How to Write a Compelling Award Nomination Thank you for taking the time to recognize outstanding individuals and agencies through the EMSAC Awards Program. Whether you are an EMS provider, supervisor, administrator, community member or partner agency, your nomination helps highlight the exceptional service and dedication within Colorado’s EMS system. These tips will help you craft a strong and compelling submission. Start Early!High‑quality nominations take time to prepare. Begin early so you can develop a thoughtful narrative, gather supporting documents and—if applicable—coordinate with local or regional award programs. Early preparation allows room for refinement and ensures your final submission is polished and complete. Select the Appropriate Award CategorySome nominees clearly match a specific category, while others may fit several. Review the award criteria carefully to determine the best placement. If you’re uncertain, EMSAC can provide clarify or make suggestions for you. Choosing the correct category strengthens your nominee’s likelihood of being evaluated accurately and fairly. Gather Meaningful Letters of SupportLetters of support help paint a full picture of the nominee’s impact. Consider requesting letters from:
Request letters early—many people intend to help but may need reminders. Aim for two to three strong letters that add depth, unique stories, or additional context beyond your primary narrative. Include Background and ContextHelp reviewers understand the nominee’s path and commitment. Include:
This background helps place their accomplishments within a broader career or organizational history. Highlight Specific AccomplishmentsConcrete examples bring the narrative to life. Consider including:
Specific evidence of excellence strengthens your case and demonstrates why the nominee stands out among their peers. Review and Refine the NominationBefore submission, have someone else read your nomination package. A fresh perspective can help ensure:
Even seasoned writers benefit from another set of eyes—reviewing your own work often means reading what you intended to say rather than what is actually written. |