Performance and Evaluation 2014-2020

Veronica Gaffey, Kai Stryczynski, Adam Abdulwahab, Daniel Mouqu DG REGIO Evaluation Unit

What is the problem?

Current programmes are often just designed to spend.
Objectives vague, How to recognize success or failure often not clear, Difference monitoring evaluation not clear. Shortcomings in knowledge of evaluation methods

Consequently, it is difficult to demonstrate value of the policy.

What is proposed?
More Concentration A focus on results (not only spending) Programmes with clear articulation of what they aim to change and how Better gathering of basic data on outputs Performance Framework and Reserve to incentivise performance Evaluation more focused ex ante; evaluation plan obligatory, evaluation of the effects of each priority during the programming period; summary of evidence in 2020; ex post by Commission

Draft Guidance: Concepts and Recommendations at P:\Evaluation\2014-2020

3

I Result orientation what is a result?

For each priority axis
Change of the starting point: Each priority axis shall articulate what it wants to change. What motivates the policy?
E.g., accessibility of a region, productivity of SMEs

Express the dimension of change with a result indicator.

Reduction in travelling time; productivity of SMEs in region or productivity of supported SMEs compared to regional benchmark

II Result orientation
For each priority axis:

Define baseline: situation before programme start.

Requirement of a target: Where does the region or MS want to be at the end of the period in relation to the result indicator?
Target can be quantitative or qualitative (e.g., desired direction of change, range of values, objective description of situation e.g., removal of obstacle)

III Result indicators: ex ante conditionality

Annex IV of CSF regulation task for MS
Existence of statistical system to undertake evaluations to assess effectiveness & impact of programmes Existence of an effective system of result indicators necessary to monitor progress towards results & to undertake impact evaluation

Quality criteria: robustness, clarity of normative interpretation, responsiveness, timely collection, public availability. Identification of sources, establishment of targets,

Intervention logic and outputs

What factors are likely to affect the result indicator?

Road condition, traffic management system,

Select the factor(s) that the programme should influence what outputs will it produce?

E.g., improved roads measured in km No baselines (zero) Set the target

7

Requirements for Indicators

Programme Specific Indicators:
Outputs baselines zero, cumulative values, quantified targets

Results baseline and quantitative or qualitative target

Common Indicators (mostly output):
Baselines zero, Cumulative values, Quantified Targets,
8

Common Indicators
Objective: provide EU level (aggregated) information on achievements of Cohesion Policy Timing: information should be available at or shortly after finishing projects (selected and fully implemented) Simplicity: data from monitoring of implementation or operation Aggregation: outputs as much as possible
9

Common Indicators in Regulations

General Regulation: obligation to use common indicators Fund-specific regulations: specify relevant areas, name and measurement unit Guidance document:
provide broad definitions other information (type: result/output)

10

Performance framework
Aims to support the progressive achievement of programme objectives
Sets out milestones (interim steps) and targets for performance of programme priorities for 2016, 2018 and 2022 Milestones for 2016 to include financial indicators and output indicators Milestones for 2018 to include financial indicators, output indicators and where appropriate, result indicators (under the control of Managing Authorities possibly common indicators) Milestones also for key implementation steps

Milestones based on actual achievements!

11

Negotiating a Performance Framework

Proposal for performance framework in each OP, consolidated in the Partnership Contract with methodology and mechanism to ensure consistency across programmes and funds Commission examines the framework to ensure milestones are:
Relevant (to the objectives of the priority) Transparent (objectively verifiable targets and data sources identified and publicly available) Verifiable, without disproportionate administrative burden Consistent across OPs where appropriate

Ex ante evaluation appraises all indicators (logic of intervention and appropriateness of targets) and the suitability of milestones for performance framework Information also from current programmes (if reporting improved)
12

Performance review
Performance reviews in 2017 and 2019 and the disbursement of the performance reserve in 2019 based on Performance Framework Information for the performance review in the AIRs and progress reports of the Partnership Contract Member States are expected to react to significant shortfalls in the achievement of milestones (measures to improve performance, reprogramming) In the absence of sufficient action, Commission can suspend payments Significant failure (to be defined in implementing acts) to achieve the targets set for 2022 in the performance framework can lead to a financial correction at the end of the programming period
13

Performance reserve
5% of resources set aside at the beginning of the programming period (exception for ETC) The performance reserve is established per CSF Fund, per Member State and per category of region NB no competition between MS The 5% reserve is allocated to each Member State following the performance review in 2019 Allocation can only be used for priority axes where performance has been satisfactory (milestones have been achieved) based on Member State proposal

14

Priority axis Enhancing R&I infrastructure and capacities to develop R&I excellence and promoting centres of competence

Indicator and measurement unit, where appropriate Expenditure (EUR million) Size of developed infrastructure completed (m2) Researchers employed in enhanced infrastructure Expenditure (EUR million) Number of New Enterprises supported Gross jobs created in assisted SMEs

Milestones for 2016 60 100

Milestones for 2018 180 1000

Target for 2022 420 1500 100

Promoting entrepreneurship, in particular by facilitating the economic exploitation of new ideas and fostering the creation of new firms

3 60

9 180 540

22 450 1400

Developing comprehensive high quality and interoperable railway system

Expenditure (EUR million) Feasibility studies completed and contracts for construction concluded Length of rail completed (km)

5 Yes

100

250

20

1550

What should be in AIR?

Result indicators: Progress towards targets Output indicators:

Selected projects, Fully implemented projects

Actions taken to fulfil ex ante conditionalities 2017 & 2019: performance framework and progress towards achieving objectives of the programme 2019 and FIR: contribution to EU2020 objectives
16

Evaluation: when?

Ex ante evaluation: During the period:

MS MS

Based on obligatory evaluation plan Adopted by monitoring committee

Ex post:

Commission

17

Evaluation: what?

Impact evaluations at least once during the period for each priority axis

Does the intervention work? Why and how does the intervention work (or not)?

Implementation evaluations (roughly what has been done so far) Guidance on methods: EVALSED
18

Next steps

Concepts and recommendations discussed with MS, later adaptation to agreed regulations. MS have asked for guidance on ex ante evaluation and performance framework Work with MS / geographic units in 2012 on result indicators.
19

Example of result indicators Annex 2 of Concepts and Recommendations Paper

20

Result indicators Example: support to enterprise

Daniel Mouqu
Evaluation Unit, DG REGIO
21

Region x has a problem

SME productivity (source: national statistics)
100 80 60 40 20 0 Region X National average
22

 and a solution
Grants to SMEs (capital equipment, modernisation, etc) Lets assume the project runs well, the money is absorbed, there are outputs (no. of firms, etc) Is this enough? Do we know it has worked?

23

How do we know it works?

Need a result indicator. Lets try 2 classics: 1. Jobs created in assisted projects/firms? But jobs created not the main effect of grants 2. Change in regional GDP/head? But long (and possibly unclear) link to measure

More fundamentally: Neither of these was the policy target

24

Regional SME productivity (defined as GVA/worker)

This an appropriate result indicator Not rocket science, but how common in practice? Set a target: 80% => 85% of national average

Regional SME productivity

Grant, monitoring system

Source: regional statistics (note time lag)

Productivity of SMEs supported

25

In sum
Were asking regions to develop a clear causal chain:
Identify a problem Implement a possible solution Monitor an appropriate result indicator

Seems obvious, but new in practice Still need evaluation to assess policy contribution to the result (ie impact)
26

Result indicators Example: road network construction

Kai Stryczynski
Evaluation Unit, DG REGIO
27

Better accessibility wanted

The baseline for the infrastructure programme as a whole is the value X of the road accessibility index known from a existing transport model The MS aims to reduce the index value for the 3 most lagging regions by about 15% within the programming period (the target for the result indicator). Impact on what? - Road accessibility index

28

 and how to get it

Expansion of highway network, including the construction of a last missing project in the transEuropean network. 2 out of 3 TEN-T highway projects are completed, 70% of the envisaged road length. Envisaged output: 200 km of new highway + access roads

29

Monitoring and evaluation

Monitoring of outputs - Km in selected projects + actually built Monitoring of result indicator - The accessibility index will be modelled in years 4 and 8. Evaluation. The evaluation plan comprises: Use of sectoral model. The models allows to isolate the effect of key projects financed under the programme on the accessibility index. ex post cost benefit analyses for key projects co-financed in the previous programming period; Data required Road transport data, collected by regular national and regional surveys

30