MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES FOR PUBLIC SERVICES: THE EXPERIENCE OF THE 2007-2013

PERFORMANCE RESERVE IN SOUTHERN ITALY

IOLANDA ANSELMO – SIMONA DE LUCA Ministry of Economic Development

DG REGIO EVALUATION NETWOR MEETINGBRUSSELS, 14-15 OCTOBER 2010

1. Description of the scheme2. The role of indicators, monitoring and

evaluation3. From a performance reserve to a

programming practice?

2007-2013 performance reserve rewarding final policy results: indicators really matter

11 statistical indicators on provision and quality of-Education-Child and elderly care-Water service-Waste management

Targets are set at minimum standard (the same for all Regions)

Indicators and targets drive programs and implementation (action plan, integration of different financial sources and policies)

3 billion Euros assigned to eight Southern Regions if quantified targets are met in 2013 (reward for each target fulfilled)

A share of the resources is assigned in 2009 on the basis of the improvements from the baseline (640 million Euros)

Resources not assigned in 2013 to Regions that don’t achieve the targets can be assigned directly to well performing municipalities in the same region and after to other better performing Regions

Regional disparities in Italy

South: 8 regions; Population 21 millions (36%)

Centre- North

SOUTH CENTRE-NORTH

GDP PER CAPITA € 17.866 € 30.737

UNEMPLOYMENT 12% 4,5%

FEMALE ACTIVITY RATE

37,2%

59,7%

CHILDCARE COVERAGE

4,8% 15,9%

EARLY SCHOOL LEAVERS

23% 16,5%

RECYCLED URBAN WASTE

14,7% 38%

Source: ISTAT, ISPRA for recycled waste; year 2008 (except for childcare coverage for C-N year 2006)

Indicators and targets

OBJ ECTIVE INDICATOR

Centre-North South Target

2013 for South Baseline Current Baseline Current

EDUCATION Early school leavers (%) 16,8 16,5 25,5 23,0 10 Students with poor competencies in reading (%) 14,9 18,2 35,0 37,0

20

Students with poor competencies in mathematics (%) 19,3 22,9 47,5 45,7

21

CHILD AND ELDERLY CARE

Municipalities offering child care services (%) 47,6 52,7 21,1 37,7

35

Children in child care (%) 15,5 15,9 4,2 4,8 12

Old people assisted at home (%) 3,5 3,9 1,6 2,0 3,5

URBAN WASTE MANAGEMENT

Urban solid waste land filled (Kg/ inhabitant)

263,8 237,4 395,3 377,2 230

Recycled urban solid waste (%) 31,6 38,0 8,8 14,7 40

Composted solid waste (%) 29,1 42,6 2,6 9,2

20

WATER Water distributed (%) 71,5 71,9 59,4 60,3 75

Population served by advanced waste water treatment plants (%) 55,6 58,4 49,5 53,1

70

Baseline        Gap still to be filled

Improvement Worsening

Abruzzo

Molise

Campania

Puglia

Basilicata

Calabria

Sicilia

Sardegna

S.01 S.04 S.05 S.06 S.07 S.08 S.09 S.10 S.11

Tar

get

=10

%

Tar

get

=35

%

Tar

get

=12

%

Tar

get

=3,

5%

Tar

get

=23

0 K

g/a

b.

Tar

get

=40

%

Tar

get

=20

%

Tar

get

=75

%

Tar

get

=70

%

Tar

get

=70

%

istruzione asili nido gestione rifiuti urbani servizio idrico integrato

ADI

4%12% 1,2%410

Kg/ab.13% 7% 25% 47%50%30% 8% 2,3%

320Kg/ab.

27% 13% 23% 23%47%23%20%

Dettaglio S.11

The picture in 2009

… when choosing indicators: Official source Comparable data (across time and territories) Regional/sub-regional breakdown Data available timely and frequently

… when setting targets challenging but realistic (Lisbon strategy, benchmarking

with other regions)

… when implementing the system Guarantee timely and sub-regional data (ad hoc agreement

with statistic provider) Improve the quality of statistics (moral suasion through

regional authorities and at local level to increase the response rate)

Make clear and transparent the meaning of indicators (methodological notes and workshops with statistic provider)

Regular update and diffusion of data on the website (including innovative tools)

Binding indicators need special attention

Every year: data indicators updated (most with sub regional breakdown) + Reports from the regional administrations

Technical group (central and regional administrations, statistical national institute ISTAT) use data and report to promote corrective actions (other than guaranteeing the correct implementation of rules)

All data and reports on the web-site

Monitoring: feedback on action and transparency

Monitoring statistical indicators and actions is not enough to assess the progress in well being of citizens

More in-depth assessment is needed to drive action

Main challenges:

- Issues not covered by indicators (e.g. integration between social and health services to elderly people)

- Quality of services (e.g. sea water pollution)

- Cost of services (sustainability)

Evaluation challenges

Reward device is not sufficient without clear identification of responsibilities and strong engagement of citizens

So far...

specific commitments at all levels identified (regional action plans, technical assistance project by line Ministries)

local incentive scheme introduced

relevant investment to guarantee soundness and transparency of rules and indicators

However ...

• still limited commitment at political level

• difficult integration between policies

• need to increase engagement of citizens

Lessons for the future 1

Lessons for the future 2

From a reward scheme to a result driven programming practice: binding programs to indicators can work

-Conditioning financing to the achievement of results (stick) is a much stronger incentive than rewards (carrot)

-Binding programs not only to final results: need to introduce intermediate steps to be monitored together with statistical indicators

iolanda.anselmo@tesoro.itsimona.deluca@tesoro.it

http://www.dps.tesoro.it/obiettivi_servizio/eng/ml.asp

http://www.dps.tesoro.it\DPSeXplorer

THANK YOU!