Assessment of project proposals within EU grant schemes

1. VLADA REPUBLIKE HRVATSKE Ured za udruge Assessment of project proposals within EU grant schemes 17 & 18 December 2013 Government Office for Cooperation with NGOs Zagreb This project is financed by the European Union

2. Welcome – Day 1 Ana Ugrina

3. Purpose, Methodology, Contents PetrusTheunisz

4. 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 Matricesand other tools.

5. 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

6. 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

7. Contents: Exercises • Exercise 1 – Application Forms, Evaluation Grids and Unified Assessment Criteria • Exercise 2 – From IPA to ESF

8. Materials • Guidelines for Assessors • Annex 1 – draft Evaluation Matrix Concept Note • Annex 2 – draft Evaluation Matrix Full Application • Annex 3 – concept ESF Evaluation Grid

9. Module 1Assessment of Project Proposals

10. Assessment of Project Proposals • Experiences • Quality • Attributes, Criteria and Standards

11. Assessment of Project Proposals Experiences

12. Assessment of Project Proposals Quality

13. Assessment of Project Proposals Attributes, Criteria and Standards

14. 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 The EU PCM Quality Framework contains 3 Attributes, 16 Criteria and 64 Standards Attributes, Criteria & Standards EC PCM Guidelines Chapter 4, page 23

15. 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 Attributes, Criteria & Standards

16. Exercise 1

17. 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

18. Module 2Unified Assessment Criteria

19. Unified Assessment Criteria Relevance CN 1.1 • Objectives of the CfP • Priorities of the CfP

20. Unified Assessment Criteria Relevance CN 1.2: • Geographic: Needs • Geographic: Constraints • Synergy • Duplication?

21. Unified Assessment Criteria Relevance CN 1.3: • Target Groups and Final Beneficiaries • Quantitative and Qualitative • Definition of Problems and Needs • Addressing Problems and Needs

22. Unified Assessment Criteria Relevance CN 1.4: • Cross Cutting Issues • Innovation • Good Practice

23. Unified Assessment Criteria Capacity – FA 1.1 - Project Management: • Applicant • Co-Applicant(s) • Affiliate

24. Unified Assessment Criteria Capacity – FA 1.2 – Technical Expertise: • Applicant • Co-Applicant(s) • Affiliate(s)

25. Unified Assessment Criteria Capacity – FA 1.3 – Management: • Applicant • Co-Applicant(s) • Affiliate(s)

26. Unified Assessment Criteria Capacity – FA 1.4 – Financial: • Sufficient • Stable • Diverse • Co-Financing ! Only for the Applicant

27. Unified Assessment Criteria Feasibility – FA 3.1 - Activities • Consistent • Appropriate • Practical

28. Unified Assessment Criteria Activities – FA 3.2 – Action Plan • Format • Consistency • Realistic / Achievable

29. Unified Assessment Criteria Feasibility – FA 3.3 – PCM • Logical Framework • Objectively Verifiable Indicators • Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting

30. Unified Assessment Criteria Feasibility – FA 3.4 – Participation • Partnership, sensible, balanced • Roles, responsibilities, based on core competences • Track Record

31. Unified Assessment Criteria Impact – FA 4.1 • Target Groups > External Environment • Final Beneficiaries > External Environment

32. Unified Assessment Criteria Sustainability – FA 4.2 – Multipliers • Concrete Measures • Applicant, Co-Applicants, Affiliates • Target Groups, Final Beneficiaries

33. Unified Assessment Criteria Sustainability – FA 4.3 • Ownership • Sectoral • Political • Institutional • Financial • Environmental

34. 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

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

36. Closure

37. Welcome – Day 2 Ana Ugrina

38. Module 3From IPA to ESF

39. From IPA to ESF • Guidelines for Assessors • General Guidelines • Specific Guidelines • Unified Assessment Criteria

40. Feedback

41. From IPA to ESF Towards a unified and standardized ESF evaluation process?

42. Exercise 2

43. 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

44. Module 4Scoring, Commenting and Quality Assurance

45. Scoring 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

46. Scoring Very good, good, adequate, poor, very poor

47. Scoring

48. 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

49. Synthesis

50. 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