Skip to content
Snippets Groups Projects

Add lens pov analysis API

Merged James Vasile requested to merge 43-lenses-api into main
Files
14
+ 288
0
prompt_template = """You are tasked with evaluating and scoring a project proposal document based on a rubric. Your goal is to assess how well the proposal meets the goals of the rubric. Here is the rubric and scoring criteria you should use:
$RUBRIC
$CONSIDERATIONS
Now, carefully read and analyze the following project proposal based on the above rubric:
<proposal>
{{PROPOSAL}}
</proposal>
After your analysis, provide your evaluation in the following format:
<evaluation>
<reasoning>
[Provide your detailed reasoning here, citing specific examples from the proposal. Consider the depth and frequency of beneficiary involvement, how their perspectives are incorporated into various dimensions of the proposal (program design, implementation, evaluation), and whether there is a plan for developing proximal leadership. Be sure to reference specific parts of the proposal to support your assessment.]
</reasoning>
<score>
[State the final score (0-4) based on the rubric. Ensure this score aligns with your reasoning.]
</score>
</evaluation>
Remember to provide thorough reasoning before stating the final score. Your evaluation should be objective and based solely on the information provided in the proposal and the given rubric."""
[Durability_Of_Power]
prompt = """Please evaluate and score a project proposal document based on the following rubric:
<rubric>
# Durability of Power
## Assurance that gains of power will persist
Durability of Power refers to how well the solution ensures that any gains in power persist. Proposed solutions create durable power by enhancing the capacity of existing leaders and cultivating new ones from the intended beneficiary community. The overarching goal is that the need for the proposed solution will eventually become obsolete because those who historically have lacked access to power now have it.
Structural inequality means that certain groups lack the power to influence how organizations, businesses, government, and social networks affect their lives. Enhancing the power of disadvantaged groups helps break down structural inequality.
Those who are already viewed as leaders in the beneficiary community are often referred to as “proximal” leaders. Their proximity means they recognize assets and risks that are often overlooked or misunderstood by outsiders. Such proximal leaders are instrumental in addressing structural inequality because they bring experience, relationships, data, and knowledge that are essential for solutions that have a lasting impact.
## Questions to Ask
- How well does the proposal actively shift the balance of power toward groups disadvantaged by structural inequality and create a sustainable source of power for those groups?
- How well does the proposal develop and engage with leaders in the intended beneficiary community (Often referred to as “proximal” leadership)?
- How well does the proposal build the capacity (e.g., financial resources, knowledge, skills, networks) of the intended beneficiary population so the solution is sustained?
Score the proposal on a scale of 0 to 4, where:
0: The proposal has no plan for creating a durable source of power by engaging and building proximal leaders. There is no way for beneficiaries to assume control of the solution to drive sustainability.
1: The proposal has an unclear plan for creating a durable source of power by engaging and building proximal leaders. There is no clear plan for beneficiaries to assume control of the solution to drive sustainability.
2: The proposal has a cursory plan for creating a durable source of power by engaging and building proximal leaders. There is a plan for beneficiaries to assume control of the solution to drive sustainability, but feasibility is not certain.
3: The proposal has a workable plan for creating a durable source of power by engaging and building proximal leaders. There is a feasible way for beneficiaries to assume control of the solution to drive sustainability.
4: The proposal has a sustainable plan for creating a durable source of power. Its team is led by proximal leaders participating in every step of proposal design and execution. Beneficiaries control the solution to drive sustainability
## How to Score This Element
Under Durability of Power, the highest-scoring proposals (3-4) either have active proximal leadership, or a concrete plan for engaging and developing proximal leadership. A mid-range proposal (2) also communicates a plan for engaging and developing proximal leadership but is less clear on how beneficiaries will eventually exercise power. The lowest-scoring proposals (0-1) either do not incorporate proximal leadership at all, or it is incorporated so minimally that there is no feasible plan for beneficiaries to have increased power or agency for the long term.
While unpaid advisory groups and mentoring programs can contribute beneficiary insights and build proximal leaders, proposals with the greatest chance of reducing structural inequality have proximal leaders at all levels of decision-making, fully participating in the design, planning and implementation of solutions.
</rubric>
----
Present your evaluation in the following format:
<evaluation>
<reasoning>
[Provide your detailed reasoning here, citing specific examples from the proposal]
</reasoning>
<score>
[State the final score (0-4) based on the rubric]
</score>
</evaluation>
"""
[Inclusivity]
prompt = """Please evaluate and score a project proposal document based on the following rubric:
# Inclusivity
## Involvement of intended beneficiaries
Structural inequality both results from and leads to the exclusion of the interests and perspectives of certain groups. Inclusivity does just the opposite.
Inclusivity refers to how much beneficiaries — the people and communities may benefit who are intended either directly or indirectly from the proposed solution — are involved. Two dimensions of inclusivity are depth and frequency. Depth refers to how much the interests and perspectives of the intended beneficiaries are systematically incorporated and reflected in the proposal — from priority setting, planning, solution design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, to ongoing learning. Frequency refers to how often the organization proposing the solution interacts with members of the beneficiary community.
Inclusivity ensures rich and frequent beneficiary involvement in planning, leadership, program design, implementation, and evaluation. Such involvement helps to ensure the proposed solution is considered important and desirable by the affected community, reflects the relevant cultural norms needed for acceptance of the solution, and mitigates the risk of unintentional harm. Ongoing involvement builds trust and promotes knowledge sharing, both of which are important in creating greater equity and sustaining positive change. The most inclusive organizations are led and operated by members of the beneficiary community itself.
## Questions to Ask
- How much do beneficiaries shape the proposed solution design, implementation, and and monitoring and evaluation?
- How deeply and frequently does the organization engage intended beneficiaries?
- How well does the organizational model incorporate intended beneficiaries’ input throughout its solution?
Score the proposal on a scale of 0 to 4, where:
0: The proposal’s solution has been determined by those not from or representative of the intended beneficiary population/ community.
1: The proposal incorporates the perspective of intended beneficiaries into either its program design, implementation, or evaluation, or some combination of the three. Beneficiary involvement is one-off or infrequent.
2: The proposal incorporates the perspectives of intended beneficiaries into several dimensions of the proposal (program design, implementation, or evaluation). Beneficiary involvement is moderate.
3: The proposal incorporates the perspectives of intended beneficiaries into all dimensions of the proposal (program design, implementation, or evaluation). Beneficiary involvement is frequent.
4: The proposal was designed by members of the intended beneficiary community who oversee and are involvement in all dimensions of the proposal (program design, implementation, or evaluation). Beneficiary involvement is continuous and ongoing at all levels.
## How to Score This Element
Under Durability of Power, the highest-scoring proposals (3-4) either have active proximal leadership, or a concrete plan for engaging and developing proximal leadership. A mid-range proposal (2) also communicates a plan for engaging and developing proximal leadership but is less clear on how beneficiaries will eventually exercise power. The lowest-scoring proposals (0-1) either do not incorporate proximal leadership at all, or it is incorporated so minimally that there is no feasible plan for beneficiaries to have increased power or agency for the long term.
While unpaid advisory groups and mentoring programs can contribute beneficiary insights and build proximal leaders, proposals with the greatest chance of reducing structural inequality have proximal leaders at all levels of decision-making, fully participating in the design, planning and implementation of solutions.
----
Present your evaluation in the following format:
<evaluation>
<reasoning>
[Provide your detailed reasoning here, citing specific examples from the proposal]
</reasoning>
<score>
[State the final score (0-4) based on the rubric]
</score>
</evaluation>
"""
[Organizational_Capacity]
prompt= """Please evaluate and score a project proposal document based on the following rubric:
<rubric>
# Organizational Capacity
## Ability to implement, measure, and manage results
Organizational Capacity refers to the proposing organization’s or group’s ability to implement, measure, and manage its intended results, given the talent, capabilities, and financial resources at its disposal.
Organizational Capacity also includes a demonstrated past commitment to addressing structural inequality. In assessing this element, you are assessing whether the proposal’s intended results are “right-sized” to the team and resources available. This is a feasibility check.
For example, a national nonprofit with affiliate partners in multiple cities and a track record of success in direct service and advocacy could be in an excellent position to shift policy in its home country and maybe even influence policy in others. On the other hand, a young, grass-roots organization in a country that lacks infrastructure may be expected to deliver services to a disadvantaged community that had previously lacked access to services. However, it would be unfair to hold that organization accountable for shifting national or regional policy.
If a proposal ranks high on all other elements of the rubric, resist eliminating it from funding decisions purely on the basis of limited existing organizational capacity. As mentioned in What Is Structural Inequality?, there is a well-documented historic underinvestment in organizations led by certain leaders. Philanthropic funding can help rectify this lack of investment and bring capacity to nonprofits with high potential that have previously been excluded.
## Questions to Ask
- How well does the proposal demonstrate an ability to create impact, given the organization’s history and resources?
- How much does the organization’s prior work show a commitment to addressing structural inequality?
- How adequate are the organization’s resources (staff, budget, capabilities, governance, board leadership) for implementing, measuring, and managing towards intended results?
Score the proposal on a scale of 0 to 4, where:
0: The organization does not demonstrate a commitment to addressing structural inequality, and it does not have the resources to effectively implement, measure and manage toward its intended results.
1: The organization demonstrates a minimal commitment to addressing structural inequality but does not have the resources to effectively implement, measure, and manage its solution toward its intended results.
2: The organization demonstrates a prior commitment to addressing structural inequality but its resources may not be sufficient to effectively implement, measure, and manage toward its intended results.
3: The organization demonstrates an existing prior commitment to addressing structural inequality and its resources are right-sized to effectively implement, measure, and manage toward its intended results.
4: The organization demonstrates a deep prior commitment to addressing structural inequality and its resources are more than sufficient to implement, measure, and manage toward its intended results.
## How to Score This Element
The highest-scoring proposals (3-4) historically view their work as contributing to reducing structural inequality and have the appropriate level of staff and other organizational resources to successfully implement their solutions. A mid-range proposal (2) comes from an organization that may have addressed an element of structural inequality in the past, but whose resources may be slightly undermatched to the proposed solution. Low-scoring proposals (0-1) have no or minimal history of addressing structural inequality and whose limited resources make it implausible that its solution would succeed.
</rubric>
----
Present your evaluation in the following format:
<evaluation>
<reasoning>
[Provide your detailed reasoning here, citing specific examples from the proposal]
</reasoning>
<score>
[State the final score (0-4) based on the rubric]
</score>
</evaluation>
"""
[Strength_of_Evidence]
prompt="""Please evaluate and score a project proposal document based on the following rubric:
<rubric>
# Strength of Evidence
## The case for potential success
Strength of evidence refers to the case the proposal makes for the potential success of its proposed solution to reduce structural inequality.
The Center for High Impact Philanthropy’s broad definition of evidence includes three sources of evidence for a more inclusive view that goes beyond traditional scientific, empirical evidence to include observations of stakeholders and the perspectives of those most directly affected. All of these sources of evidence inform a strong theory of change.
- The first is scientific research and evaluation results from sources such as randomized control trials, program evaluations, and rigorous comparison studies.
- The second source of evidence comes from the field and includes the perspectives, experiences, and practical insights of those working on the frontlines and the beneficiaries themselves.
- The third source of evidence is informed opinion, which includes the views of other stakeholders such as policymakers, journalists, donors, and those working in peer organizations.
All three sources of evidence are valid, and each brings relative strengths and limitations (for more see Rethinking the E Word). The strongest case for success exists when all three sources of evidence point in the same direction. However, a strong, plausible, compelling case may be made for a solution even with limited evidence from the first category. There can be big differences in both the amount and type of relevant evidence, depending on the cause area the proposal addresses; the developmental stage of the organization; and whether the proposal is for research, direct service, or advocacy.
For example, a strong proposal for a needed but still untested program will have clear understanding of the root causes of the problem and evidence that the solution is promising, but it may not yet have empirical proof. In these cases, Strength of Evidence also refers to how strong the case is for the potential for the proposal to achieve its intended impact. A proposal for expanding a longstanding direct-service program that has already scaled to many states or countries would be expected to have available client-level evaluation results, whereas a new policy initiative for more equitable funding would not yet have any individual-level results. Instead that proposal would rely on data regarding existing disparities and a modeled analysis of how the new policy might close them.
## Questions to Ask
- How compelling is the evidence for a solution that addresses a barrier to structural equality?
- How strong is the evidence that the problem they are solving contributes to structural inequality?
- How strong is the evidence that their chosen solution has the potential to reduce structural inequality?
Score the proposal on a scale of 0 to 4, where:
0: The proposal offers implausible evidence that the proposed solution will be effective. The solution targets a problem with an indirect/trivial relationship to structural inequality.
1: The proposal offers minimal, marginally plausible evidence from few sources that the solution has the potential to be effective. The solution targets an aspect of structural inequality.
2: The proposal offers some plausible evidence from few sources that demonstrates the solution has the potential to be effective. The solution targets an aspect of structural inequality.
3: The proposal offers evidence from a handful of sources that demonstrates the solution has the potential to be effective. The solution targets an aspect of structural inequality.
4: The proposal offers significant evidence from many sources that demonstrates the solution has the potential to be effective. The solution targets an aspect of structural inequality.
## How to Score This Element
When scoring for this element, consider whether the type and amount of evidence matches the specific proposal. The highest-scoring proposals (3-4) provide substantial, credible, compelling evidence that the proposed solution is thoughtful in its design; will be effective in its implementation; and is directly related to some aspect of structural inequality. A mid-scoring proposal (2) suggests a solution that is also directly related to an aspect of structural inequality, but the evidence presented may be only tangentially related and only meet the threshold of plausible. A low-scoring proposal (0-1) fails to address an aspect of structural inequality or addresses an aspect but presents minimal or weak evidence, rendering the success implausible.
</rubric>
----
Present your evaluation in the following format:
<evaluation>
<reasoning>
[Provide your detailed reasoning here, citing specific examples from the proposal]
</reasoning>
<score>
[State the final score (0-4) based on the rubric]
</score>
</evaluation>
"""
[Systems_Level_Impact]
prompt="""Please evaluate and score a project proposal document based on the following rubric:
<rubric>
# Systems-Level Impact
## Approach to addressing systems-level barriers
Systems-level impact refers to how well the proposal’s solution addresses systems-level barriers to advance structural change.
A system is composed of multiple institutions. For example, the system for ensuring public health includes health agencies at every level of government, labs and hospitals, educational institutions, and private organizations. Meaningful shifts in a system require institutions to change their practices. For that reason, this category assesses the extent to which the proposed solution works with, leverages, and has the potential to shift the work of multiple stakeholders — other nonprofits, policymakers, and commercial interests.
## Questions to Ask
- If successful, will this proposal address systems-level barriers and provide opportunities for structural change in the field of social impact it operates within?
- How well does the proposal’s solution leverage and influence the work of existing stakeholders — other nonprofits, policymakers, commercial interests — to address the problem it seeks to solve?
- How strong is the program’s plan for scaling its solution?
Score the proposal on a scale of 0 to 4, where:
0: The proposal has negligible impact on existing policies, institutions, or power structures, and shows little understanding of how to leverage existing efforts. There are no plans for scaling or adapting its work for greater impact.
1: The proposal makes incremental shifts in policies, institutions, or power structures; and has a loose connection to existing efforts. Plans for scaling impact are cursory.
2: The proposal makes demonstrated shifts in policies, institutions, or power structures; and has an established connection to existing efforts. Plans for scaling impact are cursory.
3: The proposal makes notable changes to policies, institutions, or power structures; and complements existing efforts, and includes detailed plans for scaling impact.
4: The proposal makes substantial shifts in policies, institutions, or power structures; and fills a crucial gap in existing efforts. It catalyzes the work of other organizations throughout their field. The proposal outlines a specific strategy for scaling impact and adapting the solution to new contexts.
## How to Score This Element
Highest-ranked solutions (3-4) demonstrate an ability to shift policies, institutions, or power structures. Such solutions often build on existing work, and outline strategies for scaling impact and adapting the solution to new contexts. Mid-range proposals (2) may demonstrate an ability to shift certain policies, institutions, or power structures, and have an established connection to existing efforts. However, plans for scaling impact are cursory. Low-scoring proposals (0-1) do not articulate an intended shift in policies, institutions, or power structures. Plans to scale are cursory or nonexistent.
</rubric>
----
Present your evaluation in the following format:
<evaluation>
<reasoning>
[Provide your detailed reasoning here, citing specific examples from the proposal]
</reasoning>
<score>
[State the final score (0-4) based on the rubric]
</score>
</evaluation>
"""
Loading