public sector communitygis analysisgreen infrastructurestormwater managementurban planning
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 which green infrastructure schemes reached construction: bioswales, rain gardens, tree canopy programmes, daylighted streams. Probe capital cost, catchment area treated, and post-build monitoring of runoff volumes.
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 built schemes with acreage, litres of runoff managed, canopy percentage gained, and funding source secured for each.
02
Evaluation factor
Stakeholder facilitation
25% weight
Probe how they handled resident objections at consultation events, negotiated maintenance agreements with highways or parks teams, and aligned developers, utilities and watershed groups on shared plans.
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
Recounts a contested site where they reconciled highways, parks maintenance and residents into a signed, funded scheme.
03
Evaluation factor
Regulatory and policy command
25% weight
Test command of stormwater and planning instruments relevant here: NPDES MS4 permits, SuDS guidance, biodiversity net gain, local drainage standards, Section 106 or impact fee mechanisms.
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 permit conditions and adoption standards they wrote against, plus how compliance was demonstrated to regulators.
04
Evaluation factor
Evidence and reporting
20% weight
Look for GIS and modelling evidence: i-Tree Eco, SWMM or InfoDrainage runs, canopy and impervious surface analysis, and how findings shaped committee papers or capital programmes.
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
Shows modelled versus monitored performance, explains variance honestly, and points to a decision the analysis changed.
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.
