EX-POST EVALUATION of the ESF (2000-2006) - ES fondi

  • No tags were found...

EX-POST EVALUATION of the ESF (2000-2006) - ES fondi

European Social Fund:the importance of EvaluationPaolo PASIMENIEuropean CommissionDirectorate General for Employment, Social Affairs and InclusionUnit "Evaluation and Impact Assessment"Riga, 11 May 2011

EVALUATIONPast: lessons from ex-post 2000-2006Present: improvements & problems in 2007-2013Future: ideas for the post-2013 programming period2

EX-POST EVALUATION of the ESF (2000-2006):Resources• More than €120 billion spent• More than 75 million individuals reached• 1.7 million organizations supported• ESF mostly targeted at unemployed, young and excluded• ESF mainly contributed to EES guideline 17 «implementemployment policies» (33%) and guideline 23 «investment inhuman capital» (29%)• Final recipients mainly reached through training (40%) andcounselling (21%)4

EX-POST EVALUATION of the ESF (2000-2006):ResourcesSources of fundingESF expediture National public National private100%80%60%40%20%0%GreeceHungaryLatviaSloveniaMaltaLithuaniaPolandEU10SlovakiaCzech RepEstoniaPortugalSpainIrelandItalyEU25EU15CyprusNetherlandsGermanyLuxemburgUKAustriaFrance5DenmarkBelgiumSwedenFinland

EX-POST EVALUATION of the ESF (2000-2006):ResourcesYearly ESF Community expenditure as a percentage of public money spent on Labour Market policies6

EX-POST EVALUATION of the ESF (2000-2006):Policy areas• The ESF contributed to bridging the gap between educationsystem and labour market• Adaptability measures mainly targeted employed individuals• The ESF contributed to increase employment and betterlabour market operation• Social inclusion received very strong support by the ESF• The greatest ESF impact was at ‘meso’ and micro-level• The ESF contributed to the improvemement in the status ofwomen in the labour market7

ESF expenditureper EES GuidelineEstimated distribution of ESF expenditure by EES Guidelines normalized to 100%, %, 2000-20065.0%4.0% 0.3%8.0%33.0%9.0%Implement employment policiesInvest in human capital12.0%Ensure inclusive labour marketsAdapt education & training systemsPromote a lifecycle approach to workMatching of labour market needsPromote flexicurity29.0%Ensure employment-friendly wages8

ESF expenditureper instrumentEstimated distribution of ESF expenditure per instrument, %, 2000-20066%7%12%40%TrainingCounsellingInformationPlacementMobilityEngineering15%21%9

Lessons from ex-post 2000-2006for monitoring and evaluationUneven quality of data and data collection methods: missing dataNo information about aid-intensityInterpretation of indicators not always consistent within a MSIndicators do not always cover all programme priorities to the sameextentIndicators cannot be aggregated at EU levelQuality, methodology and scope of evaluation vary substantiallybetween MSLimited knowledge of Member States’ evaluation at EU level (exceptMTE)10

Improvements in 2007-2013:Monitoring• SFC2007 includes data on participantsBut:• Data quality remains uneven• Data collection methods vary greatly• No information about intensity of support of individuals11

Improvements in 2007-2013:Indicators• Common output indicators (Annex XXIII) which can beaggregatedBut:• More than 7000 programme indicators• Result indicators often capture only immediate effects12

Improvements in 2007-2013:Evaluation• On-going evaluation in MSBut:• Evaluation plan only in convergence regions• Substantial variations between MS in quality, frequency,methodology and scope of evaluations• Limited knowledge of MS evaluations at EU level13

THE FUTURE – post 2013Political call: more result than input orientation– Good indicators– Reliable monitoring– Relevant evaluationsEurope 2020 strategy:– Common priorities– Clear framework for priority setting– Logic of intervention and link with NRPLearn from the past:– Ex-post evaluation 2000-2006– Experience with current programming period14

PROGRAMMINGMore synthetic programmesShowing a clear logic of intervention(linking European priorities, national/regional needs, actionsforeseen to address these needs, expected results, financialallocations)Including appropriate indicatorsAnd description of means and timing of data collection15

MONITORING• Limited number of Fund-specific common indicators for all OPs– Output (based on simplified Annex XXIII)– Result indicators capturing direct effects– Common definitions– Reporting in AIR part of admissibility check+ OP specific indicators – as to date• Micro-data collection16

EVALUATIONEX-ANTE:• Serve as basis for negotiating OPs• Justification for the selected priorities• Consistency between resources allocated and needsassessment based on the NRPONGOING:• Support implementation and refine strategies• Analyse longer term effects (integrate counterfactual andqualitative methods)EX-POST:• Synthesis evaluation for each OP: relevant findings of allevaluations carried out during the programming period 17

THANK YOU !Paolo.Pasimeni@ec.europa.eu18

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines