By the time the first submission arrives, you want the important decisions made. What counts as evidence? Who approves it? What happens when something is late? How will two judges interpret the same activity?
These questions are easier to settle before chapters start working. Use this checklist with your program team to agree on the process and spot the places where your handbook needs one more sentence.
1. Decide what you want to recognize.
Award rules shape the activities chapters prioritize. Start with the purpose: broad participation, leadership development, community impact, chapter growth, or a combination. Then check that the points reward those priorities.
- Name the outcomes the program is meant to encourage.
- Decide whether chapters qualify against thresholds, compete by rank, or both.
- Consider how chapter size affects any per-member or participation-based activity.
- Identify activities every chapter must complete, regardless of its total score.
2. Build a rubric people can use.
A rubric should explain the work to a student, the approval decision to an adviser, and the scoring decision to a judge. Give each activity a clear title, a description, a maximum point value, and a definition of completion.
- Group related activities into sections that chapters will recognize.
- Specify flat points, points per unit, or a judge-assigned range for each activity.
- Document item caps, section caps, minimums, bonuses, and penalties.
- Write descriptive scoring levels for activities that require judgment.
- Check the maximum possible score against the award thresholds.
Try the plain-language test. Hand one activity to someone who did not write it. Ask what they would submit and how many points they could earn. If their answer surprises you, the instructions need another pass.
3. Ask for the evidence you actually need.
More attachments do not always make an activity easier to judge. Decide what proves the requirement and ask for that. A participation count might need a number and a short explanation; a service project might need a narrative and a supporting document.
- Match evidence fields to the activity: text, number, date, link, or file.
- Mark which fields are required and explain any file restrictions.
- Say whether an activity can be submitted more than once.
- Avoid collecting student information that is unnecessary for the review.
- Show chapters an example of a complete response, clearly labeled as an example.
4. Write down the deadline rules.
“Due March 15” leaves room for questions. Give the date, time, and time zone. Make it clear whether that deadline applies to the student draft, adviser approval, or the final submission sent to judges.
- Separate the date an activity happens from the date its evidence is due.
- Specify opening dates and any activity-specific deadlines.
- Decide whether late work is blocked, accepted in full, or earns reduced credit.
- Define grace windows and who can authorize an exception.
- Explain how returned work and resubmissions interact with the deadline.
5. Make the handoffs explicit.
If students prepare the work, decide what advisers review before it leaves the chapter. A clear approval step helps catch missing evidence and gives advisers a chance to support students without becoming the person who does every submission.
- Document who can draft, edit, approve, and submit.
- Give chapters a way to distinguish a draft from a submitted entry.
- Decide who handles feedback when a judge returns an activity.
- Identify the contact for roster or account-access questions.
6. Prepare judges before review opens.
Do a short calibration exercise with a sample entry. Ask judges to score it independently, then compare the reasons behind their scores. The discussion often reveals gaps in the rubric that would otherwise appear halfway through the queue.
- Assign reviewers by chapter, section, or activity.
- Agree on how to handle a conflict of interest.
- Specify the number of reviews required for each activity.
- Decide how multiple scores resolve and when staff should review a disagreement.
- Set expectations for useful feedback and the judging timeline.
7. Decide how results become final.
A running total and a published award list serve different purposes. Decide what chapters can see while the cycle is open, then leave time for staff to review the final calculations.
- Choose whether chapters see item scores, totals, or only published results.
- Check that required work and section minimums are satisfied.
- Review ties at rank-based award boundaries.
- Define an appeal process and the record needed to explain a decision.
- Confirm chapter names before exporting the recognition list.
8. Walk through one chapter’s experience.
Before opening the program, run a small rehearsal. Prepare an entry, have an adviser approve it, score it as a judge, return a second entry for revision, and inspect the chapter’s results. Check what each role can see at every stage.
Include one ordinary submission and one awkward case: an activity with a cap, a late entry, or a score that needs two judges. A rehearsal is most useful when it tests the rules you are least certain about.
Bring the process into one place.
Bay Laurel is chapter recognition software built around this cycle. It connects evidence, adviser approvals, rubric-based judging, deadlines, and results. Your next step can be as simple as bringing your current handbook to a conversation.
Book a demo to talk through your program, or email hello@usebaylaurel.com.
