Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies – Experiences of 2 Years 6 June 2006 Hugues FELTESSE

Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies – Experiences of

2 Years

6 June 2006

Hugues FELTESSE

2005 Peer Review in the Field of Social Inclusion Policies www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net 2

PEER REVIEW

Mutual learning is an essential element of the Open Method of Co-ordination

A peer review is an event where a host country presents a policy or institutional arrangement (good practice) to a selected group of decision-makers and experts from other countries (peer countries) and to stakeholders' representatives and European Commission officials.

Peer reviews allow for an open discussion on social inclusion policies. They are designed to disseminate examples of good practice and examine their transferability to other Member States.


GOALS

Not competition. No ranking the policies. But the reasons why certain policies were well

succeeded in certain conditions can be replicated elsewhere, if appropriate care is taken in adapting them to different cultural, institutional and economic contexts.

Looking for success stories, or at least inspiring stories.


3 objectives (1)

1. Reaching a better understanding Member State's policies in combating poverty and social exclusion

a frank and objective account about not only what works well, but also what does not work as intended, or not at all.

hosts can also learn with the critical remarks from peers as well as similar experiences that have been carried out in their respective countries.


3 objectives (2)

2. To improve the effectiveness of policies and strategies


3 objectives (3)

3. To facilitate the transfer of key components of policies, or of institutional arrangements, (approaches, methods, organisational framework…) which have proved effective in combating poverty and social exclusion


Methodological aspects (1)

One host country (senior officials,experts, stakeholders representatives: max 5)

7 peer countries (1 policy maker+ 1 expert) 2 European stakeholders (NGOs’or local

authorities’networks, social partners) E.U Commission representative(s)



= A good mix of policy- makers, practioners and researchers

brings a broader perspective guarantees a comprehensive analysis of the measure or

policy under review provides for lively discussions.

+ active participation of Commission representatives provides an excellent opportunity to communicate the Commission’s view to the Member States in a non-directive way



An insight into a specific policy or institutional arrangement that goes far beyond the level of information provided at a traditional conference

In contrast with most conferences the great majority of participants in the 2004-2005 peer reviews had read the papers distributed before the meeting, and prepared comment papers



• The relatively small size of the meetings enables in-depth discussion, and facilitates the active participation of all.

Even controversies, when they occur, are handled and used as learning opportunities. Thus, the cultural and political diversity represented by the different groups of participants becomes an asset rather than an obstacle.



However: the local policy implementers could be underrepresented

i.e. the civil servants or NGO specialists who directly deliver the services to the beneficiaries,

Therefore a prominent role should be given during the site visits, allowing direct communication with the participants and direct contacts with beneficiaries


Level of satisfaction (questionnaires distributed at the end of each peer review)

Usefulness of the outcomes: between 78% and 100% very positive or positive with only one exception (53,3%)

Cost-effectiveness of the process: positive or very positive by a majority of 73% to 95,5% with two exceptions (58% and 28%),

Efficiency of the organisation: a predominantly feedback-between 70% and 95,5% with again two exceptions (40% and 62,5%)


Documents and Reports

Short reports (1-2 pages) and minutes of the meetings (published on the website)

Synthesis reports, based on discussion and comment papers and meeting results(available in 3 languages, prepared and published on the website and in hard copies)

Electronic newsletter in English, French and German


Website

The most important dissemination tool of the peer review programme.

A high success with in the first half of 2005 a total of 27,756 documents downloaded from the website and in the second half of 2005 the number of 26,398 documents downloaded

In the last three months of 2005, the average number of visits per day rose to 123


Transfer of the "good practice” or components of it (1)

Surveys realised among the peer review participants 6 to 12 months after the seminars showed:

the peer reviews engender a high number of transfer activities, and if there is no transfer they increase mutual learning, stimulate new ideas and contribute to the policy debate and practice in the peer countries.

They also contribute in some cases to amendments and further development of the host countries’ programmes under review.



32 out of 99 participants who answered responded positively to the question of transfer of a host country programme or components of it to their peer country:

3 out of 7 in the UK, 5 out of 7 participants in the peer reviews in Finland and

Germany, In Ireland, 4 out of 8 participants In Austria 2 of the 5 peer countries 3 out of 9 participants in Denmark, 2 out of 9 participants in the Czech Republic, 2 out of 7 participants in Hungary, 3 out of 8 in Greece 3 out of 9 in Belgium.



In some cases activities already under way, In other cases only an intention to take the

example studied in the peer review into consideration for national policy development.

New Member States are clearly over-represented amongst those who reported an impact of a peer review in terms of transfer activities


Impact of the "good practice” or components of it (1)

31 out of 94 peer country and stakeholder representatives confirmed the reviews ignitate policy debate in the peer countries

11 out of 23 host country participants confirmed the reviews had provoked amendments to or further developments of the programmes presented


Impact of the "good practice” or components of it (2)

96 of the 123 participants confirmed stimulation of new ideas through participation in a peer review

In the cases of the UK, Irish and Italian peer reviews all participants answered ‘yes’.


Succes stories (1)

Impact of the Irish Peer Review on Over-indebtedness:

Creation of a "Consumer Insolvency Act" in Hungary

Discussion of new measures for debt reduction in Denmark by the Parliament

Feasibility study on Irish and Dutch systems of debt counseling commissioned in Germany


Succes stories (2)

Impact of the UK and the Danish Peer Reviewson Homelessness

Mandatory Policy Formulation For Marginalised Groups In Denmark inspired by the UK Peer Review

Inter-ministerial "Protocol of Collaboration" in Romania following the peer review on the "Rough Sleepers Unit" in London

Proposal to build "skaeve huse" (alternative housing) in the Netherlands inspired by the Danish experience


Succes stories (3)

Impact of the German Peer Review on Reconciliation of work and family life

"Familienallianz" (Family Alliance) launched in Austria Impact of the Italian Peer Review on Social exclusion

of families Complementary benefits for families provided in

Romania Impact of the Finnish Peer Review on mobilisation of

all relevant actors Pilot project on social support networks in Latvia


To go further (1)

Clear Monitoring and evaluation process and clear definitions are needed from the Member States to facilitate the assessment process.

We need also to focus more closely on the link between tools, indicators and targets.

.


To go further (2)Relevance for European Policies

The peer review process can provide the spark to ignite changes and improvements in social inclusion policies. But:

Lack of clear evaluation criteria for the assessment of relevant policies at EU level.

Absence of clear EU definitions. Definitions should not endanger the richness of the experiences and approaches, but should provide tools to structure the debate and to allow comparison between Member States.

Lack of evident links between policies at European level, national level and local level..

Perhaps in future more attention should be paid to aftercare and follow-up activities.


Thank you very much for your attention !

For more information see:www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net


Level of satisfaction


Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Peer Review: Usefulness of the Outcomes

33,3

54,5

25,0

61,5

31,8

20,0

42,1

35,7

40,9

26,3

33,3

50,0

13,3

25,0

40,9

66,7

27,3

66,7

30,8

54,5

66,7

52,6

57,1

45,5

57,9

44,4

37,5

40,0

62,5

45,5

18,2

8,3

7,7

13,6

13,3

5,3

7,1

13,6

15,8

11,1

12,5

26,7

12,5

13,6

11,1

13,3 6,7

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

SE 2004 (12)

UK 2004 (11)

AT 2004 (12)

NL 2004 (13)

FI 2004 (22)

FR 2004 (15)

IE 2004 (19)

DE 2004 (14)

IT 2005 (22)

DK 2005 (19)

CZ 2005 (18)

HU 2005 (8)

PT 2005 (15)

EL 2005 (16)

BE 2005 (22)


Impact of peer review exercise on programme presented / policy debate and practice in peer countries: Did it provoke

amendments or further developments?n=117

25,0

66,7

50,0

20,0

37,5

44,4

50,0

33,3

27,3

20,0

61,5

36,4

40,0

75,0

33,3

100,0

100,0

50,0

80,0

62,5

55,6

50,0

66,7

72,7

80,0

38,5

63,6

60,0

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

01/SE (4)

02/UK (6)

03/AT (6)

04/NL (5)

05/FI 88)

06/FR (5)

07/IE (8)

08/DE (9)

01/IT (2)

02/DK (9)

03/CZ (11)

04/HU (10)

05/PT (13)

06/EL (11)

07/BE (10)

yes no


Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Peer Review:Possibility to Transfer Policy Reviewed to Your Country

10,0

50,0

12,5

27,3

6,7

9,1

15,4

25,0

6,3

7,1

12,5

7,1

23,1

21,1

60,0

20,0

12,5

36,4

40,0

36,4

69,2

41,7

75,0

28,6

60,0

25,0

35,7

46,2

57,9

30,0

30,0

50,0

27,3

46,7

54,5

7,7

25,0

18,8

50,0

20,0

62,5

28,6

30,8

15,8

25,0

6,7

7,7

8,3

14,3

20,0

28,6

5,3

9,1

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

SE 2004 (10)

UK 2004 (10)

AT 2004 (8)

NL 2004 (11)

FI 2004 (15)

FR 2004 (11)

IE 2004 (13)

DE 2004 (12)

IT 2005 (16)

DK 2005 (14)

CZ 2005 (10)

HU 2005 (8)

PT 2005 (14)

EL 2005 (13)

BE 2005 (19)


Has there been any kind of transfer of the host country programme or components of it?

(peer country participants only, n=99)

42,9

20,0

71,4

50,0

71,4

33,3

22,2

28,6

37,5

33,3

100,0

57,1

80,0

100,0

28,6

100,0

50,0

28,6

100,0

66,7

77,8

71,4

100,0

62,5

66,7

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

01/SE (2)

02/UK (7)

03/AT (5)

04/NL (4)

05/FI (7)

06/FR (5)

07/IE (8)

08/DE (7)

01/IT (2)

02/DK (9)

03/CZ (9)

04/HU (7)

05/PT (10)

06/EL (8)

07/BE (9)

yes no


Impact of peer review exercise on programme presented / policy debate and practice in peer countries: Did it stimulate

new ideas?n=123

50,0

100,0

50,0

20,0

88,9

83,3

100,0

77,8

100,0

88,9

90,9

90,0

76,9

90,9

70,0

50,0

50,0

80,0

11,1

16,7

22,2

11,1

9,1

10,0

23,1

9,1

30,0

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

01/SE (4)

02/UK (7)

03/AT (6)

04/NL (5)

05/FI (9)

06/FR (6)

07/IE (11)

08/DE (9)

01/IT (2)

02/DK (9)

03/CZ (11)

04/HU (10)

05/PT (13)

06/EL (11)

07/BE (10)

yes no


Do you know of bilateral contacts between your ministry (or other national institutions in your country) and the host

country or with other peer countries after the event, in order to follow up exchange of experience and transfer of good

practice?n=128

33,3

37,5

10,0

36,4

44,4

22,2

45,5

30,0

7,7

9,1

20,0

66,7

62,5

100,0

100,0

90,0

100,0

63,6

55,6

100,0

77,8

54,5

70,0

92,3

90,9

80,0

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

01/SE (3)

02/UK (8)

03/AT (6)

04/NL (5)

05/FI (10)

06/FR (6)

07/IE (11)

08/DE (9)

01/IT (2)

02/DK (9)

03/CZ (11)

04/HU (10)

05/PT (13)

06/EL (11)

07/BE (10)

yes no


Did you receive requests for information on the peer review and its results from colleagues or institutions within your

country?n=126

50,0

37,5

33,3

20,0

20,0

50,0

25,0

22,2

22,2

27,3

30,0

15,4

54,5

60,0

50,0

62,5

66,7

80,0

80,0

50,0

75,0

77,8

100,0

77,8

72,7

70,0

84,6

45,5

40,0

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

01/SE (4)

02/UK (8)

03/AT (6)

04/NL (5)

05/FI (10)

06/FR (6)

07/IE (12)

08/DE (9)

01/IT (2)

02/DK (9)

03/CZ (11)

04/HU (10)

05/PT (13)

06/EL (11)

07/BE (10)

yes no