Assessment of project proposals within EU grant schemes 17 & 18 December 2013 Government Office for Cooperation with NGOs Zagreb VLADA REPUBLIKE HRVATSKE.

Assessment of project proposals within EU grant schemes

17 & 18 December 2013

Government Office for Cooperation with NGOs

Zagreb

VLADA REPUBLIKE HRVATSKEUred za udruge

This project is financed by the European Union

Welcome – Day 1

Ana Ugrina

2

Purpose, Methodology, Contents Petrus Theunisz

3

Purpose

• Engaging public administration bodies in charge of managing Call for Proposals in developing, defining and applying a set of unified assessment

• Collecting feedback on the Guidelines for Assessors, Evaluation Matrices and other tools.

4

Methodology

• Welcomes, brief verbal presentations / reflections

• Introductions, brief verbal presentations• Modules, lectures with questions and answers• Exercises, small group work, reflections,

questions and answers• Closures, short brief summary

5

Contents: Modules

• Module 1 – Assessment of Project Proposals

• Module 2 – Unified Assessment Criteria• Module 3 – From IPA to ESF• Module 4 –Scoring, Commenting and

Quality Assurance

6

Contents: Exercises

• Exercise 1 – Application Forms, Evaluation Grids and Unified Assessment Criteria

• Exercise 2 – From IPA to ESF

7

Materials

• Guidelines for Assessors• Annex 1 – draft Evaluation Matrix

Concept Note• Annex 2 – draft Evaluation Matrix Full

Application• Annex 3 – concept ESF Evaluation Grid

8

Module 1

Assessment of Project Proposals

9

Assessment of Project Proposals

• Experiences• Quality• Attributes, Criteria and

Standards

10

Assessment of Project Proposals

Experiences

11

Assessment of Project Proposals

Quality

12

Assessment of Project Proposals

Attributes, Criteria and Standards

13

Attributes, Criteria & Standards

• 3 Attributes:– A - Relevance– B - Feasibility + Sustainability– C - Project Management

• 16 Criteria:– A 1 - A 5– B 6 - B 11– C 12 - C 16

• 64 Standards– A 1.1; A 1.2; A n– B 6.1; B 6.2; B n;– C 12.1; C 12.2 - C 16.5

EC PCM Guidelines Chapter 4, page 23

The EU PCM Quality Framework contains 3

Attributes, 16 Criteria and 64 Standards

Attributes, Criteria & Standards

• 5 + 1 Attributes:– A - Relevance– B – Efficiency– C – Effectiveness– D – Impact– E – Sustainability– F – Capacity

• 6 CN and 13 FA Evaluation Questions

• 19 CN and 48 FA Assessment Criteria

• N Indicators

The project proposal assessment Quality

Framework contains 6 Attributes, 19 Evaluation

Questions (6 + 13), 77 (indicative) Assessment

Criteria, n Indicators

Exercise 1

16

Exercise 1 (1 h 15 min + 15 min)

• Study the Application Form template• Study the Concept Note and Full Application

Evaluation Grid• Check and comment on Unified Assessment

Criteria for concept note section 1 and full application section 1 to 6

• Present findings in a 15 minute plenary presentation

17

Module 2

Unified Assessment Criteria

18

Unified Assessment Criteria

Relevance CN 1.1

•Objectives of the CfP •Priorities of the CfP

19

Unified Assessment Criteria

Relevance CN 1.2:

•Geographic: Needs•Geographic: Constraints•Synergy•Duplication?

20

Unified Assessment Criteria

Relevance CN 1.3:

•Target Groups and Final Beneficiaries•Quantitative and Qualitative•Definition of Problems and Needs•Addressing Problems and Needs

21

Unified Assessment Criteria

Relevance CN 1.4:

•Cross Cutting Issues•Innovation•Good Practice

22

Unified Assessment Criteria

Capacity – FA 1.1 - Project Management:

•Applicant•Co-Applicant(s)•Affiliate

23

Unified Assessment Criteria

Capacity – FA 1.2 – Technical Expertise:

•Applicant•Co-Applicant(s)•Affiliate(s)

24

Unified Assessment Criteria

Capacity – FA 1.3 – Management:

•Applicant•Co-Applicant(s)•Affiliate(s)

25

Unified Assessment Criteria

Capacity – FA 1.4 – Financial:•Sufficient•Stable•Diverse•Co-Financing

! Only for the Applicant26

Unified Assessment Criteria

Feasibility – FA 3.1 - Activities

•Consistent•Appropriate•Practical

27

Unified Assessment Criteria

Activities – FA 3.2 – Action Plan

•Format•Consistency•Realistic / Achievable

28

Unified Assessment Criteria

Feasibility – FA 3.3 – PCM

•Logical Framework•Objectively Verifiable Indicators•Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting

29

Unified Assessment Criteria

Feasibility – FA 3.4 – Participation

•Partnership, sensible, balanced•Roles, responsibilities, based on core competences•Track Record

30

Unified Assessment Criteria

Impact – FA 4.1

•Target Groups > External Environment•Final Beneficiaries > External Environment

31

Unified Assessment Criteria

Sustainability – FA 4.2 – Multipliers

•Concrete Measures•Applicant, Co-Applicants, Affiliates•Target Groups, Final Beneficiaries

32

Unified Assessment Criteria

Sustainability – FA 4.3 •Ownership•Sectoral•Political•Institutional•Financial•Environmental

33

Unified Assessment Criteria

Budget – FA 5.1 – Appropriateness•Format, by costs and NOT by activity•Exclusion / Inclusion•Calculations, Clarifications & Justifications•Sources of Funding•Contributions, Revenues•Changes between CN and FA

34

Unified Assessment CriteriaBudget – FA 5.2 – Cost / Benefit Ratios•General Cost / Benefit Ratio•Specific Cost / Benefit Ratios– HR– Travel– Equipment & Supplies– Local Office– Other Costs, Services– Other

35

Closure

36

Welcome – Day 2

Ana Ugrina

37

Module 3

From IPA to ESF

38

From IPA to ESF

• Guidelines for Assessors– General Guidelines– Specific Guidelines

• Unified Assessment Criteria

39

Feedback

40

From IPA to ESF

Towards a unified and standardized ESF

evaluation process?

41

Exercise 2

42

Exercise 2 (1 h 15 min + 15 min)

• Study the ESF Evaluation Grid• Compare the EU Evaluation Grid with the

ESF Evaluation Grid• Develop and define Unified Assessment

Criteria for all sections (1 to 6)• Present findings in a 15 minute plenary

presentation

43

Module 4

Scoring, Commenting and Quality Assurance

44

Scoring

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

45

Scoring

Very good, good, adequate, poor,

very poor46

47

Scoring

Commenting

•Concise, should provide a lot of information in a few words; brief and comprehensive•Pertinent, applicable to the

Evaluation Question; should not address a matter that the EQ does not cover

48

49

Synthesis

Synthesis

• score = 5, only positive comments • score = 4, positive and negative comments,

balance = 1 negative comment• score = 3, positive and negative comments,

balance = 2 negative comments • score = 2, positive and negative comments,

balance = 3 negative comments• score = 1, only negative comments

50

Quality Assurance

•Overall Evaluation Process• Individual Assessments

51

Closure

52