public sector communitycommunity organizingenvironmental justicepermit hearingstitle vi
Complete evaluation framework
What to assess and how to score it
Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.
01
Evaluation factor
Outcomes that landed
30% weight
Ask what changed because of their advocacy: a denied permit, a Title VI complaint filed, cumulative impact language adopted, remediation funding secured, or a facility monitoring agreement.
Evidence to listen for
Names programmes or initiatives that were adopted, funded, or delivered
States their own role rather than the department's
Gives measured reach or impact
Distinguishes work that landed from work that stalled, and explains why
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No delivered work; describes intent and process only.
2
Needs Improvement
Involved in initiatives but cannot say what resulted or what they owned.
3
Satisfactory
Real delivery with adequate ownership; impact described loosely.
4
Very Good
Named outcomes with clear personal scope and some measures.
5
Excellent
Names specific wins with dates and jurisdictions, including the decision body, the ruling, and what residents received afterward.
02
Evaluation factor
Stakeholder facilitation
25% weight
Probe how they run coalitions across residents, tribal councils, faith groups and agency staff, including translated materials, evening meetings, and handling conflict between allies with opposing interests.
Evidence to listen for
Brings a real contested case, not a philosophy of engagement
Names the competing interests and the resolution method
Uses concrete engagement formats and can point to input that changed a decision
Treats every group as legitimate
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Diplomacy-speak with no case attached, or contempt for one group.
2
Needs Improvement
Recalls conflict but no method; engagement is a box to check.
3
Satisfactory
Real case and workable approach; resolution thin on specifics.
4
Very Good
Names the tension and method; cites engagement that shaped the outcome.
5
Excellent
Describes building durable resident leadership, not just turnout; can explain how they resolved a real split inside a coalition.
03
Evaluation factor
Regulatory and policy command
25% weight
Test command of NEPA, Clean Air Act permitting, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, EJScreen or CalEnviroScreen, and state cumulative impact statutes.
Evidence to listen for
Names the statutes, funding rules, and processes they have worked under
Explains how those requirements sequenced their work
Owns the compliance thinking rather than deferring it entirely
Knows where the discretion sits
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Outsources all regulatory thinking; cannot name a framework.
2
Needs Improvement
Generalities about compliance; no sequencing or named rules.
3
Satisfactory
Knows the main frameworks; sequencing described loosely.
4
Very Good
Names relevant frameworks and how they shaped a timeline.
5
Excellent
Cites the specific statutory hook used in past campaigns and explains the limits of screening tools like EJScreen honestly.
04
Evaluation factor
Evidence and reporting
20% weight
Look for how they gather and present evidence: air monitoring data, health surveys, community science projects, public comment records, and testimony to councils or state agencies.
Evidence to listen for
Uses data to choose between options, not to justify a decision already made
Names the sources and methods behind their numbers
Reports to funders, councils, or the public in terms those audiences can use
Tracks whether the intervention worked
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No use of evidence; decisions are assertion.
2
Needs Improvement
Cites data but cannot explain its source or limits.
3
Satisfactory
Uses evidence competently; evaluation after the fact is thin.
4
Very Good
Evidence drives choices and is reported clearly to lay audiences.
5
Excellent
Pairs quantitative monitoring or demographic data with resident testimony, and acknowledges data gaps rather than overstating certainty.
Put this rubric to work
Score every candidate against the same standard
Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.
