 In Phase 1, which closes December 21, 2018, competitors will submit proposals for the competition using an online form on the prize operations platform or POP. In your proposals, you will detail how you will use the apps from the Adult Literacy XPrize team stage to increase access to adult education for all learners. This video tutorial explains how your proposals will be scored to select 50 $10,000 milestone award winners. Your Phase 1 applications are judged both by your peers and by an expert panel of judges, along five scoring criteria. Potential for impact, innovation, feasibility, scalability, and durability. Every competing team that submits an application will review and score five other applications. Applicants will receive summaries of feedback provided by their peers. Peer reviewer scores will be normalized to ensure fairness. Based on peer review scores, up to 100 competitors' applications will be reviewed by an expert panel of judges. This judging panel will comprise individuals with a variety of backgrounds relevant to the judging criteria, including marketing, political campaigning, technology, social media, adult education, education technology, policymaking, and other areas of expertise. As in the peer review, these judges will rate each application on a scale of zero to five for impact, innovation, feasibility, scalability, and durability. First, impact. Is the proposed approach likely to increase access to both adult basic education and ESL for a sizable portion of the adult learner population in your community? Does the proposed approach present new opportunities to learners? How do you propose to expand your current footprint and reach more and more diverse learners? Second, innovation. Is the proposal innovative? Does the proposal offer a compelling vision for the use of technology to increase access to adult basic education and ESL? Does the proposed approach make use of technology to improve both the efficiency and effectiveness of adult education services? Does the team innovate in its approach to marketing, learner outreach, volunteer recruitment, and other means of growing its reach? Feasibility. Has the team demonstrated the skills, capabilities, and past achievements to deliver the proposed solution successfully? Has the team set audacious yet achievable goals considering its resources, community size, and experience? Does the project plan demonstrate a realistic understanding of the tasks and costs to implement the proposed solution? Criterion 4. Scalability. Could this approach be effective at scale? Will the approach scale efficiently and cost effectively? Is it replicable in other contexts, circumstances, and communities? Could it become a model for other communities and organizations? Finally, durability. Does the team propose an enduring solution that will last beyond the timeline of the community's competition? Does the proposal offer a plan to continue to support the proposed approach and to incorporate it fully into the competitor's existing practices? What makes a great application? We're looking for proposals that are transformative, cutting-edge, audacious yet achievable, highly scalable, and enduring. For example, an ineffective approach will distribute the apps to an insignificant number of learners. Conversely, a truly impactful approach is very likely to dramatically increase access to adult basic education and ESL, reaching large number of learners who otherwise would not obtain educational services, and improving the efficiency with which services and resources are provided to learners in existing programs. Along those same lines, an impractical proposal offers an unrealistic project plan with a team that lacks the capabilities to deliver the proposed solution. A superior and feasible project plan, on the other hand, demonstrates a high level of sophistication and understanding of the tasks and effort needed to achieve remarkable gains, led by a team of seasoned experts who have achieved results in the past. Because people differ, not all reviewers will score submitted applications in the same way. Some reviewers will be more generous and others stingier. For example, one reviewer may score all applications with scores between zero to three. Another will score all applications between one and five. Both of these reviewers may look favorably upon a single submission, but give it a different score. Likewise, reviewers' spread of scores may differ. One reviewer may have a more binary scoring approach, giving only ones and fives, while another reviewer may spread scores around more evenly across the range. To ensure fairness for all applicants, we will normalize all reviewers' scores by measuring each individual reviewer's mean and standard deviation of scores, as well as measuring the mean and standard deviation of all scores across all reviewers. We will then rescale the mean and standard deviation of each individual reviewer to match that of the entire population of reviewers. This way, no matter which reviewer is scoring your application, your submission is treated fairly. To compete, you must register your team by December 8th, 2018, and submit an application by December 21st. You can learn more about the Adult Literacy X-Prize Communities Competition by visiting communities.xprize.org. You can also view other explainer videos about the competition on our YouTube channel. In the resources section of your team page on POP, you can view important competition documents such as the competition guidelines, scoring rubric, and an explanation of how judges' scores are normalized to ensure fairness, as well as a PDF of the application form. Register to compete at communities.xprize.org. If you have more questions, email adult.literacy.xprize.org. Together, we can transform lives through literacy.