Assessment of project proposals within EU grant schemes 17 & 18 December 2013 Government Office for Cooperation with NGOs Zagreb VLADA REPUBLIKE HRVATSKE Ured 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 Standards – A 1.1; A 1.2; A n – B 6.1; B 6.2; B n; – C 12.1; C 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 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 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 Applicant 26

Unified Assessment Criteria Feasibility – FA 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 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 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 poor 46

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

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