Evaluation Process

How are projects evaluated?

The EPSA 2023-24 evaluation process entails four stages:

  1. Online evaluation

Following the initial eligibility check by EIPA, all eligible projects were distributed to external experts for the first evaluation. Each project was assessed by two evaluators independently, based on the application form and against the six evaluation criteria.

The evaluators score projects on each evaluation criterion to develop the provisional ranking of projects in each award category.

  • Relevance: e.g., evidence of the particular needs and constraints of the context, the core needs of target groups and final beneficiaries and how the actions address those needs.
  • Innovation: e.g., evidence of the novelty of the solution, the degree to which the case shows a leap of creativity in the practice of public administration and demonstrates a different approach that goes beyond what was previously applied and how this results from a learning, innovation and self-improvement culture within the entity; adaptation/evolution of pre-existing innovative solutions by other entities and/or within the entity as the result of a process of initial innovation, monitoring and continuing improvement.
  • Stakeholder engagement: e.g., evidence of citizen, business and civil society cooperation and/or response to the consultation, evidence of intelligent engagement with external and/or internal stakeholders that can influence the design and production of services and of intelligent partnership and governance models; innovative methods of stakeholder engagement and co-creation, user-centric innovation, openness and transparency.
  • Impact/results: e.g., evidence of achievement of planned objectives and activities by an illustration of proven evidence of benefits, visible impact/tangible results of improving efficiency and/or effectiveness (which may be based on demonstrably high levels of achievement or achievement of significant improvements from a low base); methods of monitoring impact through quantitative (e.g. performance standards, benchmarks) and/or qualitative instruments (e.g. stakeholder consultation).
  • Sustainability: e.g., evidence of how the case shows elements that allow it to be sustained beyond an initial period, including considerations of financial and operational sustainability and of senior administrative level support/political support; measures implemented to ensure the sustainability of disruptive/radical solutions by institutionalizing innovation.
  • Transferability: e.g., evidence of how the case has potential value and lessons which are relevant to other entities because it provides the potential for successful replication in or adaptation to other contexts (e.g. different Member States and levels of government and peers).
  1. Consensus meeting

In the consensus meeting, all evaluators came together to review and discuss the provisional ranking. Based on this review, the evaluators collectively decided on the shortlisted projects in each award category. Moreover, Good Practice Certificates and Special Recognitions were awarded.

Please accept statistics, marketing cookies to watch this video.

  1. Validation visits

Following the consensus meeting, EIPA conducts visits to shortlisted applicants to validate and verify the results and recommendations of the previous two evaluation steps.

Please accept statistics, marketing cookies to watch this video.

  1. Jury meeting

In the final step, applicants are invited to present their projects in an online jury meeting. Collectively, the jury decides on the winners of three award categories.