What can we learn from the evaluation of social developments?

1. What can we learn from the evaluation of social developments? András Csite Hétfa Research Institute 30 April 2013

2. The evaluations of social developments in 2012-2013 • Evaluation projects started in February 2012 • We have examined nine interventionareas • Improvement of accessibility for the disabled, health tourism, health care, adult education, higher education, employment, public education, culture and social inclusion • We have sought to answer partly mutual, partly unique evaluation questions in each of the areas • Wide variety of data collection and analysis methods • More than 40 experts – significant project management challenge • NDA Coordination MA Evalution Division, involved MAs, ministries were co-operating as clients

3. Conducting evaluations: validity and credibility • Withprofessional autonomy, observing the rules of scientific methods: • Providing information for the Hungarian decisionmakers • Creating the possibility for dialogue between governmental, scientific and non-governmental actors concerned • Feedback for the Commission about the resultsof interventions • A largenumber of evaluations have recently been conducted about cohesion policy interventions introduced by the Commission, a less-known policy tool • Partly this is thereason for misunderstandings: the aim is not criticism, but rather the improvementof thepolicy process

4. Three key questions for today Whathave the Cohesion Fundsdoneto Hungary? What has Hungary done with the Cohesion Funds? What would have happened to Hungary without the Cohesion Funds?

5. Spectacular results • Renewal of the physical infrastructure of public services • Strengthening the servicefunctionsof the operation of public service providers • Cohesion resources have started to reach social groups with the worst access to public services – the problems of accessibility have been mitigated • „Development centers” (e.g. cities, NGOs, clusters of organisations): able to absorband use efficiently cohesion funds in large amounts – yet, this is incidental

6. Problems to be solved • Cohesion funds do not alwaysreach places wherethey would reallybe necessary (targeting, cream skimming, e.g. least developed areas) and peoplewho should be incentivised (migration, lack of skilled workforce, e.g. in public health care) • The application (and public procurement) systemlays significant administrative burdenonbeneficiaries • Lack of a systemof different actorsinvolved in the resolution of a complex problemto implement interconnected projects (difficulties of integrated developments) • Difficulties ofmatching national and EU funds within the systems of national policy areas in a consistent way (see rural development)

7. Lessons for 2014-2020 • Hungary’s ambitious EU2020targets (employment rate: 75%, reduction of poverty: - 450.000), social needs and challenges are enourmous – an integrated, consistent system of EU and national interventions is required • Well-grounded public policies with a stable system of objectivesare needed to utilise the Cohesion Funds effectively– this cannot be established merely by the reform of NDA and managing authorities • Dare to de-centralise Cohesion Funds – strengthen beneficiaries’ responsibility in project implementation, use new forms of resource allocation (e.g. unit cost, flat rate, CLLD)

8. Today’s programme 1 • Youth unemployment –Balázs Szepesi • Based on the experience of 2007-2013, what kind of youth policy Hungary needs – “Youth is the solution, not the problem” • Employment (SROP 1 and 2) –Károly Mike and Ágota Scharle • Non-profit organisations in focus – considerable progress in capacity building, co-operation between the actors of employment policy should be strengthened • Results of econometric impact assessment – Budapest Institute • Public Education – Gábor Balás and Culture –Bálint Koós • Have the cohesion funds helped the achievement of the goals identified after the ”PISA-shock”? • Has the cultural sector managed to renew their services? • Higher Education –Károly Mike • To what extent did the allocation and utilisation of Cohesion Funds fitin the operational system of science and university?

9. Today’s programme 2 • Disabled people and other target groups – Zita Éva Nagy • The importance of the exact definition of target groups – Revita Foundation • Health Care –Norbert Kiss and Balázs Váradi • Havecohesion policy interventionsmanaged to support the renewal of Hungarian health care? • Spatial econometric analysis – funds allocated to micro-regionsin real need – Budapest Institute • Social Inclusion – Nóra Teller • What do we have to do to fulfill the national EU2020 targets (reduction of poverty)? – a lot! • Public transport accessibility of regional centres – György Kukely • Transport accessibility of county and new district centres (public service centres) – what furtherinterventions are needed? –Terra Studio

10. Thank you for your attention! Hétfa Research Institute H-1051 Budapest Október 6. utca 19. www.hetfa.hu