welcome and introduction - léargas€¦ · adult ed priorities 2018 improving and extending the...

Welcome and Introduction

10.15: Coffee and Registration10:30 Understanding Strategic Partnerships 10:50 Needs Analysis/Proportionality/Priorities 12.00 Understanding Impact 12:30 LUNCH13.30 Writing Comments 14:00 Budget Assessment 14:45 Consolidation process 15:15 Questions and Close

Programme

Key Action 2 and Strategic Partnerships

Key Action 2

• Cooperation for Innovation and the Exchange of Good Practices

• Targets the development, transfer and/or implementation of innovative practices

• Targets positive and long‐lasting change on the participating organisations

Centralised

• Knowledge Alliances

• Capacity‐building for Higher Education

• Capacity‐building for Youth

• Sector Skills Alliances(separate Call)

Decentralised

• Strategic Partnerships supporting Innovation

• Strategic Partnerships supporting Exchange of Good Practices

• School Exchange Partnerships

Understanding Strategic

Partnerships

1. GOALS AND AMBITIONSUnd

erstan

ding

Strategic Partnerships

Strategic Partnerships aim to support the development, transfer and/or implementation of innovative practices as well as the implementation of joint initiatives promoting cooperation, peer learning and exchanges of experience at European level.

Strategic Partnerships supporting Innovation: to develop innovative outputs and engage in intensive dissemination and exploitation actions associated with new/existing products and innovative ideas.

Strategic Partnerships supporting Exchange of Good Practices: to develop or reinforce networks, to increase capacity to operate at transnational level, and to share and discuss ideas, practices and methods.

In 2018, two new formats have been introduced for Strategic Partnerships supporting Exchange of Good Practices, namely:School Exchange Partnerships and Transnational Youth Initiatives.

2. FIELDS and FORMATSUnd

erstan

ding


FIELD Strategic Partnerships: Types and Formats

Adult Education SP supporting InnovationSP supporting Exchange of Good Practices

Higher Education SP supporting Innovation

School EducationSP supporting InnovationSP supporting Exchange of Good PracticesSchool Exchange Partnerships (new for 2018)

Vocational Education and Training

SP supporting InnovationSP supporting Exchange of Good Practices

YouthSP supporting InnovationSP supporting Exchange of Good PracticesTransnational Youth Initiatives (new for 2018)

2. FIELDS and FORMATSUnd

erstan

ding


Cross‐Sectoral Partnerships

Projects can also choose to run cross‐sectoral Strategic Partnerships

There is no separate application form for a cross‐sectoral Strategic Partnership, applicants must still choose the main field under which the application is to be

presented

There is no specific location in the application form for the project to identify themselves as a cross‐sectoral partnership. They may specifically state this in the

narrative or it may be clear from the chosen priority.

3. NEW FORMAT FOR SEUnd

erstan

ding


School Exchange Partnerships aims to provide mobility opportunities for pupils and staff in the school sector to help the participating schools to develop as organisations, to increase their ability to work internationally and to strengthen their European dimension.

only schools from Programme countries can participate: minimum of 2 and maximum of 6 schools from at least 2 different Programme countries.

supports mobility activities (LTTs) of staff, pupils and accompanying staff, as well as PMI, exceptional and special needs costs (according to standard rules for

KA2‐SPs); no funding available transnational partner meetings, IOs or MEs.

funding limited to €16,500 per school per year (special needs funding is extra).

Und

erstan

ding


Strategic Partnership for Innovation

[all fields]

Management

Project Meetings IOs MEs LTTs Exceptio

nalSpecial Needs

targeting the development of innovative outputsalongside intensive dissemination and exploitationactions associated with new or existing products

and innovative ideas

7a. KNOWING THE DIFFERENCE

Und

erstan

ding


Strategic Partnership for Exchangeof Good Practices (not HE)

Management

Project Meetings LTTs Exceptio

nalSpecial Needs

targeting those wishing to develop or reinforce networks,to increase their capacity to operate at transnational level, and to

share and discuss ideas, practices and methods(such partnerships might also produce tangible outputsand are expected to disseminate the results of theiractivities albeit in a manner proportional to the aim

and scope of the project)

7b. KNOWING THE DIFFERENCE

Und

erstan

ding


School Exchange Partnerships (SE only)

Management LTTs Exceptio

nalSpecial Needs

targeting mobility opportunities for pupils and staff in the school sector, to help the participating schools to develop as

organisations, to increase their ability to work internationally and to strengthen their European dimension; important for quality

assessment to be proportional aligning actions and activities with the type and format of this funding action

7c. KNOWING THE DIFFERENCE

4. PARTNERS AND ACTORSUnd

erstan

ding


Most Strategic Partnerships are required to involve at least 3 partners from 3 programme countries (Youth SPs and SEPs reduce this to 2 partners from 2 programme countries)

No upper limit to the number of partners yet management (PMI) contributions are paid for a maximum of 10 organisations.

Strategic Partnerships are open to organisations active in any field of education, training and youth, or other socio‐economic sectors, including those with a transversal remit (e.g. local and regional authorities, recognition bodies, trade organisations, chambers of commerce, guidance centres, cultural bodies).

Strategic Partnerships should involve an appropriate range of partners bringing forth complementary experience and expertise that will enable goals and objectives to be delivered, with participation having confirmed strategic value in all cases (SEPs are an exception for which schools only participation is targeted).

4. PARTNERS AND ACTORSUnd

erstan

ding


Programme Countries

A PARTNER COUNTRY (from anywhere in the world) can participate where there is genuine added value with specific skills, experience or expertise brought forth that is essential for successful project achievement (and which is not able to be found in Erasmus+ programme countries). Receives funding but cannot host LTTAs (apart from Short‐term Staff Training)

• UK participation continues as previously• Associated partners can participate (no funding can be accessed, but roles must be described)

Assessment and Scoring

Assessment and Scoring: Criteria and Ceilings

ASSESSMENT CRITERION MAXIMUM SCORE

Relevance 30

Quality of Project Design 20

Quality of Project Team 20

Impact and Dissemination 30

Note 1: scores apply to all KA2 Strategic Partnerships (including SEPs)

Note 2: to be considered for financing, projects must achieve atleast 50% under each criterion plus at least 60 points in total.

Assessment and Scoring: Use of Scoring Bands

Scoring Ceiling

VERY GOOD GOOD FAIR WEAK

…application addresses all relevant

aspects of the criterion in question convincingly and successfully; the

answer provides all the information and evidence needed and

there are no concerns or areas of

weakness.

…application addresses the criterion well,

although some small improvements could be made; the answer

gives clear information on all, or nearly all, of the evidence needed.

…application broadly addresses the

criterion, but there are some

weaknesses; the answer gives some relevant information, but there are several areas where detail is

lacking or the information is

unclear.

…application fails to address the criterion or cannot be judged due to missing or

incomplete information; the answer does not

address the question asked, or gives very

little relevant information.

30 POINTS 26 ‐ 30 21 ‐ 25 15 ‐ 20 0 ‐14[fails threshold]

20 POINTS17 ‐ 20 14 ‐ 16 10 ‐ 13 0 ‐ 9

[fails threshold]

Note: additional scoring bands exist in other funding actions

Thinking about Priorities

The application form asks…

• Please select the most relevant horizontal or sectoral priority according to the objectives of the project.

• Please comment on your choice of priorities.


• The evaluator must evaluate if the project addresses at least one of the priorities ( either horizontal OR field specific) as specified in the Programme Guide.

• If the project addresses a Horizontal Priority, it must clearly prove the impact in the field under which it is applying.

• If a project addresses the horizontal priority ‘inclusive education, training and youth’ it will be considered highly relevant.

• The Irish National Agency is not prioritising a European priority in a national context.

• If a proposal does not provide convincing evidence that is relevant to at least one priority the proposal must be scored as ‘weak’ for the award criterion ‘Relevance of the Project’ as a whole, and rejected as a consequence.


Where are the priorities coming from?


Europe 202020 million fewer people at risk of poverty40% completion of tertiary educationEmployment rate 75% among 20‐64 year oldsEarly school leaving at < 10%

Lifelong learning & mobilityQuality of Education & TrainingEquity, social cohesion, active citizenshipCreativity, innovation, entrepreneurship

Rethinking Education 2012o Development of transversal skills – problem solving, creative thinking,

communication etc.o Foundation or basic skills are achieved by all….o Language learning o Potential of ICT in learning and teaching ( and OER)o Supporting Europe’s teachers to upskill

New Skills Agenda -2016

Paris Declaration - Promoting Citizenship and the common values of freedom, tolerance and non discrimination through education- 2015

Upskilling Pathways -2016

School Development and Excellent Teaching for a Great Start in Life (2017)

4 million mobilities 2 million HE students650,000 VET students800,000 Staff from AE, HE, School, VET 25,000 partnerships

2014-2020

Strategic Partnerships must address either at

least one horizontal priority or at least one specific priority relevant to the field

that is mostly impacted

Strategic PartnershipsHorizontal Priorities 2018

ACHIEVEMENT OF RELEVANT AND HIGHQUALITY SKILLS AND COMPETENCES

SOCIAL INCLUSION

OPEN EDUCATION AND INNOVATIVEPRACTICES IN A DIGITAL ERA

EDUCATORS (INITIAL TRAINING, RECRUITMENT, INDUCTION, PROFESSIONAL

DEVELOPMENT ETC.)

TRANSPARENCY AND RECOGNITION OFSKILLS AND QUALIFICATIONS

SUSTAINABLE INVESTMENT, PERFORMANCE AND EFFICIENCY IN

EDUCATION AND TRAINING

SOCIAL & EDUCATIONAL VALUE OFEUROPEAN CULTURAL HERITAGE

Strategic PartnershipsSchool Priorities 2018

STRENGTHENING THE PROFILE OF THETEACHING PROFESSIONS

PROMOTING THE ACQUISITION OF SKILLSAND COMPETENCES

SUPPORTING SCHOOLS TO TACKLE EARLYSCHOOL LEAVING

SUPPORTING EFFORTS TO INCREASEACCESS TO EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

AND CARE

Strategic PartnershipsVET Priorities 2018

Strategic PartnershipsAdult Ed Priorities 2018

IMPROVING AND EXTENDING THE OFFEROF HIGH QUALITY LEARNING TO ENHANCE

LITERACY, NUMERACY AND DIGITALCOMPETENCES

FACILITATING ACCESS THROUGH SKILLSIDENTIFICATION, TAILORED LEARNING &

VALIDATION OF NON/ INFORMALLEARNING

GUIDANCE TO ENCOURAGE ADULTS TOUPGRADE THEIR LITERACY, NUMERACY

AND DIGITAL SKILLS

EXTENDING AND DEVELOPING ADULTEDUCATORS COMPETENCES INCLUDING

ICT

PROMOTING WORK‐BASED LEARNING

INCREASING THE QUALITY OF VETPROVISION IN LINE WITH EQAVET

RECOMMENDATIONS

FURTHER STRENGTHENING VETCOMPETENCES IN VET CURRICULA

ENHANCING ACCESS TO TRAINING ANDQUALIFICATIONS FOR ALL THROUGH

CONTINUING‐VET

Strategic PartnershipsVET Priorities 2018

CONTINUING PROFESSIONALDEVELOPMENT OF VET TEACHERS,

TRAINERS AND MENTORS

DEVELOPING INSTITUTIONALPARTNERSHIPS SUPPORTING

INTERNATIONALISATION STRATEGY OF VET LEARNERS

Group exercise

10 mins

Read the project description on your table

Assign a horizontal and/OR field specific priority to it

Evaluating Needs

Section E in the application form:

Description of the Project• Please explain the context and the objectives of your project as well as the needs and target groups to be addressed?

Evaluating Needs

Relevance Criteria

The evaluator must evaluate the extent to which…

• The proposal proves that a solid analysis, drawing on existing knowledge, know‐how, and practice, has been carried out to identify needs of the target group(s), and organisations.

• The needs identified are relevant for the field under which the proposal was submitted and are clearly linked to the priorities that the project intends to meet.

Evaluating Needs

Macro ‐ Secondary research, Policy documents

Micro – primary research, examples from partners, testimonials

Transnational v National approach

Evidencing Needs

Evaluating Needs

Proportionality Principle: in order to ensure a fair assessment of all applications, experts shall take due account of the size of the project and the experience of the participating organisations; the quality of each application shall thus be assessed for all award criteria considering this proportionality principle.

Evaluating Needs

Impact CriteriaThe evaluator must evaluate the potential impact of the project;

• On participants and participating organisations, during and after the project lifetime

• Outside the organisations and individuals directly participating in the project, at local regional, national and/or European levels

Evaluating Needs

DESIRED RESULTSCURRENT SITUATION

Group Exercise

• Read the short project description• What do you think about how they have evidenced the gap/need for this project?

• Does it convince you that the project idea will address the gap? Yes or no – Explain why

• What evidence or explanation is missing? How could they improve this?

20 Mins

Creating Comments

Assessment Overview: Writing Comments

Individual Assessment: OEET Assessment Form

Add comments for each assessment

criterion

Add overall comments (highlighting strengths and weaknesses)

Add comments specifically for use

by the NA

Add scores for each assessment criterion (refer to scoring

bands and remember thresholds!)

Total automatically calculated by OEET.

Remember different maximum scores exist

for different assessment criteria

Confirm whether reductions are proposed to the original grant

Additional boxes are provided.

Assessment Overview: Comments Each award criterion comprises several elements (see briefing sheets) which must be considered and commented on;

Experts should make a judgement on the extent to which the application meets defined criteria with judgements based solely on the information provided in the application and ensuring that applicants are not penalised more than once for the same issue;

Experts should keep in mind the project type, the scale of planned activity and the amount of funding requested and should integrate the proportionality principle into their assessment;

Comments should be provided in text format (not bullet points) and should respect the 5 CsThe NA staff are responsible for ensuring that all assessments meet the minimum standards

Coherent:easy to understand even for a reader that has not read the application

Comprehensive: covering each of the award criteria and incorporating all, of the composite elements

Consistent: easily aligned with the scores that have been awarded for each criterion and within the predefined scoring bands

Courteous: polite and respectful (note that comments are used to provide feedback to applicants)

Concise:whilst there will always be exceptions, comments should be of a standard size i.eno more than one page of the assessment form

Individual Assessment: Scoring Bands

Scoring Ceiling

SCORING BANDS

VERY GOOD GOOD FAIR WEAK…application addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question convincingly and

successfully; the answer provides all the information and evidence needed and there are no concerns or

areas of weakness.


although some small improvements could be made; the answer gives clear information on all, or nearly all, of the evidence needed.

…application broadly addresses the criterion, but there are some

weaknesses; the answer gives some relevant

information, but there are several areas where detail

is lacking or the information is unclear.

…application fails to address the criterion or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete information; the answer does not address the

question asked, or gives very little relevant

information.

40 POINTS 34 ‐ 40 28 ‐ 33 20 – 27 0 – 19[fails threshold]


20 POINTS 17 – 20 14 ‐ 16 10 ‐ 13 0 – 9[fails threshold]

Briefing Sheet: KA2 Assessment Comments

Some Tips!

Don’t copy or even refer to entire sections of the application form

Don’t take statements at face value – look for

evidence!

Try to come to a conclusion

Summarise in the General Comments

Section!

Back up negative comments with

recommendations

Some Tips! ‐ Examples

Don’t copy entire sections of the application form

As the project outlines, EU data shows 30% of all non‐EU nationals work in the agriculture sector. In Ireland 36% of staff employed in the agriculture sector come from outside of Ireland, and 77% of staff from outside Italy are employed in thesector. With rising immigration the number of people from minority ethnic backgrounds working in the sector will rise and the need for training will be even more relevant.

The project has demonstrated the need for the training by referencing relevant European and National studies.


Don’t take statements at face value – look for evidence!

The application states that there are no similar programmes in this area.

The application demonstrates that while there are other programmes in this area they do not provide training interventions that promote intercultural understanding.


Project objectives are clearly stated but it is difficult to judge the extent to which these can be successfully achieved from the application.

Project objectives are clearly stated but there is insufficient detail in the activities outlined in the application to demonstrate that these can be successfully achieved.

Try to come to a conclusion


The initial Multiplier Event is not appropriate.

The initial Multiplier Event takes place too early in the project for any intellectual outputs to be disseminated.

Back up negative comments with

recommendations


The project “Online Mentoring and Guidance” is aimed at developing a model social network environment, profiling past pupils of selected schools and engaging them as mentors to provide links with the worlds of 3rd level education and work, identifying career guidance and career information needs of students and establishing viable and sustainable on‐line learning partnership and mentoring arrangements. The project involves a diverse mix of partners from 7 countries with extensive experience in European projects and a relevant list of associated partners is included. The project duration is 24 months. There are 5 TPMs focused on assessment of project development and implementation. Multiplier events in the form of dissemination workshops will be organized in all 7 countries combined with a final project conference in Ireland. No TTLs have been foreseen in this project. The expected outcomes of the project include: a new career guidance model, establishment of school‐centric social networks to link pupils with past pupils in on‐going mentorship, a new in‐service training course for teacher and guidance experts and a new induction training program to support past pupils as students.

Example of a Project Summary for the National Agency

Individual Assessment: Scoring Bands

Scoring Ceiling

SCORING BANDS

VERY GOOD GOOD FAIR WEAK…application addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question convincingly and

successfully; the answer provides all the information and evidence needed and there are no concerns or

areas of weakness.


although some small improvements could be made; the answer gives clear information on all, or nearly all, of the evidence needed.

…application broadly addresses the criterion, but there are some

weaknesses; the answer gives some relevant

information, but there are several areas where detail

is lacking or the information is unclear.

…application fails to address the criterion or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete information; the answer does not address the

question asked, or gives very little relevant

information.

40 POINTS 34 ‐ 40 28 ‐ 33 20 – 27 0 – 19[fails threshold]


20 POINTS 17 – 20 14 ‐ 16 10 ‐ 13 0 – 9[fails threshold]

Budget Assessment

Overview of KA2‐SP Budget Assessment

Budgets are reviewed under the Quality Criteria Quality of Project Design.

Experts are expected to confirm that the proposal “provides value for money comparing results planned to the grant requested” and that the “grant request is realistic to support high quality implementation of the project and its activities”.

KA2‐SP budgets are largely based on unit costs with amounts calculated per day / per category / per meeting / per month although there are some exceptions (e.g. special needs; third‐party provision of goods and services where clearly justified);

National agencies rely on experts to judge and comment on the type and number of units being proposed ensuring that they are relevant, appropriate and realistic (i.e. not overestimated or underestimated);

Even in projects that are scored highly, experts might judge that units are excessive or unjustified and might propose reductions in the proposed numbers of units : these recommendations can be used, by the NA, to determine a reduction on the proposed (or awarded) grant where a project is selected for funding;

For projects not passing one or more thresholds (consolidation stage), it is not necessary to point out all areas of the budget where there are inaccuracies or excesses, focusing instead on constructive feedback and areas for change.

Budget Assessment – Tips Sheet

Activity: Interpreting the Financial Rules

Reduce? Recommend?or

The project wishes to hold a Transnational Project Meeting in Spain even though there is no Spanish partner in the project.



The project has requested the following staff time for IO2. The Italian partner is the lead partner and according to the IO description all other partners will carry out the same tasks:



Organisation OutputIdentification

Category Country No. of Working Days

Grant per day

Grant Requested

TCD 02 Researcher Ireland 25 241 6,025

KUNGLIGA 02 Researcher Sweden 20 241 4,820

JOSIPA JURJA 02 Researcher Slovenia 40 137 5,480

SOSPIRE 02 Researcher Italy 35 214 7,490

ASPIRE LTD. 02 Researcher UK 20 214 4,280

The project has requested the following staff time for IO1. The Irish partner is the Coordinator and lead partner.



Organisation OutputIdentification

Category Country No. of Working Days

Grant per day

Grant Requested

TCD 01 Researcher Ireland 210 241 50,610

AKADEMIA 01 Researcher Norway 50 241 12,050

TRABAJO 01 Researcher Spain 55 137 7,535

INSPIRE 01 Researcher Iceland 60 214 12,840

SOLUTIONS 01 Researcher UK 60 214 12,840



Event Identification E1

Event Title Workshop for the Start‐up manager competence profile

Country of Venue Ireland

Event Description This workshop will be an event in which a group of experts are asked about their perceptions, opinions, beliefs, and attitudes towards a product or service, in this present case, the start‐up managers associated competences. Questions are asked in an interactive way and participants are free to talk with other group members. This workshop will be the central activity of a dedicated event on the project, focusing on the specific training needs of managers for start‐ups.


Activity: Interpreting the Financial RulesEvent Identification C1

Event Title SP‐VET‐SHORT ‐ Short‐term joint staff training events

Country of Venue Ireland

Event Description This short term staff training event will essentially take the format of a capacity building session for educators on the main project outputs, the best practice guide (O2), online platform (O4) and toolkit (O3).The local “train the trainers” event will be hosted by CIT through CIT’s live e‐learning platform, Adobe Connect. This online aspect allows partners to provide training opportunities for a larger audience, those who cannot attend in person, while also facilitating a small number (10) of local participants with a face‐to‐face training session. The online training sessions allow partners to heavily disseminated the event and the project itself via social media, networks like CEEN, etc.

Participating Organisations CIT

Overview of KA2‐SP Budget Assessment

Organisation Description of Item Amount

945628266: H2 LEARNING LTD

External Evaluator €5,000

949221825: South Eastern Regional College

Printing of project brochures €2,500

945628266: H2 LEARNING LTD

Design and printing of Teacher’s manual

€3,500

941475502: Istituto Statale Design of project website €2,000

Review the following Exceptional Costs


Briefing Sheet: KA2 Budget Assessment

Assessment Processesand People

Overview of Core Assessment and Selection Steps

Advance Circulation of Briefing Materials

Expert Briefing(joint or field‐specific)

Conflict ofInterest Check

Quality Assessment of “Eligible” Applications

by Experts

Quality Assuranceby NA Staff

Consolidation of Quality Assessments (where needed) by

Lead Experts

Scores and Comments uploaded to OEET

Ranking List Agreed by Evaluation Committee

Contracts Issued to Successful Applicants

Recruit, Select and Contract Experts

Provide Expert Briefings and Briefing Materials

Confirm “Eligible Applications” that require assessment

Ensure no “Conflict of Interest” among selected Experts

Manage and Support Experts during Assessment

Quality AssureExpert Assessments

(5Cs, 6Cs)

Create RankingList

Host Evaluation Committee

Contract Successful Applicants

Overview of NA Activities in Assessment and Selection

Expert Assessment 1 (internal or external)

Assessment Scores and Comments

Ranked List of Assessments


Expert Assessment 2 (internal or external: action dependant)

Difference of 30 or more points and

thresholds passed by both experts?

Y


Consolidation (where 3 experts this involves only 2 experts with closest scores)

Consolidated Assessment Scores and

Comments

Ranked List of Assessments

QUALITY ASSESSMENTINVOLVING A SINGLE EXPERT

QUALITY ASSESSMENTINVOLVING MORE THAN ONE EXPERT

There may be occasions where you have to work

with others.QUALITY ASSESSMENT INVOLVING A SINGLE EXPERT

KA1 Mobility Projects where the grant request is ≤ €60,000 KA2 School Exchange Partnerships (SEPs) where the grant request is ≤ €60,000

QUALITY ASSESSMENT INVOLVING MORE THAN ONE EXPERT KA1 Mobility Projects where the grant request is > €60,000 (does not apply to holders of a VMC or ECHE) KA2 School Exchange Partnerships (SEPs) where the grant request is > €60,000 KA2 Strategic Partnership applications (other than SEPs) HE Mobility Consortia and VMC Applications for Accreditation

Overview of Expert Assessment Activities

Consolidation Overview

Consolidation is normally undertaken for ALL Strategic Partnership applications (grant requests normally > €60,000 under this funding action);

Consolidation will only ever involve 2 experts (if a third expert is involved, the 2 experts with the closest scores will be asked to consolidate);

Comments and scores are combined in a single consolidated assessment (half‐scores can be used during Consolidation only; averages are not automatically used – scores should be in line with the consolidated comments);

When the draft consolidation is complete the lead expert should forward a copy of the Word Consolidation Form to the second expert for approval.

After the lead evaluator has received the approval from the second evaluator they should forward the completed Word Consolidation Form to the National Agency for sign‐off.

Only during Consolidation can you discuss a project with another assessor (initial assessments remain independent and do not change);

Comments are provided in text format and should respect the 6 Cs:

Coherent, Comprehensive, Consistent, Courteous, Conciseand…

Consolidated: comments should read as single texts (sentences or paragraphs) and should be harmonised, not contradictory.

Briefing Sheet: Expert Assessment and Consolidation

welcome and introduction - léargas€¦ · adult ed priorities 2018 improving and extending the...

Documents