Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Twinning Project RO/06/IB/SPP/01Support to Authority for Coordination of Structural Instruments (ACIS) to ensure a sound and efficient management of the EU Structural Funds
National Evaluation ConferenceBucharest, 18.02.2009
Evaluation of SFSome German experience
Benno SavioliFEEDBACK-Bremen
Twinning Project RO/06/IB/SPP/01Support to Authority for Coordination of Structural Instruments (ACIS) to ensure a sound and efficient management of the EU Structural Funds
Decentralised System of Implementation
Federal State and 12 / 16 federal Länder Structural Funds since 1989 – now 5th funding period Mixing & switching implementation between centralisation &
decentralisation according to: Funds, Funding Period, Objective 1 (former GDR) and Objective 2/3 areas, Single Programming Document (e.g. ESF 2000-2006) or multiple OPs
approach (current ESF) on side of COM Management of evaluation reflected this variety of
implementation settings
Twinning Project RO/06/IB/SPP/01Support to Authority for Coordination of Structural Instruments (ACIS) to ensure a sound and efficient management of the EU Structural Funds
History of shifts in approach to Evaluation I Ideal function of evaluation
Instrument for critical reflection regarding to adequacy, efficacy and efficiency of public policy interventions
Introducing abstract public interest (general stakeholder) by objective methodology creating legitimacy
Complement to NPM discourse• Active policy /conditional programmation• Commodification of public policy implementation• Functional equivalent to market prices neutral assessment / judgment
Actual function: Support to management Monitoring substitute Monitoring complement Publicity & policy justification
Administrative attitudes Impingement and reluctance Benchmarking /QMS
• mainly focused to providers /administrative performance not that much More active use as tool for publicity and as a rationale for action
Twinning Project RO/06/IB/SPP/01Support to Authority for Coordination of Structural Instruments (ACIS) to ensure a sound and efficient management of the EU Structural Funds
History of shifts in approach to Evaluation II
Selection of evaluators, types of evaluators, capacity building Direct grants to public agencies supporting structural funds
implementation Grants based on calls for proposals (NGOs, University institutes) Public procurement (private research institutes, consultancies)
Setting up networks & partnerships Informal network of ESF evaluators for exchange of experience,
harmonisation of approaches, managed competition, active shaping monitoring via evaluation sub-committees of monitoring committees
EES – European Evaluation Society – Professionalisation, Research and exchange
German Evaluation Society (DeGEval) – Lobbying, standardisation and recommendations, professionalisation by training and topic related working groups
Twinning Project RO/06/IB/SPP/01Support to Authority for Coordination of Structural Instruments (ACIS) to ensure a sound and efficient management of the EU Structural Funds
Effects of EU evaluation request
Administration got used to it Without Structural Funds this wouldn’t have happened Number and scope of evaluation expanded (also outside SF) Administration set up technical teams (capacity raised – partially by
hiring former evaluators) Administration took evaluations more under control (political risks)
Methodology applied evolved Net effects (control /comparison group designs) Impacts and sustainability – macro-economic modelling
Professionalisation in general Standardisation Post graduate courses Business
BUT: Moderate influence on policy design Evaluation usually ‘comes to late’ for political process
Twinning Project RO/06/IB/SPP/01Support to Authority for Coordination of Structural Instruments (ACIS) to ensure a sound and efficient management of the EU Structural Funds
Two highlights German ESF Stammblatt – Evaluation shapes Monitoring
Common and overarching all ESF programmes approach for standardised data gathering on
• Projects (type of activity, target groups, benefits offered, region, financial data)• Project providers (type, region, size, economic classification)• Participants (target groups, gender, age, education, unemployment, participation in
active measures, individual results, labour market status change) Common classifications and indicator definitions
CIP EQUAL evaluation Systematic multi-level evaluation: EU-wide /national /Projects (DP) Intense exchange between national and DP-evaluations
• Guidance function of national evaluation• Workshops for DP evaluators on SF-general, Innovation, Gender Mainstreaming, etc• Handouts on topics of common concern and interest• DP evaluators as source for national evaluation (regular questionnaires, interviews,
etc.) Tremendous increase in evaluation experience by number of involved people
Twinning Project RO/06/IB/SPP/01Support to Authority for Coordination of Structural Instruments (ACIS) to ensure a sound and efficient management of the EU Structural Funds
Positive influence of SF evaluation and promoting factors
Professionalisation on both sides Administration Evaluators
Good cooperation & coordination Cooperation and professional exchange (even under potential
competitors) Active coordination of evaluation by MAs and monitoring sub-
committees ( strong /well renowned topic owner) Independence and fairness
Procurement rules can’t guarantee independence Independence is a matter of professional attitude and its evidence is
given in the process of examination and presentation of results Evaluation is not the judge himself but provides valid information for
rationale judgments
Twinning Project RO/06/IB/SPP/01Support to Authority for Coordination of Structural Instruments (ACIS) to ensure a sound and efficient management of the EU Structural Funds
Thank you for your attention!
Now the floor is open for you
!!!
