Judging Criteria

The First Round

In the first round, written policy proposals will be judged by a panel of policy experts from the Department of Finance Canada. Five to ten successful proposals will be selected to present in the Final Round via videoconference.

All proposals should address the Policy Forum's central issue for 2016-17: inclusive growth. The judges will expect the teams to present a policy proposal; examine the impact of the proposal; describe the implementation; consider policy alternatives; forecast the fiscal impact of the policy; and make a recommendation based on all considerations. The teams that advance to the Final Round will be those that demonstrate the clearest understanding of the policy development process and present the most convincing recommendation for a policy proposal to promote inclusive growth.

Proposals will be evaluated, as outlined in the scoring grid below, on the substance and quality of the analysis and arguments, the creativity and innovativeness of the policy, and the clarity and coherence of the proposal.

First Round Judging Criteria
Category Score Criteria
Substance and quality of proposal and analysis
9-10 = excellent
7-8 = good
5-6 = average
3-4 = below average
1-2 = poor
10
  • Sound knowledge of policy development framework
  • Good grasp of the key policy considerations
  • Comprehensive coverage of relevant impacts
    • costing estimates are accurate
    • regional, environmental and gender impacts are considered
    • supporting data are current and reliable
  • Feasible implementation strategy
  • Well-supported recommendation based on considerations
  • Demonstration of benefits for inclusive growth
Creative and innovative thinking
5 = excellent; 4 = good; 3 = average; 2 = below average 1 = poor
5
  • Proposal is original and innovative
  • Use of a variety of sources of data and research to support analysis
Clarity and structure of proposal
5 = excellent; 4 = good; 3 = average; 2 = below average 1 = poor
5
  • Proposal is engaging and has a good, clear structure
  • Proposal uses the provided template effectively
  • Supporting data, charts and figures are clear and contribute to the proposal
Total 20  

The Final Round

The Final Round will be judged by a panel of senior officials from the Department of Finance Canada. The judges will expect each team to examine the impact of its policy proposal, including identifying possible regional, environmental and gender-based impacts; describe the implementation; consider policy alternatives; forecast the fiscal impact of the policy; and make a recommendation based on all considerations. The winning team will ultimately be the team that demonstrate the clearest understanding of and present the most convincing recommendation for its policy proposal.

Teams will be evaluated, as outlined in the scoring grid below, on the substance and quality of the analysis and arguments, the creativity and innovativeness of the policy, the clarity and coherence of the presentation, and their teamwork. In addition, judges will look for effective presentation skills and evidence of strong team collaboration. Familiarity with the material is extremely important; all team participants should demonstrate that they understand the concepts and information presented.

The judges will also assess the team's ability to adequately answer their questions. The questions test the team's understanding and knowledge, and demonstrate their ability to think and respond quickly. For example, team members might be asked to clarify or expand on points made during the presentation, or to explain how their policy recommendation would achieve their objective.

Final Round Judging Criteria
Category Score Criteria
Quality of analysis and arguments
9-10 = excellent
7–8 = good
5-6 = average
3–4 = below average
1–2 = poor
10
  • Sound knowledge of policy development  framework
  • Good grasp of the key policy considerations
  • Comprehensive coverage of relevant impacts
    • accurate costing estimates
    • taking into account regional, environmental and gender impacts
    • considering stakeholder impacts and reactions
    • supporting data are current and reliable
  • Feasible implementation strategy
  • Conclusions and justifications of policy recommendation
    • decision flowed from the considerations, supported by relevant information
Creative and innovative thinking
5 = excellent; 4 = good; 3 = average; 2 = below average 1 = poor
5
  • Originality of the policy recommendation
  • Use of a variety of sources of data and research to support analysis
  • Answers to questions demonstrated innovative thinking and their ability to analyze their views
Clarity and structure of presentation and persuasiveness
5 = excellent; 4 = good; 3 = average; 2 = below average 1 = poor
5
  • Presentation was engaging and had a good, clear structure
  • Confident delivery, without reading verbatim from script or visual aids
  • Effective use of clear and well-labelled charts and figures
  • Efficient use of time to deliver material
Teamwork
5 = excellent; 4 = good; 3 = average; 2 = below average 1 = poor
5
  • Even contribution from team members, each team member playing a substantial role in the presentation
  • Team members work well together in the Q&A session without one or two team members dominating
Total 25