Chris Cardona, Managing Director, Discovery, Exploration, and Programs, shares why we added “just” to the criteria for evaluating proposals for our $100 million competition to solve a meaningful social problem.
This spring, we launched the third round of 100&Change, our signature competition to identify one project from anywhere in the world to receive a $100 million grant toward solving a meaningful social problem. In keeping with our track record of developing new approaches that combine evergreen principles with creative design and rigorous implementation, we carefully considered what we learned from prior rounds of the competition.
This deliberateness is a mark of quality in two respects: the more carefully you work, the better it will turn out, and the more inclusively you do so, the same will be true. Now, there is a limit to both: after a certain point, care turns into perfectionism, and inclusion turns into waffling. The art is in knowing the difference.
Take something as prosaic as the scoring rubric for 100&Change. This is a key part of the competition, because after the administrative review determines valid applications, three different rounds of reviewers—Peers, Wise Heads, and the MacArthur Board—will use the rubric to review all valid applications. So the criteria need to be clear, straightforward, easy to use, and applicable to a wide variety of potential projects. Previously, we landed on four criteria: impactful, evidence-based, feasible, and durable. These served us well in the first two rounds of the competition.
And yet, there is always an opportunity to better align with our organizational values. We consider what has changed at MacArthur, and in the world, since the second round of the competition launched in 2019. And we were clear that the scoring rubric this time needed to be better harmonized with our Just Imperative, which started taking shape as a Foundation priority in 2017. The Just Imperative charges us to lead with a commitment to justice and is grounded in our value of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). It is important to note that DEI has always been incorporated into 100&Change. Dating back to the first round, we incorporated an accessibility and inclusion lens throughout the competition.
This time around, it felt important to reflect a clear alignment with the Just Imperative in the scoring rubric itself. But how?
First the Staff of Lever for Change, our nonprofit affiliate that runs the competition, examined various options for updating the scoring rubric to make it more DEI-specific. Then an internal group of MacArthur Staff, followed by our Board of Directors, considered updates.
DEI issues are universal, but their particular expression is local.
A key question was the global nature of the competition. DEI issues are universal, but their particular expression is local. In the United States, race is the most salient dimension of DEI that needs repair; in other parts of the world, it may be gender or class or religious toleration among other possibilities. So we are asking applicants to consider how they make sure their DEI commitment is relevant in their particular context.
We are in a moment where rhetoric about DEI has become contested in two ways: one is by its opponents, who seek to blame DEI for all sorts of social ills—but another is by its proponents, who are unwittingly diluting DEI by applying terms too loosely and generally. Words lose their meaning and power when they get vague, and you use them to describe everything you want to label as good.
One could state: “of course we support equity,” but do you mean equity as ownership, equity as redistribution of resources, equity as paying attention to outcomes and not just opportunity, or equity as correcting patterns of underinvestment? The more clearly we can say what we mean, the sooner we can bring those ideals into being.
Projects will now be judged on the extent to which they are just.
In updating the 100&Change scoring rubric, we ended up adding a fifth criterion: “just,” to align with our Just Imperative. In addition to being impactful, evidence-based, feasible, and durable, projects will now be judged on the extent to which they are just.
There are two sentences in the criterion, each with its own specific meaning.
- “Has the team demonstrated a commitment to equity, inclusion, and accessibility in the ideation and design of the solution and in its staffing and operations?” Here are four different places a project can show that it is practicing inclusion and accessibility: in the ideation of the solution (who comes up with the idea in the first place), the design of the project (who maps out how it will work), the staffing of the project (who is responsible for carrying it out), and its operations (what kinds of partners and vendors are responsible for supporting implementation).
- “Will the solution benefit different populations equitably—particularly historically marginalized people or populations with the greatest needs, both human and nonhuman?” In addition to being able to show four different kinds of inclusion and accessibility, projects can talk about at least three kinds of populations they are benefiting. One is historically marginalized people—and since per the above, DEI varies by local context, it is up to applicants to describe why a given population is historically marginalized, backed up with data. Another is populations with the greatest needs—again, applicants should tell us how they define need and how it has been documented. And finally, proposals can speak to nonhuman populations with the greatest needs that benefit from the project. Again, make the case and share the data—we will be listening.
Specificity matters when practicing DEI and aligning work with values.
Specificity matters when practicing DEI and aligning work with values. We are pleased to be able to reflect this in the design of the third iteration of 100&Change. While we are calling out this new criterion, it is only one component of our rubric of five criteria we expect applicants to integrate in their proposals. We look forward to receiving the projects people submit between May 22 and September 5, 2024, and to announcing finalists in spring of 2025 and one awardee in the winter of 2025.
Here’s to bold visions and to defining the details.
