Evaluation Criteria

The criteria to be considered by the Panel of Judges are as follows:

a. Singularity

This has to do with creating initiatives that are unprecedented within the public service. This criterion is being applied to find out how the innovative experience came about, its background, and what inherent features make it unique. Explicit reference must therefore be made to: (a) who, when, and how in terms of the origins of the innovative experience; (b) similar international, national, and/or local experiences that have inspired, informed, and/or contributed to the experience being nominated; (c) and an explanation as why the experience submitted is INNOVATIVE.

b. Public Value and Benefit

This means demonstrating that implementation of the innovative experience generates public value and benefit and it results in greater benefit to the citizenry (e.g.: shorter waiting times, information in clear language, simplified processes, etc.). Reference should therefore be made to: (a) characterization of the target population, (b) size of beneficiary group, (c) coverage targets/ indicators, (d) outcome indicators, (e) impact indicators, and (f) tools, methodologies, and techniques to be considered for measuring outcomes and impact of an innovative experience in terms of its objectives and proposed targets (e.g., opinion surveys, field experiments, natural experiments, and/or randomized controlled trials (RCTs), etc.

c. Replicability

This refers to the conditions for transferability and replicability of the innovative practice in other countries of the Americas. The possibility of adapting administrative processes to other institutional contexts, funding accessibility, political, social, and cultural conditionalities of the organization and the environment, etc., should therefore be weighed. Accordingly, reference should be made to: (a) operational complexity during implementation of the practice in your country/organization, (b) degree of political sensitivity or need to secure support from political authority in your country/organization, (c) critical success factors (CSF) in your country/organization, (d) changes in the legal system that may be necessary in your country/organization, (e) degree of inter-institutional coordination required in your country/organization, (f) human and financial resources needed vs. obtained in your country/organization.

d. Efficiency

This refers to a public institution’s capacity to organize its processes so as to streamline its resources (financial, human, logistical, etc.) and in turn yield higher and better outcomes. Explicit reference must therefore be made to: (a) total cost of the practice (estimated in US$/fiscal year), (b) per person/per beneficiary cost (in US$/fiscal year), (c) cost-benefit indicator (if possible, compared with similar experiences or alternative practices), (d) total number and percentage of staff involved in managing the innovative practice.

e. Sustainability

This means how durable, resilient, and entrenched the experience is to be able to sustain itself over time, resist political changes in leadership, institutional and organizational changes, funding, degree of commitment of government officials and staff, etc. The following should therefore be explicitly referenced: (a) period legally in force, (b) resilience of the innovative practice to changes in political leadership (in number of cycles and/or years passed), (c) resilience of the innovative practice to changes in administrative leadership (in number of cycles and/or years passed) (d) resilience of the innovative practice to changes in funding sources and budget, (e) total percentage of funding sourced from international cooperation, (f) number of donors/partners (last 2-3 fiscal years), and (g) level of legal recognition of the practice (e.g., ordinary law, policy document, charter, regulation, international protocol).

f. Gender, Diversity, and Human Rights Perspective

This entails determining how the initiative submitted for competition promotes improvements in the conditions of equality and equity between men and women and people of diverse gender identity from an inter-sectional approach, in the dimensions of access, treatment, opportunities, quality, differentiation of public service benefits, etc. The gender, diversity, and human rights dimension is also taken into consideration within the institution implementing the innovative experience.

g. Citizen Advocacy

This relates to demonstrating and specifying the type, mechanisms, and frequency of citizen involvement at the various stages of the innovative experience (either through its design, planning, implementation, evaluation and/or monitoring), for it to meet the institutional objectives set forth and, at the same time, line up with citizen priorities.

These types and mechanisms of engagement comprise: (a) information: public information is dispensed to the citizens through dissemination mechanisms (for example: reports, releases, transparency portals, and the like); (b) consultation: objective and balanced public information as well as established decision-making have taken into consideration contributions and analyses provided by citizens, civil society organizations, and social actors through mechanisms for listening (e.g.: surveys, public hearings, social media, chatbots, etc.); (c) co-design: problems and solutions adopted denote ongoing, direct engagement with the public at large, civil society organizations, and social actors through collaborative design mechanisms (e.g.: concept tests, prototyping, validation trials, innovations labs, etc.); and (d) collaboration: problems have been identified and solutions delivered through ongoing, close collaboration with members of civil society organizations and social actors by means of collaborative implementation mechanisms (e.g.: participation of leaders from the beneficiary community in the "last mile delivery" of the innovative practice).