The peer review is an instrument used to further mutual learning experiences. In this context, projects and practices are evaluated by comparable colleagues from other municipalities (aka peers), who adopt the stance of 'critical friends'. Peers come from cities of similar size, with similar problems, a similar environment, and similar means.
|
working steps
|
1.
initial report
|
2.
peers'
desk review
|
3.
peer review workshop
|
4.
peers'
feedback
|
5.
input results into LSG
|
|
tasks
|
content: cp. below
|
1. develop 'hypotheses' and questions;
2. decide what information is needed beyond the 'initial report' and
3. who should be invited (individuals and/or representatives from stakeholder groups)
(for example:
cp. below)
|
1. short presentation of 'initial report'
2. additional presentation(s) on peer questions / hypotheses
3. additional stakeholders (interviews, presentations or involvement in discussions
|
at the end of the peer review workshop:
peers give short feedback / recommend-actions / considerations on the basis of their 'desk review' and the results
|
incorporate results into project or programme
|
|
who?
|
host city
|
peers
|
host city, peers, additional stakeholders
|
peers
|
host city
|
|
when?
|
4 weeks before the workshop
|
2 weeks before the workshop
|
during the workshop
|
during the workshop
|
during the workshop
|
Brief, problem-focused description of the city and its challenges (related to the project / programme under review) Structure of the 'initial report' (no more than 5-10 pages)
- short overview on the structure of the project / programme under review (in a way a summary of the following; in addition: financial resources and legal basis for the project / programme under review)
- problem / issue related other projects / programmes of the city; lessons learnt for the project / programme under review; links to these projects / programmes
- main challenge / objectives of the project / programme under review
- corresponding planned / already implemented concrete actions
- concrete objectives of these action(s)
- tools and instruments used to meet these objectives
- actors and stakeholders (departments; civil society etc.; instruments used for cooperation)
- expected / already existing results
- experienced pitfalls and problems / barriers and drivers during the measure implementation process
- concrete solutions to overcome the barriers and to make use of the drivers which are being worked on at the moment
- questions / issues to be discussed with the peers
- as an annex: additional documents (should be considered very carefully in order not to "swamp" peers)
Peer 'Desk Review' - an example
Challenge / objectives
inclusion of migrants in a disadvantaged neighbourhood
Proposed measures
- open a 'cultural café' as a meeting and information point (mainly on health and educational issues)
- introduce a 'neighbourhood mothers' programme (women from the community of immigrant background are trained to support families in health, educational, administrative and other issues; they act as contact and support persons in the neighbourhood in question)
Peers' hypotheses
Based on information provided in the host city's initial report
- we know the city has a permanent consultative committee on cultural issues composed of 15 members that meets 4 times a year;
- we don’t know how representative or qualified its members are;
- we presume that the municipality does not take full advantage of the committee’s input.
- we know that immigrants in the neighbourhood do not have adequate competence in dealing with officialdom, are often not familiar with education and that health problems attributable to unbalanced nutrition are present, especially in the case of children.
- we don't know whether women of the cultural / ethnic background in question will be prepared to be trained as neighbourhood mothers;
- we do not know who will run the cultural café;
- we assume that, due to the cultural background of the neighbourhood residents, the 'cultural café' will be a meeting point for men only. The link between the two measures will therefore be limited.
- Background of committee members? How were they appointed?
- Is the committee taken seriously? How frequently is the committee consulted by the municipality?
- What recommendations have been made recently? What follow-up have they received from the municipality?
- What experience / lessons learnt can be found (for example) from teachers with children of immigrant background?
- Who will run the cultural café?
- Do social workers have experience with migrant groups in the neighbourhood?
Questions and suggestions on stakeholders to be invited to the WS / to be interviewed
To meet and/or to be invited to the workshop: Committee chairperson, a teacher from a neighbourhood school,
Possible Structure of the Workshop
Day 1 - morning: short presentation of the initial report
city tour (mainly projects / areas that are associated to challenges that are met by the project under review
Day 1 - afternoon: site visit (project / programme area)
Day 2 - morning: additional presentations on peers questions / hypothesises
Day 2 - afternoon: interviews
Day 3 - morning: compilation of feed back
Day 3 - afternoon: feed back session