Strategic Science Fund: Merit Review Evaluation Grid for the Letter of Intent

All objectives are directly linked to Federal Priorities  (e.g. stated in Speech from the Throne, Mandate Letters, Departmental Plans, other) and/or responsibilities

Most (but not all) objectives are directly linked to Federal Priorities  and/or responsibilities

All or most objectives are indirectly linked to Federal Priorities (e.g. 'Improving Health') and/or responsibilities

Some objectives are indirectly linked to Federal Priorities and/or responsibilities

There is no clear link to stated federal priorities and/or responsibilities.

All key linkages between different priorities have been considered and the cross-cutting role of the organization is clearly defined.

Most (but not all) linkages between different priorities have been considered and the cross-cutting role of the organization is defined.

Linkages between different priorites have been considered, but the role of the organization in linking them is not clearly defined.

There is an indirect link between different priorities but the extent to which they have been considered is unclear

It is unclear that linking different priorities has been considered

Successful execution of this proposal would significantly advance federal priorities

Successful execution of this proposal would advance federal priorities

Successful execution of this proposal would make a meaningful contribution to advancing federal priorities

Successful execution of this proposal would somewhat advance federal priorities

Successful execution of this proposal would not significantly advance federal priorities

The application clearly outlines a unique value proposition, and effectively leverages other organizations and programs in the ecosystem

The application clearly adds value and leverages organizations and programs in the ecosystem to an extent

The application adds value to the ecosystem but may not effectively leverage other Federal ST&I investments

The application adds some value to the ecosystem but does not leverage other Federal ST&I investments

There is no clear added value to existing Federal ST&I Investments

The application clearly demonstrates that all possible federal sources were considered and explains why they were not accessible

The application demonstrates that most sources of federal funding were considered and explains why they were not accessible

The application demonstrates that some sources of federal funding were considered, with some explanation

The application includes a limited list of programs considered with minimal explanation

The application does not speak to alternative sources of fundings considered

The application clearly explains why specific departments and agencies (via current or potential programs) are unable to deliver activities of the proposed scope and scale

The application explains why specific departments and agencies (via current programs) are unable to deliver activities of the proposed scope and scale

The application explains in general terms why departments and agencies are unable to deliver activities of the proposed scope and scale

The application explains in general terms why the federal government generally is unable to deliver activities of the proposed scope and scale

The application does not explain why the federal government would be unable to deliver activities of the proposed scope and scale

The proposed activities will be accessible to all relevant populations across Canada and the organization will incorporate viewpoints from across Canada into its operations (e.g. with regionally diverse staff or other means).

If not already established nationally: there is strong evidence of support to expand nationally (e.g. concrete national commitments in Letters of Support)

The proposed activities will be accessible to most relevant populations across Canada and the organization will incorporate some viewpoints from across Canada into its operations.

If not already established nationally: there is evidence of support to expand nationally (e.g. some concrete national commitments in Letters of Support)

The proposed activities will be accessible to many relevant populations across Canada.

If not already established nationally: there is some evidence of support to expand nationally (e.g. soft commitments in Letters of Support)

The proposed activities will be accessible to some relevant populations across Canada.

If not already established nationally: there is some limited evidence of support to expand nationally (e.g. general statements of support in Letters of Support)

The proposed activities will only be accessible to a limited segment of relevant populations across Canada.

If not already established nationally: there is no clear evidence of support to expand nationally (e.g. only regional support within Letters of Support)

It is clearly outlined how key stakeholders (including clients/end-users) have been meaningfully engaged in setting objectives and clear how they will be meaningfully engaged in the delivery of activities (e.g. as evidenced within Letters of Support)

It is clearly outlined that key stakeholders (including clients/end-users) have been engaged in setting objectives and clear that they will be engaged in the delivery of activities (e.g. as evidenced within Letters of Support)

It is stated in general terms that  stakeholders have been engaged in setting objectives and that they will be engaged in the delivery of activities

There is some suggestion that  stakeholders have been engaged in setting objectives and that there are plans to engage them in the delivery of activities

It is unclear that stakeholders have been engaged in setting objectives, and whether there are plans to engage them in the delivery of activities

The Board of Directors has significant regional diversity, or clear plans to reach significant regional diversity within a reasonable time frame

The Board of Directors has a reasonable mix of regional diversity, or plans to become regionally diverse within a reasonable time frame

The Board of Directors has some regional diversity, or plans to become regionally diverse within a reasonable time frame

The Board of Directors has limited regional diversity, and no specific plan to increase it within a reasonable time frame

The Board of Directors is centred around one region, with no plans to increase regional diversity

The type of expertise necessary to deliver on the proposed objectives is clearly outlined, as is the extent to which it is already present (or the extent to which there is a clear plan to secure this expertise if not already present)

The type of expertise necessary to deliver on the proposed objectives is outlined, and there is some mention of the extent to which it is already present (or some mention of a plan to secure the expertise if not already present)

The type of expertise necessary to deliver on the proposed objectives is outlined (but not the extent to which expertise is present or whether there is a plan to secure it)

The type of expertise necessary to deliver on the proposed objectives is passively mentioned (but not the extent to which expertise is present or whether there is a plan to secure it)

The type of expertise necessary to deliver on the proposed objectives is not mentioned.

The organization has put in place or planned with a specific timeline (e.g. by July xx, 20xx) the necessary organizational policies, guidelines and training for the proposed activities.

The organization has identified and planned with a notional timeline (e.g. within the first 6 months of funding) the necessary organizational policies, guidelines and training for the proposed activities.

The organization has identified and planned some of the necessary organizational policies, guidelines and training for the proposed activities.

The organization has identified some of the necessary organizational policies, guidelines and training for the proposed activities.

The organization has not identified or planned the necessary organizational policies, guidelines and training for the proposed activities.

The organization has appropriately considered all areas of activities where an EDI lens should be applied, and has established a plan and timeline to reach the goals of 50% Gender Parity and 30% Significant representation of other under-represented groups within its Senior Management and Board of Directors (or is already meeting those goals).

The organization has appropriately considered most areas of activities where an EDI lens should be applied, and has committed to reaching the goals of 50% Gender Parity and 30% Significant representation of other under-represented groups within its Senior Management and Board of Directors.

The organization has considered EDI in some areas, and has made general commitments to EDI representation within its Senior Management and Board of Directors.

The organization has made general commitments to EDI, without specific details.

The organization has not made a clear commitment to EDI.

There is a clearly articulated need (e.g. anchor function) for federal funding of the proposed activities; partner funding alone would not be able to sustain proposed activities (e.g. due to scale or jurisdiction)

There is an articulated need (e.g. anchor function) for federal funding of the proposed activities; partner funding would likely not be able to sustain proposed activities

There is a general statement of need for federal funding of the proposed activities; partner funding may or may not be able to sustain proposed activities

The importance of federal funding of the proposed activities can be generally inferred; partner funding could reasonably be able to sustain proposed activities

The application does not outline a clear need for federal funding in relation to other commitments from partners.

Assumptions are clearly explained and appear reasonable.

The level of co-funding meets or exceeds ratios in the context of previous federal funding (and/or is appropriate for the activities proposed)

Assumptions are explained and appear generally reasonable.

The level of co-funding generally aligns with ratios in the context of previous federal funding (and/or is generally appropriate for the activities proposed)

Assumptions are explained, but not to the extent necessary to judge reasonableness.

The level of co-funding is somewhat below ratios in the context of previous federal funding for similar activities (and/or is somewhat below what is expected for the activities proposed)

There is a general statement that general assumptions were made without specific explanation.

The level of co-funding is far below ratios in the context of previous federal funding for similar activities (and/or is far below what is expected for the activities proposed).

High-level assumptions for the budget are not explained.

The level of co-funding is at an inacceptable level for the activities proposed.

Indicators and targets are convincingly linked to the proposed objectives and are likely to measure the overall success.

Indicators and targets are linked to the proposed objectives and will give reasonable measure of the overall success.

Indicators and targets are somewhat linked to the proposed objectives and will give some measure of the overall success.

Indicators and targets have a limited link to the proposed objectives and will give some limited measure of the overall success.

No convincing rationale was given for selecting the Key Performance Indicators and related targets.

There is strong evidence (e.g. from previous funders or independent evaluations) that the organization has had significant success in reaching its past objectives.

There is evidence  that the organization has had success in reaching its past objectives.

There is evidence that the organization has had some success in reaching its past objectives.

There is a general statement that the organization has had success in reaching its past objectives.

There is no indication of success at reaching past objectives.