ELIGIBILITY AND ADJUDICATION CRITERIA AND ADJUDICATION PROCESS
Eligibility Criteria
Programs (ongoing initiatives) have been running for at least two years from the date of the application submission deadline.
Projects (with pre‐defined stop and start date) will have taken place within two years of the application submission deadline.
Initiative is based in Canada
Initiative is based on principles and values that are in line with the mission and vision of MHCC
The initiative has not received funding from MHCC
The application is signed by the applicant, endorsing the accuracy of the information provided.
The application is accompanied by two letters of endorsement (link) from organizations or individuals, not employed by MHCC, that have benefitted from the initiative and support the submission.
MHCC staff will conduct the eligibility review. Any application that does not meet the Eligibility Criteria will be disqualified and will not be further evaluated.
Principle Adjudication Criteria
Initiative is appropriate for the selected category <5
o Initiative description provides necessary details and an overview that focuses on the elements outlined in each category description and highlights the award‐winning qualities of the initiative.
Initiative is most likely replicable and/or scalable, or has been replicated or scaled up <15 o Initiative includes extensive process documentation, such as a work plan or critical path
document, to support scaling, and clear principles upon which replication can be supported.
Initiative demonstrates relative innovation, according to the applicant, (as defined in program proposal) and the applicant provides evidence for this assessment < 20
Innovation is defined as the development of new knowledge, practices or
technologies; the application of current or emerging technologies or practices; or the adoption of an advanced technology, knowledge or practice in a region, sector or organization in which it has not been applied before.
o Response documents why and how those involved choose to innovate, and demonstrates that the initiative is indeed innovative based on the knowledge, practices or technologies that were developed, applied or adopted. Description includes an evidence‐based assessment of the uniqueness of the knowledge, practice or technology in the relevant region, sector or organization.
Initiative is based on a needs assessment, or similar process, which clearly identifies the need for the program or project in the appropriate context, and has identified intended outcomes and outputs that will meet this need. If appropriate, the description should include a reflection on the achievements of the initiative in terms of the intended goals. <25
o Description provides details on the needs assessment process, including stakeholder engagement, methodology and evidence. Outcomes of the initiative clearly relate to the identified need(s). The necessity of the project or program is proven through the results of a needs assessment or other approach that provides compelling evidence. Outputs, existing or projected, are clearly identified, relevant and measurable.
Knowledge exchange is identified as a key component of the initiative (but doesn’t need to be referred to as such) <15
o Initiative includes a knowledge exchange plan, and/or includes a focus on some of the following actions and principles:
Supporting accessibility to the relevant knowledge, process or technology, including for people with lived experience of mental health problems, care providers, and policy makers;
encouraging multidirectional conversations between stakeholders;
incorporating information from different sources;
the use of activating principles such as participant engagement, interactivity, and facilitation.
Maximum of 80 points awarded in the Principle Adjudication Criteria section
CATEGORY SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION CRITERIA
Category Description Specific Adj. Criteria
Community Capacity
Initiatives that strengthen the capacity of community‐based mental health services to meet identified community needs, foster recovery and well‐being for clients, and for their support networks.
‐% of people in the target community who participated/are participating in the initiative, and description of this participation and their contribution <10
‐If applicable, that the target audience was involved in the development of the initiative (i.e. peers, seniors etc.) <10
Partnership
Cross‐sector or multi‐sector mental health focused partnerships that have achieved significant positive impacts for a target population, such as seniors, ethno‐cultural groups or children and youth. In addition, the partnership should have had a demonstrable impact on the partner organizations. This may include changes to their
organizational culture, operations or policies and processes.
‐# of sectors involved (workplaces and institutions, health and other professions, government, industry, media, schools, people, civil society organizations) <5
‐If applicable, was the target audience involved in the development of the initiative (i.e. peers, seniors etc.) <5
‐Was the impact of the partnership measured externally and internally, and if so what were the impacts in terms of people involved, changes to policy etc. <10
Workplace Initiative
A project or program led by a public, private or non‐profit sector organization that uses innovative approaches and tools to promote mental health within the organization. Small (under 100) and medium‐sized (under 500) workplaces are encourage to apply.
‐% of people in the target population who participated/are participating in the initiative <4
‐% of people in the workplace likely to be, or confirmed to be, affected by the initiative
<8
‐How have workplace psychological health and safety risks changed as result of this initiative? <8
Research Project
Projects that have developed innovative approaches to research and that provide practical guidance for those who work in the mental health field and people with lived experience.
‐Does the initiative involve people with lived experience throughout the project lifecycle? <10
‐Will there be, or has there been, an evaluation of the project’s key indicators to demonstrate impact? <10
Social Innovation
Projects or programs that have delivered important economic and social benefits for people living with mental health problems and illnesses. Projects and programs may include social enterprises, consumer‐led businesses and economic re‐integration programs.
‐Could the initiative be replicated in a rural/remote location <10
‐Is there a focus on traditionally marginalized populations? <10
Maximum of 20 points awarded for the Specific Adjudication Criteria Maximum total of 100 points in all Categories
ADJUDICATION PROCESS
Stage I
Stage I will consist of an eligibility review to determine which applications comply with all of the eligibility requirements. At least two MHCC staff will review each application and will confer with the Award Steering Committee (ASC) chairs if there is a discrepancy on the eligibility of specific applications after the eligibility review. The Chair will determine whether or not to disqualify the proposal in these cases. Applications that don’t comply with all of the eligibility requirements may be disqualified and not evaluated further. A list of ineligible applications, including the title and reason for their ineligibility, will be provided to the chairs in Stage III. A notice will be sent to each ineligible applicant to inform them of their application’s status and reasons for ineligibility. The title, and a brief description of the initiative, will be included in the material sent on to adjudicators in Stage II.
Stage II
Stage II will consist of a scoring of each eligible application by members of the Adjudication Panel of each Category on the basis of the adjudication criteria. Adjudicators will send their scores, by the March 29th , 2012 deadline, to the appropriate MHCC staff. Staff will compile the scores and send the panel members the scores for each eligible application. Depending on the number of applications in the category, the top 20% of category applications, or the top 10 applications, as determined by their average score, may be considered finalists in the category. These finalists, or the entire application group, will be discussed by the Adjudication Panel at their Selection conference call in April of 2012, and two applications will be selected to move on to Stage III. If consensus cannot be reached, the Chair of the Adjudication panel will guide the panel to a decision by calling for rounds of Elimination voting.
Stage III
The Adjudication Panel chairs will meet with MHCC Awards Steering Committee members by conference call in the spring of 2012 to finalize the list of winners, and identify any of the remaining Stage II
applications that deserve Honourable Mentions. This stage will consider geographic representation and the Commission’s strategic priorities.
