Home Filene & Biden Awards News DE Bursaries Award Dinners Contact Sponsors Raising funds for DE Bursaries
Edward Filene Credit Union Awards Joe Biden Awards for DE of the Year
 Supreme Award| Leadership Criteria| Enterprise Criteria| Community Criteria| Judging Panel| “Helpline” & the Judging Process
 Past Awards Winners | Awards Entry Form

ENTERING THE AWARDS & JUDGING PROCESS

It has been found by the Awards Office that many credit unions and individuals require all sorts of further information about the Filene and Biden Awards, their various categories and there has been a need to talk to some to refine their entries, All enquiries are welcome but here are a few guidance notes and answers to FAQs

  • Entries are only accepted from authorised and regulated credit unions or active credit union owner-members.
  • ​Entries must be original, but previous entrants and winners can submit new original entries. 
  • No "Filene" entries should be based on any type of grant funding - although working in conjunction with other bodies in both the public and private sectors or taking a loan at commercial rates to deliver a project would be acceptable.  This condition does not apply to "Biden" entrants.
  • All entries must be submitted online using the template entry form provided.
  • The narrative of every entry should contain enough evidence (facts!) – explaining what was done – and why/what the person or credit union is working to achieve and deliver.
  • Where possible, every entry should provide proof of success and where relevant - proven statistics, graphs, testimonials including from the media and other organisations, which can be uploaded as attachments to the Entry Form.
  • To aid the Judging Panel, reference should be made in the texts to the title of any accompanying documents and visual materials being submitted.
  • If any entry includes sensitive material or data to support it, please state this in the entry.  This material will only be viewed by the Awards Office and the Judging Panel and will not be referred to publically in anyway without the prior consent of the credit union.
  • As the Awards Office plays no part in the judging process, it can be contacted for guidance on the submission of any entry but to make efficient use of the Awards Office’s time and costs, it's preferred, where possible, to respond to telephone enquiries rather than email.
  • The Awards Office can be contacted at most times and voicemail messages left in confidence on +44(0)208 241 2736. However if no response is received within two days, do send an email to the Awards Office.  Enquiries from overseas regarding the "Biden's" can of course be carried out by email - info@iculdef.org 
  • To allow sufficient time for entries to be finalised and submitted before the closure date of 1st June 2018, the Helpline will close two weeks  before on 18th May 2018.

THE JUDGING PROCESS AND SCORING

When the Awards programme was set up in 2011, an attempt was made to make the judging process as impartial as possible, with the judges working in isolation of each other.  

Check out here the biographies of the esteemed Edward Filene Credit Union Judging Panel - Adrian Oldman, Nigel Fawcett and Steve Johnson and those for the Joe Biden Award for Development Educator of the Year - Frank Diekman, Nancy Johns ; entries from North America for the Biden Awards will be judged by Brian Bennett, Paul Dawson and Mark Worthington from Australia.

The judgement of every entry is based upon two things:-

  1. The evidence produced on the objectives to be achieved – “the planning bit”
  2. Measurement of the quality and identifiable successes or positive effect of the endeavour – “the doing bit”.

Both the evidence produced and the successes shown are then scored 1-10 with “11” being given as the “tie break mark”, e.g.:-

  1. No narrative evidence and illustration of success provided.
  2. Little narrative evidence and no illustrative success
  3. Insufficient narrative evidence and no illustrative success.
  4. Some narrative evidence but it is incomplete and no illustrative success.
  5. More narrative evidence but lacking cohesion and comprehension to the reader and little illustrative success.
  6. Sufficient narrative evidence but poorly set out and insufficient illustrative success.
  7. Sufficient narrative evidence given, well set out and some illustration of success.
  8. Sufficient narrative evidence given, well set out and many illustrations of success.
  9. Great narrative evidence given and great illustration of success.
  10. Exemplary narrative evidence given and outstanding illustration of success.
  11. The tie break mark

However, despite the precise nature of this scoring, in the past few years there have been two way ties in more than one category!

Good luck with your entries for 2017/2018 -  deadline 1st June 2018

 

       
  © ICULDE&E Foundation 2018
HMRC Charity Reg No: EW15106
t: 020 8241 2736
m: 077 1104 8520
e: info@iculdef.org
  Privacy Policy