Evaluation Grid

Evaluation Framework

The 2026 AproXima-te Award, ‘Care without barriers: innovation, decentralisation and autonomy’, recognises transformative community projects that promote closeness, inclusion and the empowerment of sex workers (SW).

The evaluation criteria ensure a fair and comprehensive assessment, identifying proposals with genuine potential to improve the rights, dignity and quality of life of sex workers.

This evaluation grid standardises the methodology and weighting of each criterion, aiming for maximum clarity and ease of scoring for evaluators.

Criteria
1. Experience of the organising entity and team (weighting: 5%)

Description: Assesses the history, mission and experience of the organisation and team involved with sex workers, with a focus on contexts of social exclusion, sex work, human rights and empowerment.

Score (0–3):

0: No description of the organisation or relevant experience is provided.

1: Generic experience in social intervention is demonstrated, with no clear link to sex workers, community health or contexts of vulnerability.

2: Demonstrated relevant experience with sex workers, sexual health, harm reduction or vulnerable populations.

3: Demonstrates solid, ongoing and specialised experience with sex workers and/or other populations, community health, human rights and reducing inequalities in access to healthcare.

2. Strategic alignment with the theme (weighting: 10%)

Description: Assesses the extent to which the proposal aligns with the theme of this edition: ‘Care without barriers: innovation, decentralisation and autonomy’.

Score (0–3):

0: Shows no connection to the theme of this edition.

1: Superficial or indirect connection to the theme, without a clear focus on decentralisation, innovation or autonomy in access to healthcare.

2: Demonstrates adequate alignment with some of the award’s strategic objectives.

3: Shows strong alignment with the theme “Care without barriers”, demonstrating a clear contribution to decentralisation, innovation and autonomy in access to healthcare.

3. Diagnosis of the identified need/problem (weighting: 5%)

Description: Assesses the ability to identify and contextualise the problem, demonstrating an understanding of the reality faced by SW.

Score (0–3):

0: Fails to identify a specific problem or need.

1: Identifies needs in a generic or poorly substantiated manner.

2: Adequate assessment with reasonable identification of barriers and context.

3: Offers a robust, contextualised and well-founded assessment, demonstrating in-depth knowledge of the geographical, social and structural barriers to accessing healthcare.

4. Decentralisation / territorial accessibility (weighting: 20%)

Description: Assesses the project’s ability to reduce geographical and social barriers to healthcare access, ensuring proximity and effective reach in remote or underserved areas.

Score (0–3):

0: Shows no contribution to the decentralisation of access to healthcare or to the reduction of geographical and social barriers.

1: Demonstrates a limited or unclear contribution to bringing prevention, screening or support services closer to sex workers.

2: Sets out concrete actions to increase proximity to and access to care, including interventions in areas with lower service coverage or through mobile, digital or community-based strategies.

3: Sets out a robust and well-founded strategy to ensure decentralised access to prevention, screening and support, reducing geographical and social barriers and ensuring effective reach in remote, peripheral or underserved areas.

5. Expected impact and scope (weighting: 10%)

5.1. Beneficiaries (weighting: 5%)

Description: Assesses the clarity with which the target audience(s) has/have been identified, with particular emphasis on the estimated number of sex workers and other community members to be involved in the proposed activities.

Score (0–3):

0: Beneficiaries not identified.

1: Generic identification or without substantiated estimates.

2: Beneficiaries identified with reasonable estimates and a defined scope.

3: Clearly identified beneficiaries, with robust, substantiated estimates and a clear distinction between sex workers and other covered populations.

5.2. Results (weighting: 5%)

Description: Assesses the clarity and rationale behind the expected effects of the activities on the daily lives of sex workers, particularly in terms of the recognition of their rights, empowerment, community inclusion, combating stigma and promoting cultures of care.

Score (0–3):

0: Results are non-existent, vague or irrelevant to the objectives.

1: Results are unclear or have limited impact.

2: Results are clearly defined and have the potential for significant impact.

3: Results are clear, well-founded and have strong potential to improve sex workers’ access to healthcare, prevention and autonomy to SW.

6. Viability and execution (weighting: 30%)

6.1. Work plan (weighting: 10%)

Description: Assesses the clarity and robustness of the description of the proposed activities, including the timetable, the locations of the interventions and the implementation strategies, with a focus on community participation.

Score (0–3):

0: Does not present an action plan or presents a very incomplete plan, without a clear description of the planned activities.

1: Presents a poorly structured action plan, with insufficiently defined activities, timetable or implementation phases.

2: Presents an adequate action plan, with clearly defined activities and a timetable that are partially adapted to the local context of the intervention.

3: Presents a detailed, coherent and realistic action plan, with clearly defined activities, a timetable, implementation phases and strategies that are fully adapted to the local context of the intervention.

3: Apresenta plano de ação detalhado, coerente e realista, com atividades, cronograma, fases de implementação e estratégias claramente definidos e plenamente ajustados ao contexto territorial de intervenção.

6.2. Organisational Capacity (Weighting: 5%)

Description: Assesses the organisation’s experience, the team’s competence and the actual capacity to deliver the project.

Score (0–3):

0: Does not provide sufficient information about the team or the organisation, and does not demonstrate the capacity to deliver the project.

1: Demonstrates limited or poorly evidenced organisational capacity, with insufficient information on the team, skills or relevant experience.

2: Demonstrates adequate organisational capacity to implement the project, with a designated team and relevant experience in the area of intervention.

3: Demonstrates strong organisational capacity, with a qualified team, clearly identified skills and proven experience in implementing projects similar to or relevant to the theme of this call for proposals.

6.3. Budget (weighting: 15%)

Description: Assesses the clarity of the proposed use of the grant, the consistency between the budget and the activities, and the adequacy of the resources for the implementation of the project.

Score (0–3):

0: No budget or a completely inadequate budget.

1: An incomplete, unclear or disproportionate budget.

2: An adequate budget that is broadly consistent with the activities.

3: A detailed, realistic budget that is fully consistent with the objectives, activities and expected impact.

7. Participation and involvement of sex workers (weighting: 10%)

Description: Assesses the degree of active and substantive participation by sex workers in the design, implementation and/or evaluation of the project.

Score (0–3):

0: Shows no evidence of participation by sex workers in the project.

1: Indicates occasional, symbolic or purely consultative participation by sex workers.

2: Indicates active participation by sex workers in some stages of the project’s design, implementation or evaluation.

3: Indicates direct, continuous and substantive involvement of sex workers in the design, implementation and evaluation of the project.

8. Network and collaboration (weighting: 5%)

Description: Assesses the ability to build networks, the existence of strategic partnerships and effective collaboration with other organisations or services.

Score (0–3):

0: No networking or partnerships.

1: Limited or informal networking.

2: Identifies relevant partnerships and planned collaboration.

3: Demonstrates a solid and structured network of strategic partners, with effective collaboration and complementary responses.

9. Monitoring and evaluation (weighting: 5%)

Description: Assesses how the project will be monitored and evaluated, including clear indicators, mechanisms for ongoing monitoring and accessible tools.

Score (0–3):

0: No monitoring plan is provided.

1: Presents a monitoring plan that is inadequate in relation to the defined objectives.

2: Presents a monitoring plan with appropriate methods and tools, but with unclear or insufficient indicators.

3: Presents a rigorous monitoring plan, with well-defined, measurable methods and indicators that are aligned with the project’s objectives.

Total Weighting: 100%

This assessment grid enables a balanced and rigorous analysis of proposals, taking into account the technical quality of the application, its strategic alignment with the theme of this edition, the expected impact on reducing inequalities in access to healthcare, and the practical feasibility of implementing the proposal.

Scoring scale and assessment grid

Each parameter will be scored on a scale of 0 to 3, where 0 represents a very poor assessment and 3 represents an excellent assessment. The parameters are weighted according to their relevance, taking into account the purpose of the award.

•  0 = Very poor: Does not meet the criteria or has serious deficiencies.
• 1 = Poor: Meets the criteria to a limited or superficial extent.
• 2 = Good: Meets the criteria adequately and consistently.
• 3 = Excellent: Meets the criteria in an exemplary manner, demonstrating excellence.

Final note

Each application will be assessed on the basis of the weighted sum of the criteria described above.

This methodology allows for a balanced and rigorous assessment of proposals, taking into account:

• The technical quality of the application;
• Strategic alignment with the theme of this edition;
• Expected impact on reducing inequalities in access to healthcare;
• The realistic feasibility of implementing the proposal.