EPSA evaluation and assessment process
All submitted projects, which meet the eligibility criteria, are assessed against seven evaluation criteria:
- Innovation:i.e. the novelty of the solution, the degree to which the case shows a leap of creativity in the practice of public administration (which may include intelligent adaptation, update and extension of past practices or actions), and demonstrates something different that goes beyond what currently exists.
- Stakeholder involvement: i.e. the case shows evidence of stakeholder involvement, e.g. evidence of public and civil society cooperation and/or response to consultation, evidence of political support; in particular, evidence of intelligent engagement with stakeholders which can influence the design and production of services, smart partnership and governance models.
- Relevance of actions taken: i.e. the particular needs and constraints of the context, the target groups and final beneficiaries, and how the actions address their real needs.
- Impact/results: i.e. the realisation of planned objectives and activities; the illustration of proven evidence of benefits, visible impact and tangible results, (which may be based on objectively high levels of achievement).
- Sustainability: i.e. the case shows or describes elements which allow it to be sustained beyond an initial period of the realisation of its objectives and of its activities, including considerations of financial sustainability.
- Transferability and learning capacity: i.e. the case has potential value and lessons to be learnt for other entities because it provides the potential for successful replication in other contexts (different Member States and levels of government); it stimulates a learning, innovation and self-improvement culture within the entity.
- Social inclusion: i.e. the case provides evidence of consideration and application of diversity issues, including - but not restricted to - gender, age, disability and geographical location.
Sufficient detail must also be provided in the applications to demonstrate the quality of the achievements and real outcomes of the case and the lessons learnt.
The assessment is carried out in an independent and impartial multi-step evaluation process.
In the first step, a set number of projects within a concrete award category is allocated to each evaluator based on their professional background and sector (a mix of academia, the practice field and the private sector), nationality (evaluators may not assess projects from their country of origin or employment) and gender. Each project is assessed online, independently and exclusively, by different experts. The evaluators do not know each other, or how the other evaluator assessed the respective project.
During the Consensus Meeting (Step 2), all evaluators come together to review and discuss the first available provisional ranking based on their individual scorings and possible discrepancies. Furthermore, they unanimously decide on the Best Practice Certificate Recipients and on the top short-listed projects in each award category for the onsite visits.
The third step are the on-site validation visits.This generally comprises on-site visits for verification of the results and recommendations of the previous two evaluation steps, i.e. to spot-check whether the content of the application form of the project corresponds to the “reality”; to find the answers to the un-answered questions raised by the evaluators, to detect possible inconsistencies and to gather additional or missing information and data. EIPA representatives do not (re)assess) the projects during the validation process.
The fourth and final step consists of the Jury Meeting, where several jurors (high-ranking stakeholders and/or political personalities, separate from the evaluators) decide on the nominees and the award winners in each category based on the short-listed projects of the on-site visits.
Evaluators of the online evaluation and the consensus meeting (Steps 1 and 2)
15 experts from academia, the public and the private sector coming from 9 countries/nationalities assessed the 149 eligible EPSA 2017 projects during the online evaluation and the consensus meeting (Maastricht, 22-23 June 2017). For more information on the evaluators' profiles, please consult this detailed list.
Through these two steps, the experts identified 34 Best Practices. For more informatoin, please see http://epsa2017.eu/en/content/EPSA-first-results.54/.
List of evaluators by administrative category
Supra-local and local level
- Harry ter Braak (NL)
- Alexandra Ionescu (RO)
- Peter Noordhoek (NL)
- Herwig Reynaert (BE)
- Eva Sejrek-Tunke (AT)
- Reserve/Referee: Christine Leitner (AT)
- Emmanuele Padovani (IT)
- Henk Wesseling (NL)
- Nereo Zamaro (IT)
- Reserve/Referee: Susana Galera (ES)
European and national level
- Jean-Michel Eymeri-Douzans (FR)
- Gerhard Hammerschmid (AT)
- Tore Malterud (NO)
- John Tizard (UK)
- Reserve/Referee: Manuele Bellonzi (IT)
Jury members (Step 4)
The high-level EPSA 2017 jury came together on 26 September to decide about the EPSA 2017 nominees and the winner per category. The jury members were:
- Mrs Angelika Flatz, Director General for the Public Service and Public Service Innovation, Federal Chancellery, represented by Ms Ursula Rosenbichler (AT) (click here for Mrs Rosenbichler's short CV)
- Mr Paul t'Hart, Professor of Public Adminstration at the Utrecht School of Governance, University of Utrecht (NL) (click here for Mr 't Hart's short CV)
- Mrs María Pía Junquera Temprano, General Director for Public Governance, Ministry of Finance and Civil Service (ES)