Discover how membership-based associations can revolutionize their awards programs using the latest Award Management Software. This comprehensive blog delves into 10 proven best practices to award management, showcasing how to enhance every aspect of your award offerings—from application collection to post-selection engagement.

Introduction to The 10 Essentials to Better Awards

Award initiatives play a crucial role in promoting educational access and community development. Managing these awards, however, presents a series of challenges. This is where Award Management Software comes into play, offering an efficient method to handle administrative tasks and enhance operational effectiveness. From maintaining compliance to ensuring equitable distribution of resources, the management of these programs involves intricate details. This blog post will outline the top 10 essential elements every association should consider to optimize their program’s success.

1. Proof of Process (PoP)

Description: A foundational element that assures transparency and clarity about the award process. The Proof of Process simply outlines – “When you nominated for this award, here is what to expect and the process your application will go through”.

• Public Statement: Details every phase of the award process.
• Expectation Setting: Sets transparent expectations for applicants.
• Components:
  • Clear timelines and deadlines.
    • Application open date
    • Application close date
    • Data review and cleansing period
    • Phase 1 review
    • Phase 2 review
    • Final selection
    • Announcements
  • Description of the application process.
    • Details on the portal being used to collect applications
      • Note: this portal must be a dedicated, proven, award management software with SOC2Type2 compliance.
      • This sets the expectations and reputation of the association. Imagine outlining a proof of process or running an award through online web forms, downloadable documents, emails, spreadsheets, etc. Besides the administrative nightmare of managing this complexity, it almost certainly makes managing the program in a compliant, fair, and equitable manner impossible.
    • Showcase the questions that will be asked
      • Note which questions will impact the review and selection, why, and how.
      • Note which questions will be blinded to the review team.
      • Note which questions are considered private and confidential.
    • Showcase the reference request template
      • This allows applicants to see what references will be requested to submit.
    • Outline data security and privacy protocols
      • Reviewr has this covered on behalf of clients with full SOC2Type2 documentation, audits, etc.
  • Outlines the review and selection processes.
    • Outline the award application software that will be used for review and selection – similar to the award application process imagine a compliant review process using spreadsheets, web forms, file sharing, emails, etc.
    • Details on how many phases of review will occur
    • Insight into how many evaluators will review each award application
    • The submissions will be assigned to evaluators randomly
    • Each evaluator will leverage a scoring rubric for a quantitative evaluation
    • Outline the exact award evaluation criteria that will be used
    • Private and confidential data will be blinded from the review team
    • Any information not relevant to the review and selection will be blinded by the review team
    • Reference answers will be taken into consideration, but not letters – only answers to the template questions for data consistency.
  • Outline of post-award procedures.
    • Notify both award recipients and non-recipients
    • Provide access back into the award management software that powered the award program
    • Grant access to both the scoresheets that were used for evaluation as well as any comments/feedback left for applicants
      • Transparency
      • Self-development
      • Showcases that the process was followed (Proof of Process)

2. 24/7 Application Collection

Description: Advocates for the year-round collection of applications to boost engagement and participation.

• Continuous Engagement: Keeps the application portal open all year.
• Marketing Opportunities: Utilizes the application period for targeted marketing campaigns.
• Core Components:
  • Consider either collecting applications 24/7 or doing an intent to submit
    • Intent applications can be added to marketing campaigns
    • Increases conversion rates for participation
  • Generates program marketing opportunities all year
  • Applicants can be added to education based marketing campaigns that drive the organizations  mission
    • Account signups
    • Financial literacy
    • Education awareness
  • Conduct quarterly, bi-annually, or annual reviews
    • Collect 24/7 with dedicated review and selection windows
  • Adds extra complexity managing multiple workflows at the same time
    • Need a tool to assist
    • Collect apps, review apps, manage award recipients all at the same time.

3.The Nomination Workflow

Leverage a dual process where the nominator starts the submission by inputting who they are, who they are nominating, and why and then let the nominee finish the form by answering more personal questions about themselves. 

• Nominator and Nominee Information: Start by collecting basic details from the nominator and about the nominee, including names, contacts, and their relationship.
• Essays and Statements: Include prompts for nominators to explain why the nominee is deserving, focusing on specific achievements or impacts.
• Supporting Documents: Provide an option for uploading documents like recommendation letters or work samples that substantiate the nomination.
• Nominee Participation and Confirmation: Implement a system where nominees are notified to complete their part of the form, ensuring a collaborative and thorough nomination process. Confirm submissions via email to both parties.

This streamlined approach focuses on the essential elements while ensuring a comprehensive and collaborative nomination process.

Sample Nomination Workflow

Section 1: Nominator Information

• Name:
• Membership Number (if applicable):
• Contact Information (Email, Phone Number):
• Relationship to Nominee:

Section 2: Nominee Information

• Name of Nominee:
• Category of Award:
  • Lifetime Achievement
  • Innovator of the Year
  • Chapter Excellence Awards
  • Diversity and Inclusion Award
  • 30 Under 30 Award
  • (Other categories as applicable)
• Reason for Nomination:
  • [Text Box for detailed explanation]

Specific Nomination Forms for Each Award Category

After selecting the award category, the nominator will be directed to the specific nomination form for that category, to be completed by the nominee. The goal here is to put the heavy lifting on the nominee themselves as well as collect accurate information that likely is only available from the nominee.

Common Sections for All Categories:

• Nominee’s Personal Information:
  • Full Name:
  • Membership Number:
  • Contact Information (Email, Phone Number):
  • Current Position/Title:
  • Organization/Affiliation:
• Membership Information:
  • Years of Membership:
  • Previous Roles/Positions within the Organization:
• Short Answer Questions: (Questions will vary based on the award category)
  • Example: “Describe a significant contribution you have made in the field of [specific category].”
• File Uploads:
  • Option to upload supporting documents, certificates, publications, etc.
• Reference Request:
  • Name of Referee:
  • Email of Referee:
  • Relationship to Nominee:

Specific Sections for Each Award Category: (Examples)

Lifetime Achievement Award

• Career Milestones: Describe key milestones and achievements in the nominee’s career.
• Leadership Roles: Detail the leadership positions held and the impact made in these roles.
• Contributions to the Field: Discuss significant contributions made to the industry or field.
• Mentorship and Influence: Provide examples of how the nominee has mentored others or influenced the field.
• Innovations Introduced: Describe any innovations or new methods introduced by the nominee.
• Legacy and Impact: Reflect on the long-term impact and legacy of the nominee’s career.

Innovator of the Year Award

• Description of Innovation: Describe the innovation and its unique features.
• Development Process: Explain the process of developing and implementing the innovation.
• Challenges Overcome: Discuss challenges faced and how they were overcome.
• Impact of Innovation: Detail the impact of the innovation on the industry or community.
• Future Potential: Discuss the future potential and scalability of the innovation.
• Personal Motivation: Describe the nominee’s motivation and inspiration behind the innovation.

Chapter Excellence Awards

• Chapter Achievements: Outline the chapter’s key achievements under the nominee’s guidance.
• Membership Growth Strategies: Describe strategies used to grow and engage the chapter’s membership.
• Community Service Initiatives: Provide examples of community service or outreach projects.
• Chapter Events and Activities: Discuss unique events or activities organized by the chapter.
• Member Engagement Techniques: Describe how the chapter keeps its members engaged.
• Chapter’s Future Vision: Share the nominee’s vision for the future of the chapter.

Diversity and Inclusion Award

• Diversity Initiatives: Describe specific diversity initiatives led by the nominee.
• Inclusive Practices: Provide examples of how the nominee promotes inclusive practices.
• Impact on Organization/Community: Discuss the impact of these initiatives on the organization or community.
• Challenges in Promoting Diversity: Reflect on any challenges faced in promoting diversity and how they were addressed.
• Advocacy Efforts: Describe the nominee’s efforts in advocating for diversity and inclusion.
• Personal Commitment: Explain the nominee’s personal commitment to diversity and inclusion.

30 Under 30 Award

• Career Achievements: Highlight the nominee’s career achievements and contributions.
• Leadership and Innovation: Provide examples of leadership and innovative thinking.
• Challenges and Solutions: Discuss significant challenges faced and how the nominee addressed them.
• Impact and Influence: Detail the impact and influence of the nominee in their field.
• Professional Development: Describe the nominee’s approach to professional growth and development.
• Vision for the Future: Share the nominee’s vision and aspirations for their future career.

4. AI Detection and Management

Description: Introduces measures to identify and manage AI-generated content in award applications.

• Balanced Use of AI: Recognizes the benefits and challenges of AI in award applications.
• Proactive Monitoring: Utilizes tools to detect AI contributions.
• Core Components:
  • AI in general, but specifically in awards is only going to continue growing
  • AI is not a bad thing, it’s just something that needs to be monitored
  • Outside of operational efficiencies for program management, it can help applicants create stronger, authentic, essays.
  • We must be able to identify content written by AI and flag it for review
  • Again, leveraging AI is not a bad thing, and the modern consumer is going to leverage it as a tool.
  • The concern isnt if AI was used, its how much was it used

5. Reference Collection

Often an afterthought, yet critical to get right, is the collection of references. When an external variable such as references is added to the award nomination application and selection process we must ensure this too follows both proper protocol for data security, but also best practices.

Avoid reference letters:

• Historically references were collected in a letter format but this is now an outdated and risky method.
• Letters create a barrier for references.
  • Hard to write
  • Takes time and effort
  • Multi-step to create, write, and send back.
  • Not all references are created equal – some are better written than others, some had more time put into it, etc. Is this a fair representation of the scholarship applicant?
  • Hard to blind PII in a letter.

Leverage reference templates:

• Outline 3-5 questions that each reference should answer.
• Lowers the time and effort barrier for references.
• Creates data consistency amongst all applicants.
• Creates consistency in the review process with defined data sets.

Use Reviewrs automated reference collection process:

• Award nominees or nominators will enter the name and email of the reference
• Triggers an email notification to reference
• Reference clicks on a link that brings them to a reference template
• Reference simply fills out the template with the ability to save, log out, and work at their own pace.
• Visibility to both award program managers as well as to applicants on the progress of references.
• Actual reference content can be blinded from the applicant.
• Upon submission, the reference template is automatically attached to the applicant profile.
• Reference data can be blinded more easily by the review team.

Example Reference Request Template

For individuals requested to submit a reference via an online form, here are five questions that can effectively gather insights about the nominee:

Relationship and Duration:

• “Please describe your relationship with the nominee, including how long you have known them. What capacity have you interacted with or observed their work?”

Notable Qualities and Strengths:

• “What are the most notable qualities or strengths of the nominee that stand out to you? Can you provide a specific example where these qualities positively impacted a project, team, or objective?”

Contributions to the Field or Community:

• “In your view, what significant contributions has the nominee made to their field or community? How have these contributions made a difference?”

Leadership and Collaboration:

• “How does the nominee demonstrate leadership and collaboration skills? Please provide an instance where they effectively led a team or project, or significantly contributed to a collaborative effort.”

Personal Growth and Potential:

• “Have you observed any significant personal growth in the nominee over the time you have known them? Based on your experience, what potential do you see in them for future endeavors or contributions?”

6. Impartial Review Workflow

Description: Ensures a fair review process through randomized distribution of applications and workload management.

• Fair Distribution: Randomly assigns applications to reviewers.
• Workflow Efficiency: Balances reviewer workloads to maintain review quality.
• Core Components:
  • Depending on volume, sometimes it can be overwhelming to ask review team members to evaluate all applications.
  • If evaluators are overwhelmed, their review and selection process is often degraded, leading to potentially inaccurate and unfair reviews and selections.
  • Instead, start with a survey of the review team to define how many applicants they can provide 100% of their energy towards. This becomes the target.
  • However, award review members being assigned only a subset of the total application pool adds a risk element to who is reviewing who.
  • Leverage Reviewr automation where an exact number can be entered (Assign each evaluator 9 submissions, assign each evaluator no less than 5 but no more than 7, I want every applicant reviewed 7 times, etc).
  • Reviewr will then automatically, and randomly, distribute submissions to reviewers based on the input. By removing the human element of deciding which applicants are reviewed by which staff members, we can ensure compliance.
  • Consider the use of a “normalization report” that a) identifies each evaluators average score, b) sets a baseline for their average, and c) takes into consideration that baseline for final results. This levels the playing field for applicants that may have been evaluated by an evaluator with stricter judging parameters.

7. Blind Judging

Description: Removes bias by concealing applicants’ personal information during the review process.

• Objective Evaluation: Focuses on the application’s content, not the applicant’s identity.
• Data Privacy: Ensures sensitive information is hidden from reviewers.
• Core Components:
  • Blind PII from the evaluation team
    • Not only is it important to remove personal identifiers from the review team to avoid a biased, non-equitable, review but it is also a data security risk sharing PII with external users.
  • Blind “non-critical” information
    • Often times award applications include essential bookkeeping and data but it’s not essential for the actual review in the selection process – meaning the data collected will not be used in making selection decisions. In this use case, the data should be blinded from reviewers so as to also provide an engaging and non-overwhelming experience for them.
  • Dedicated award management software
    • While it is impossible to completely eliminate the possibility for review team members to export, screenshot, or save information – using a dedicated award management system such as Reviewr does make it significantly more challenging to ensure that data collected in Reviewr stays in Reviewr.

8. Quantitative Scoring

Description: Employs a data-driven approach to evaluate applications, ensuring objective and transparent selections.

• Data-Driven Framework: Utilizes scorecards for objective assessments.
• Mission Alignment: Ensures the scoring criteria reflect the associations values.
• Core Components:
  • Scorecards should match the award application and associations guiding vision and principles.
  • The Proof of Process lays out why specific award questions are being asked – the scoresheet needs to mirror those.
  • Example, volunteer experience GPA, family needs, etc.
  • This allows the review team to side by side review the award application and references with a scoresheet that follows along. The review team simply plugs in their answers as they read the application.
  • Consider weighted scoring
    • While the scoresheet should mirror the questions answered in the application, some  application questions are in more alignment with the association’s mission than others – these should be weighted to reflect.
      • For example: If a plumbing trade association is offering a award but that trade association specializes in pipefitting – then those students who are pursuing that career would get weighted higher for answering that question.
      • Other examples include weighting volunteer activity over grades, grades over intangibles, or essay writing.
  • Use a award management system such as Reviewr to auto-result tabulation and leaderboards.
    • It’s critical to remove potential human error when tabulating award results on a quantitative basis. Leverage Reviewr automation which calculates the quantitative results based on the scorecard input by the review teams. This will then outline non-bias, and fair, rankings.

Scorecard for “30 Under 30” Member Award

1. Professional Achievements (25 points)

• Criteria: Achievements in their field or industry, innovation, and impact.
• Scoring: Rate the extent and significance of their professional accomplishments.

2. Leadership and Influence (20 points)

• Criteria: Leadership roles, influence on peers and industry, mentorship activities.
• Scoring: Evaluate their leadership qualities and the impact of their influence.

3. Community Engagement and Service (15 points)

• Criteria: Involvement in community service, volunteering, and civic engagement.
• Scoring: Assess the depth and impact of their community involvement.

4. Personal Development and Education (15 points)

• Criteria: Educational achievements, continuous learning, personal skill development.
• Scoring: Judge the level of commitment to personal growth and education.

5. Innovation and Creativity (10 points)

• Criteria: Originality in problem-solving, innovative thinking, creative contributions.
• Scoring: Rate the uniqueness and effectiveness of their innovative approaches.

6. Testimonials and References (10 points)

• Criteria: Quality and persuasiveness of references and testimonials.
• Scoring: Consider the endorsements provided by colleagues, mentors, or industry leaders.

7. Additional Achievements (5 points)

• Criteria: Any other notable achievements not covered in the above categories.
• Scoring: Recognize extra achievements that demonstrate the candidate’s uniqueness.

Instructions for Judges:

• Each judge scores candidates on a scale of 1-5 for each criterion, with 5 being the highest.
• Comments for each score are encouraged for transparency and feedback.
• The final score for each candidate is the sum of all criteria scores.

Considerations:

• Ensure the criteria align with the values and objectives of your association.
• The scorecard should be accompanied by clear guidelines on how to interpret and apply each criterion.
• Regularly review and update the rubric to reflect

Scorecard for “Member Diversity and Inclusion Award”

1. Advocacy and Leadership (30 points)

• Criteria: Demonstrated leadership in advocating for diversity and inclusion. Initiatives or actions taken to promote inclusive practices.
• Scoring:
  • Outstanding Leadership and Advocacy (25-30 points)
  • Significant Efforts in Leadership and Advocacy (15-24 points)
  • Some Efforts in Leadership and Advocacy (5-14 points)
  • Little to No Effort (0-4 points)

2. Impact of Initiatives (30 points)

• Criteria: Tangible impact of diversity and inclusion initiatives. Measurable outcomes in enhancing diversity within the organization/community.
• Scoring:
  • Exceptional Impact (25-30 points)
  • Considerable Impact (15-24 points)
  • Moderate Impact (5-14 points)
  • Minimal Impact (0-4 points)

3. Creativity and Innovation (20 points)

• Criteria: Originality and creativity in implementing diversity and inclusion initiatives. Innovative approaches to overcome challenges.
• Scoring:
  • Highly Creative and Innovative (16-20 points)
  • Moderately Creative and Innovative (9-15 points)
  • Somewhat Creative and Innovative (3-8 points)
  • Limited Creativity and Innovation (0-2 points)

4. Sustainability and Ongoing Commitment (20 points)

• Criteria: Long-term commitment to diversity and inclusion. Efforts to ensure sustainability and ongoing impact of initiatives.
• Scoring:
  • Exceptional Commitment and Sustainability (16-20 points)
  • Strong Commitment and Sustainability (9-15 points)
  • Moderate Commitment and Sustainability (3-8 points)
  • Limited or No Commitment and Sustainability (0-2 points)

Total Score: 100 points

Scorecard for “Lifetime Achievement Award”

1. Career Longevity and Dedication (30 points)

• Criteria: Duration of involvement and consistent commitment over the years.
• Scoring:
  • Over 20 years of service (25-30 points)
  • 15-20 years of service (20-24 points)
  • 10-14 years of service (10-19 points)
  • Less than 10 years of service (0-9 points)

2. Leadership and Influence (25 points)

• Criteria: Leadership roles held, influence on organizational direction, mentorship, and impact on others.
• Scoring:
  • Transformative Leadership and Influence (20-25 points)
  • Significant Leadership and Influence (15-19 points)
  • Moderate Leadership and Influence (5-14 points)
  • Limited Leadership and Influence (0-4 points)

3. Contributions to the Field or Community (25 points)

• Criteria: Contributions to the advancement of the field, community, or organization. Innovations, key projects, or initiatives led.
• Scoring:
  • Exceptional Contributions (20-25 points)
  • Considerable Contributions (15-19 points)
  • Notable Contributions (5-14 points)
  • Few Contributions (0-4 points)

4. Legacy and Impact (20 points)

• Criteria: The long-term impact of the individual’s work, legacy left behind, and the lasting effect on the organization or community.
• Scoring:
  • Profound and Lasting Impact (16-20 points)
  • Significant Impact (11-15 points)
  • Moderate Impact (5-10 points)
  • Minimal Impact (0-4 points)

Total Score: 100 points

Scorecard for “Innovator of the Year” Award

1. Originality of Innovation (30 points)

• Criteria: Degree of originality and uniqueness in the idea or method introduced. Evaluation of how the innovation differs from existing solutions or approaches.
• Scoring:
  • Highly Original and Unique (25-30 points)
  • Moderately Original (15-24 points)
  • Some Original Elements (5-14 points)
  • Minimal Originality (0-4 points)

2. Practical Application/Implementation (25 points)

• Criteria: Effectiveness in implementing the innovation. Practicality and usability in a real-world scenario.
• Scoring:
  • Highly Effective Implementation (20-25 points)
  • Good Implementation (10-19 points)
  • Adequate Implementation (5-9 points)
  • Poor Implementation (0-4 points)

3. Impact of Innovation (25 points)

• Criteria: The overall impact of the innovation on the field, community, or target audience. This includes measurable outcomes, improvements, or benefits resulting from the innovation.
• Scoring:
  • Major Impact (20-25 points)
  • Moderate Impact (10-19 points)
  • Some Impact (5-9 points)
  • Little to No Impact (0-4 points)

4. Scalability and Future Potential (20 points)

• Criteria: The potential for the innovation to be scaled or adapted for broader application. Future potential in terms of growth, development, or influence.
• Scoring:
  • High Scalability and Future Potential (15-20 points)
  • Moderate Scalability and Potential (8-14 points)
  • Limited Scalability and Potential (3-7 points)
  • Minimal or No Scalability (0-2 points)

Total Score: 100 points

Scorecard for “Chapter Excellence Awards”

1. Member Engagement and Growth (25 points)

• Criteria: Effectiveness in engaging current members and attracting new members. Activities and programs that promote member participation and retention.
• Scoring:
  • Exceptional Engagement and Growth (20-25 points)
  • Significant Engagement and Growth (10-19 points)
  • Moderate Engagement and Growth (5-9 points)
  • Limited Engagement and Growth (0-4 points)

2. Community Impact and Service (25 points)

• Criteria: Contributions to community service and impact on the local community or targeted causes. Quality and effectiveness of service projects or initiatives.
• Scoring:
  • Outstanding Community Impact (20-25 points)
  • Considerable Community Impact (10-19 points)
  • Some Community Impact (5-9 points)
  • Minimal Community Impact (0-4 points)

3. Leadership Development and Training (20 points)

• Criteria: Efforts in developing leadership skills among members. Quality of leadership training programs and opportunities for member advancement.
• Scoring:
  • Excellent Leadership Development (16-20 points)
  • Good Leadership Development (9-15 points)
  • Adequate Leadership Development (3-8 points)
  • Limited Leadership Development (0-2 points)

4. Contribution to Organization’s Mission (20 points)

• Criteria: Alignment of chapter activities with the organization’s overall mission and goals. Contributions to the broader objectives of the organization.
• Scoring:
  • Highly Aligned and Contributive (16-20 points)
  • Moderately Aligned and Contributive (9-15 points)
  • Somewhat Aligned and Contributive (3-8 points)
  • Limited Alignment and Contribution (0-2 points)

5. Innovation and Creativity (10 points)

• Criteria: Creativity in programming and initiatives. Innovative approaches to chapter management and problem-solving.
• Scoring:
  • Highly Innovative and Creative (8-10 points)
  • Moderately Innovative and Creative (4-7 points)
  • Somewhat Innovative and Creative (1-3 points)
  • Not Innovative or Creative (0 points)

Total Score: 100 points

9. Engagement Surveys

Description: Utilizes feedback from participants to continuously refine and improve the scholarship program.

• Continuous Improvement: Leverages surveys to gather insights for program enhancements.
• Impact Assessment: Measures the program’s success in achieving its objectives.
• Core Components:
  • Avoid becoming complacent
  • We offer scholarships for a reason – what is that reason and are we achieving our mission?
  • How are we measuring impact?
    • Applicants impacted
    • Monetary amounts
    • scholarships funded
    • This needs to align with mission and vision
  • Program continuality and the “snowball effect”
    • We want incremental improvements
    • How do we create a self reliant program that doesn’t rely on a sole individual
  • Accountability
  • People, process, and product feedback
    • We can only resolve/grow if we are aware
    • Example: Review team workload management

10. Data Security and Compliance

Description: Prioritizes the security of applicant data and ensures compliance with regulatory standards.

• Building Trust: Secures sensitive applicant information to foster trust.
• Regulatory Compliance: Meets industry standards for data protection and privacy.
• Core Components:
  • Essential to build community trust
  • Believe it or not, lack of security control can be a deterrent for applicants
  • These are mission critical opportunities for participants, they need to be treated as such.
  • In a highly audited industry we must ensure compliance
    • SOC2TYPE2 compliance
    • Evolving industry standard regulations and laws
  • Accessibility standards

The 10 essentials to better awards – wrap up

For organizations aiming to enhance their award programs, adopting effective strategies and technologies is essential. By refining application processes and ensuring data security and compliance, the approaches outlined in this guide offer a clear path to success. Implementing these best practices will not only streamline award management but also significantly boost the impact of your program, delivering benefits to both your organization and its recipients.