5. Award Criteria

The applications will be reviewed by the FORTHEM OUTREACH Mission Board, with representatives from all FORTHEM universities. Eight proposals will be selected.

Eligible applications will be assessed on the basis of the following criteria:

     Criteria

     Definition

     Maximum points

     1. Relevance and motivation

This criterion evaluates how the project implements the selected policy priorities, and the motivation of the team members. The following items will be evaluated with up to 5 points each:

  • Sustainability of the project
  • Motivation of the team members
  • Impact
  • Innovation
 

     20

     2. Quality of the content and activities

This criterion evaluates how the project will be implemented in practice and how likely it will reach its objectives. The following items will be evaluated with up to 5 points each:

  • Quality of the activities and deliverables
  • Methodology
  • Timetable
  • Appropriateness of the budget
 

     20

     3. Communication and dissemination

This criterion evaluates the project’s approach to communicating its activities and disseminating its results and to sharing knowledge and experiences within the sector and across borders. The following items will be evaluated with up to 5 points each:

  • Communication strategy considering the objectives and target groups
  • Dissemination strategy considering the sector and the geographic scope
 

     10

     4. Quality of the project team

This criterion evaluates the composition of the project team. The more FORTHEM universities participate, the higher the evaluation.

  • Quality of the project team, structure and management, previous experience, etc. (up to 4 points)
  • 3 points for each FORTHEM university participating in a team (minimum 3 universities - maximum 7 universities)
 

     25

     5. Involvement of NGOs

This criterion evaluates the direct or indirect involvement of organisations, entities and NGOs related to the object and development of the project presented.

  • The number of entities involved (up to 5 points)
  • The presence of the entities in the places where the project will be developed (up to 5 points)
  • The transnational presence of the entities in the universities involved (up to 5 points)
 

     15

     6. Challenges

This criterion evaluates the following items with 5 points each:

  • Risks mainly considered
  • Alternative feasibility options considered
 

     10

     7. Demands for support from the universities involved

 
  • Facilities
  • Personnel, coaching
  • Project management basics
 

     Only for notes - No points given

 

1. Relevance and motivation (20)

This criterion evaluates how the project implements the priorities according to the Sustainable Development Goals referred to in section 1.Actions.

To this end, applicants are invited to answer the following guiding questions:

  • What is the project’s strategy to implement one or more of the chosen priority (-ies)?
  • What is innovative in the project compared with the most recent stage in the development of civic engagement activities (innovative approach to actions, target communities, etc.)
  • What is the expected short/medium/long term impact of the project?
  • What is the strategy proposed to ensure sustainability beyond the project’s duration, both in terms of project outcome, as well as in terms of impact on the beneficiaries involved in the project?
  • What is the motivation of the team members?

2. Quality of the content and activities (20)

This criterion evaluates how the project will be implemented in practice (quality of the activities and deliverables, methodology, timetable, appropriateness of the budget) and how likely it will reach its objectives.

To this end, applicants are invited to answer the following guiding questions:

  • What are the activities proposed to respond to the objectives of the project?
  • What are the needs of the presented target groups in relation to the objectives and activities of the project?
  • What is the methodology of implementation of the activities?
  • What are the expected results (outcomes) and the deliverables (output) of the project?
  • What is the planned qualitative and quantitative assessment of the project?
  • What is the time-table for implementing the project activities?
  • Why is the allocation of the submitted budget appropriate to the activities undertaken in the framework of the project?

3. Communication and dissemination (10)

This criterion evaluates the project’s approach to communicating its activities and disseminating its results and to sharing knowledge and experiences within the sector and across borders. The aim is to maximise the impact of the project results at local, regional, national and European levels, and to ensure the sustainability of the impact beyond the project’s lifetime.

To this end, applicants are invited to answer the following guiding questions:

  • What is the strategy of communication of the project considering the objectives and target groups?
  • What is the dissemination strategy to share knowledge and provide information of the results of the project to the sector and across border?

4. Quality of the project team (25)

This criterion evaluates the composition of the project team. The more FORTHEM universities participate, the higher the evaluation.

To this end, applicants are invited to answer the following guiding questions:

  • Explain the composition of your project team.
  • What is the structure and management of the team in relation with the project?

5. Involvement of NGOs (15)

This criterion evaluates the degree of involvement and connection of the project to the social fabric of the area or the location of the project. The evaluation will take into account:

  • The number of entities involved
  • The presence of the entities in the places where the project will be developed
  • The transnational presence of the entities in the universities involved

6. Challenges (10)

        This criterion evaluates the following items with 5 points each:

  • Risks mainly considered
  • Alternative feasibility options considered

7. Demands for support from the universities involved (no points)

In case of ex-aequo proposals, these proposals will be ranked in accordance with the following rule: Priority will first be given to the proposals having obtained the highest score in the award criterion “Relevance”. If ex-aequo proposals still remain, priority will then be given to the proposals having obtained the highest score in the award criterion “Quality of the content and activities”. If ex-aequo proposals still remain, priority will then be given to the proposals having obtained the highest score in the award criterion “Quality of the project team”. If ex-aequo proposals still remain, priority will then be given to the proposals having obtained the highest score in the award criterion “Involvement of NGOs”. If ex-aequo proposals still remain, priority will then be given to the proposals having obtained the highest score in the award criterion “Challenges”.