nominator/applicant provided specific and measurable examples of how this person, program, initiative, or research supported a collaborative environment within the past 2 years that exceeded the criteria on a frequent basis.
• Meets Expectation (3 points) - Nominator/applicant provided specific and measurable examples of how this person, program, initiative, or research supported a collaborative environment within the past 2 years that meets the criteria on a frequent basis.
• Effective (2 points) - Nominator/applicant provided specific and measurable examples of how this person, program, initiative, or research supported a collaborative environment within the past 2 years; however, the examples provided were not demonstrated on a frequent or consistent basis.
• Limited (1 point) - Nominator/applicant provided limited information and description of how this person, program, initiative, or research supported a collaborative environment within the past 2 years. Examples provided were vague and immeasurable.
• Not Enough Information/Off Topic (0 points) - Not enough information or examples were provided, or the examples did not apply to the nominated person, program, initiative, or research.

Responsible and ethical behavior

AHEPPP values responsible and ethical behavior characterized by accountability, honesty, and equity in interpersonal, professional, and academic relationships and in research and scholarly activities.

• Outstanding (5 points) - Nominator/applicant provided specific and measurable examples of how this person, program, initiative, or research exemplified responsible and ethical behavior within the past 2 years that exceeded the criteria consistently.
• Exceeds Expectation (4 points) - Nominator/applicant provided specific and measurable examples of how this person, program, initiative, or research exemplified responsible and ethical behavior within the past 2 years that exceeded the criteria on a frequent basis.
• Meets Expectation (3 points) - Nominator/applicant provided specific and measurable examples of how this person, program, initiative, or research exemplified responsible and ethical behavior within the past 2 years that meets the criteria on a frequent basis.
• Effective (2 points) - Nominator/applicant provided specific and measurable examples of how this person, program, initiative, or research exemplified responsible and ethical behavior within the past 2 years; however, the examples provided were not demonstrated on a frequent or consistent basis.
• Limited (1 point) - Nominator/applicant provided limited information and description of how this person, program, initiative, or research exemplified responsible and ethical behavior within the past 2 years. Examples provided were vague and immeasurable.
• Not Enough Information/Off Topic (0 points) - Not enough information or examples were provided, or the examples did not apply to the nominated person, program, initiative, or research.

Leading innovation and ideas for the profession

AHEPPP values the practical implementation and sharing of ideas that result in new or enhanced programs, initiatives, research, and/or services that support families in higher education, the parent and family profession, and/or the AHEPPP community.

• Outstanding (5 points) - Nominator/applicant provided specific and measurable examples of how this person, program, initiative, or research led innovation and ideas for the profession within the past 2 years that exceeded the criteria consistently.
• Exceeds Expectation (4 points) - Nominator/applicant provided specific and measurable examples of how this person, program, initiative, or research led innovation and ideas for the profession within the past 2 years that exceeded the criteria on a frequent basis.
• Meets Expectation (3 points) - Nominator/applicant provided specific and measurable examples of how this person, program, initiative, or research led innovation and ideas for the profession within the past 2 years that meets the criteria on a frequent basis.
• Effective (2 points) - Nominator/applicant provided specific and measurable examples of how this person, program, initiative, or research led innovation and ideas for the profession within the past 2 years; however, the examples provided were not demonstrated on a frequent or consistent basis.
• Limited (1 point) - Nominator/applicant provided limited information and description of how this person, program, initiative, or research led innovation and ideas for the profession within the past 2 years. Examples provided were vague and immeasurable.
• Not Enough Information/Off Topic (0 points) - Not enough information or examples were provided, or the examples did not apply to the nominated person, program, initiative, or research.

Equity, belonging, and inclusion

AHEPPP is committed to promoting anti-racism, equity, belonging, and inclusion throughout the association. As an association, we must work to explore, understand, and create a shared understanding of how to be grounded in equity, inclusion, and anti-racism. AHEPPP values the identities of all association members and families we serve. These identities may include, and not be limited to, race, color, religion, ability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, socio-economic status, marital status, family status, veteran status, age, national origin, education, and institution type. AHEPPP does not engage in and does not tolerate discrimination in any of its activities or operations.

• Outstanding (5 points) - Nominator/applicant provided specific and measurable examples of how this person, program, initiative, or research demonstrated and/or promoted equity, belonging, and inclusion in higher education within the past 2 years that exceeded the criteria consistently.
• Exceeds Expectation (4 points) - Nominator/applicant provided specific and measurable examples of how this person, program, initiative, or research demonstrated and/or promoted equity, belonging, and inclusion in higher education within the past 2 years that exceeded the criteria on a frequent basis.
• Meets Expectation (3 points) - Nominator/applicant provided specific and measurable examples of how this person, program, initiative, or research demonstrated and/or promoted equity, belonging, and inclusion in higher education within the past 2 years that meets the criteria on a frequent basis.
• Effective (2 points) - Nominator/applicant provided specific and measurable examples of how this person, program, initiative, or research demonstrated and/or promoted equity, belonging, and inclusion in higher education within the past 2 years; however, the examples provided were not demonstrated on a frequent or consistent basis.
• Limited (1 point) - Nominator/applicant provided limited information and description of how this person, program, initiative, or research demonstrated and/or promoted equity, belonging, and inclusion in higher education within the past 2 years. Examples provided were vague and immeasurable.
• Not Enough Information/Off Topic (0 point) - Not enough information or examples were provided, or the examples did not apply to the nominated person, program, initiative, or research.

Fiscal strength and responsibility

AHEPPP values fiscal strength and responsibility characterized by conscientious and creative spending that makes the best use of financial resources.

• Outstanding (5 points) - Nominator/applicant provided specific and measurable examples of how this person, program, initiative, or research demonstrated fiscal strength and responsibility within the past 2 years that exceeded the criteria consistently.
• Exceeds Expectation (4 points) - Nominator/applicant provided specific and measurable examples of how this person, program, initiative, or research demonstrated fiscal strength and responsibility within the past 2 years that exceeded the criteria on a frequent basis.
• Meets Expectation (3 points) - Nominator/applicant provided specific and measurable examples of how this person, program, initiative, or research demonstrated fiscal strength and responsibility  within the past 2 years that meets the criteria on a frequent basis.
• Effective (2 points) - Nominator/applicant provided specific and measurable examples of how this person, program, initiative, or research demonstrated fiscal strength and responsibility within the past 2 years; however, the examples provided were not demonstrated on a frequent or consistent basis.
• Limited (1 point) - Nominator/applicant provided limited information and description of how this person, program, initiative, or research demonstrated fiscal strength and responsibility within the past 2 years. Examples provided were vague and immeasurable.
• Not Enough Information/Off Topic (0 point) - Not enough information or examples were provided, or the examples did not apply to the nominated person, program, initiative, or research.

Continued professional development

AHEPPP values the continued advancement of skills, competencies, and best practices of its members demonstrated through involvement in AHEPPP and/or other professional organizations, continued education and training, and sharing of resources and information.

• Outstanding (5 points) - Nominator/applicant provided specific and measurable examples of how this person, program, initiative, or research continued advancement of skills, competencies, and best practices of its members demonstrated through involvement in AHEPPP and/or other professional organizations, continued education and training, and sharing of resources and information within the past 2 years that exceeded the criteria consistently.
• Exceeds Expectation (4 points) - Nominator/applicant provided specific and measurable examples of how this person, program, initiative, or research continued advancement of skills, competencies, and best practices of its members demonstrated through involvement in AHEPPP and/or other professional organizations, continued education and training, and sharing of resources and information within the past 2 years that exceeded the criteria on a frequent basis.
• Meets Expectation (3 points) - Nominator/applicant provided specific and measurable examples of how this person, program, initiative, or research continued advancement of skills, competencies, and best practices of its members demonstrated through involvement in AHEPPP and/or other professional organizations, continued education and training, and sharing of resources and information within the past 2 years that meets the criteria on a frequent basis.
• Effective (2 points) - Nominator/applicant provided specific and measurable examples of how this person, program, initiative, or research continued advancement of skills, competencies, and best practices of its members demonstrated through involvement in AHEPPP and/or other professional organizations, continued education and training, and sharing of resources and information within the past 2 years; however, the examples provided were not demonstrated on a frequent or consistent basis.
• Limited (1 point) - Nominator/applicant provided limited information and description of how this person, program, initiative, or research continued advancement of skills, competencies, and best practices of its members demonstrated through involvement in AHEPPP and/or other professional organizations, continued education and training, and sharing of resources and information  within the past 2 years. Examples provided were vague and immeasurable.
• Not Enough Information/Off Topic (0 points) - Not enough information or examples were provided, or the examples did not apply to the nominated person, program, initiative, or research.

Research, assessment, and best practices

AHEPPP values the use of original research, literature, assessment, and best practices to advance the knowledge and practice of family engagement in higher education.

• Outstanding (5) - Nominator/applicant provided specific and measurable examples of how this person, program, initiative, or research produced original research, literature, assessment, and best practices to advance the knowledge and practice of family engagement in higher education within the past 2 years that exceeded the criteria consistently.
• Exceeds Expectation (4) - Nominator/applicant provided specific and measurable examples of how this person, program, initiative, or research produced original research, literature, assessment, and best practices to advance the knowledge and practice of family engagement in higher education within the past 2 years that exceeded the criteria on a frequent basis.
• Meets Expectation (3 points) - Nominator/applicant provided specific and measurable examples of how this person, program, initiative, or research produced original research, literature, assessment, and best practices to advance the knowledge and practice of family engagement in higher education within the past 2 years that meets the criteria on a frequent basis.
• Effective (2) - Nominator/applicant provided specific and measurable examples of how this person, program, initiative, or research produced original research, literature, assessment, and best practices to advance the knowledge and practice of family engagement in higher education within the past 2 years; however, the examples provided were not demonstrated on a frequent or consistent basis.
• Limited (1) - Nominator/applicant provided limited information and description of how this person, program, initiative, or research produced original research, literature, assessment, and best practices to advance the knowledge and practice of family engagement in higher education  within the past 2 years. Examples provided were vague and immeasurable.
• Not Enough Information/Off Topic (0) - Not enough information or examples were provided, or the examples did not apply to the nominated person, program, initiative, or research.