public sector communitygispublic sectorurban planningzoning
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
Plans that got adopted
30% weight
Evaluate whether the candidate has carried plans through council votes and community review to adoption, not just drafted them.
Evidence to listen for
Names specific jurisdictions and projects (zoning revisions, mixed-use developments, transit corridors)
Can state what changed on the ground after adoption
Describes their own slice of the work rather than claiming whole-project credit
Answers detail questions on entitlements, phasing, financing, and approvals
Distinguishes plans that were adopted from plans that stalled, and explains why
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No adopted work; discusses zoning and planning only in coursework or theoretical terms.
2
Needs Improvement
Contributed to plans but cannot say what happened after submission or what their role was.
3
Satisfactory
Has shipped work on real plans; ownership is partial and outcomes are described vaguely.
4
Very Good
Names adopted projects and their role clearly; outcomes described with some specifics.
5
Excellent
Named, adopted plans with outcomes they owned; explains what changed on the ground and why.
02
Evaluation factor
Stakeholder facilitation
25% weight
Assess ability to hold residents, developers, and elected officials together on contested projects without stalling delivery.
Evidence to listen for
Brings a real contested case, not a general philosophy
Names the specific tension and the competing interests
Describes a resolution method: documented trade-offs, phased concessions, data brought to the table
Uses concrete public engagement formats (charrettes, open houses, surveys)
Can point to community input that actually changed a design
Treats every stakeholder group as legitimate
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Diplomacy-speak with no case attached, or open contempt for one stakeholder group.
2
Needs Improvement
Recalls conflict but no resolution method; engagement treated as a box to check.
3
Satisfactory
Has a real case and a workable approach; resolution is thin on specifics.
4
Very Good
Names the tension and the method; can cite engagement that shaped the outcome.
5
Excellent
Real conflict stories resolved without killing the project, with input that visibly changed a plan.
03
Evaluation factor
Regulatory command
25% weight
Measure command of the local, state, and federal layers a planner must sequence to get anything approved.
Evidence to listen for
Names the statutes and processes they have worked under: environmental review, historic preservation, fair housing, ADA
Explains how those requirements sequenced approvals on a real project
Treats environmental impact assessments as design inputs rather than paperwork
Ties sustainability claims to measurable targets and trade-offs
Owns the regulatory thinking rather than deferring it entirely to legal
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Outsources all regulatory thinking; cannot name a single framework they have worked under.
2
Needs Improvement
Speaks in generalities about compliance; no sequencing or named statutes.
3
Satisfactory
Knows the main frameworks for their jurisdiction; sequencing described loosely.
4
Very Good
Names relevant frameworks and how they shaped a project timeline.
5
Excellent
Cites specific frameworks and sequencing from experience, with assessments treated as design inputs.
04
Evaluation factor
Tools and evidence
20% weight
Check whether the candidate runs their own analysis and lets data change their plans, or only lists software.
Evidence to listen for
Names a real stack: GIS platforms, modeling, visualization tools
Describes an analysis they personally ran, not one they observed
Can give one case where data overturned an assumption in their own plan
Uses traffic counts, growth projections, and impact assessments as inputs to design decisions
Shows a prioritization logic when budgets are cut, and a long-range plan they kept moving anyway
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Lists software copied from a job posting; cannot describe any analysis they ran.
2
Needs Improvement
Familiar with tools but no evidence of using data to shape a decision.
3
Satisfactory
Competent with the standard stack; data informs work but no clear example of it changing a plan.
4
Very Good
Real stack plus an example of analysis affecting a design decision.
5
Excellent
Runs their own analysis; data visibly shapes their plans, including an assumption it overturned.
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.
